Simply-Blogging

Hooray for the CIPR

Congratulations to the CIPR and to Kevin Ruck for finally sorting out a proper qualification for people entering the profession.

The big selling point is that it is actually properly accredited - you can trace a quality link back through the CIPR to the UK's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.  This means that if someone turns up with this qualification on their CV you can tell something about them.

Of course there is the Kingston University course - which is certainly accredited (I was even an external examiner on it for a brief period of time) - but it's aimed at more senior people and involves a longer-term academic committment (which isn't to everyone's taste).

The problem is that the professional bodies have kept their hands out of accreditation for too long.  The CiB offer a series of excellent courses but, apart from their relationship with Kingston, they don't really have a quality assurance process to match that applied by a chartered body like the CIPR.  The IABC's Accredited Communicator Qualification has yet to receive the respect in Europe that it enjoys in North America.

I suppose I should declare several interests.  Simply are supporting the programme for the first public courses and we're offering an in-house option to our clients.  On top of that I've been a member of the CIPR for far too long and I regularly rant on the subject of learning in their magazine.

So I know a little of Kevin's journey to pilot the syllabus through.  And it started with a search for a suitable qualification that he could promote to a corporate client.  After a years of searching he couldn't find anything really suitable so he started working with the CIPR on defining what he throught was needed.

I'm most excited because I think it marks the beginning of better recognition for IC professionals.  Although it's an entry-level qualification, it provides a quality benchmark against which other training courses will be judged.  Obviously courses like Melcrum's Black Belt have an excellent reputation and have nothing to fear, but others have much to worry about.

Liam

Whatever happened to Inter-Comm?

In the UK there are at least three different bodies that represent internal communicators – the CIPR, the IABC and the CiB.  It’s mad isn’t it?

And that’s not counting bodies with an overlapping interest like the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or the Chartered Institute of Marketing.

What’s the difference between them all?  Goodness knows. 

They all offer networking events, most do some sort of training and two offer formal qualifications.  And their subscriptions are roughly similar.

A few years ago we all managed to sit down together in a room and have some quite civil conversations.  We even did some useful work developing a model of the skills that people needed at different stages of their careers.  And we had a big event where several big speakers stood up and announced how wonderful the future was going to be if we all worked together.

But then what happened?  Not a lot really.

I have my own views on what happened – which may not accord with what other people remember.  But essentially people got bound up in protecting their political positions.  No one was to blame – when you’ve spent years building a membership body or developing a programme of courses you’re not going to be in a hurry to risk it all by letting another membership body get their paws on it all.

But in the meantime who is speaking on behalf of our profession? 

The CIPR seems mainly interested in media relations although Lee Smith is doing his best to change that. 

The CiB has a reputation for promoting excellence in channels but doesn’t seem to be making headlines about wider strategic issues and the IABC doesn’t seem to say much to the non-IC world outside the US.

That probably misrepresents just about everyone and is probably grossly unfair.  Maybe someone has a well considered programme of PR and lobbying to ensure that a well-informed opinion of IC reaches the ears of the great and the good.  If they have it’s very subtle.

But in these troubled times it would be great if people could bury their political differences to speak up about the role that IC should be playing.  Now, more than ever, we need a unified voice to sell better communications to embattled business leaders.

Anyone want to come to a meeting?

Liam

Internal communications is a waste of time

How do internal communicators stop having their time wasted?  Stop worrying about the words says

Sitting in a meeting some years picking over the wording of an announcement I realised that a lot of internal communications is a waste of time.

Everyone knows the situation.  The night before a big internal event the CEO’s letter has to be checked or the job loss notice has to be approved.  And it’s getting late. 

And yet another senior manager has said something like “..do we really want to say ‘affected’ . .wouldn’t ‘impacted’ be better?”. 

Or another favourite of mine; “why don’t we say ‘fewer opportunities for continued employment’?  It sounds less harsh than ‘job losses’ doesn’t it?”

I should apologise to anyone who I have just reminded of a past trauma, but if you work in internal communication you’ll recognise the experience.  We’ve all experienced the barely resistible urge to weep when the same sentence is changed for the tenth time.

Why?  Because we all know deep down that these interminable discussions serve little real purpose apart from entertaining the office pedant.

One leading IC professional is very fond of saying “the messages you craft the most are the ones you use the least”. Thinking about the outcome of those late night drafting sessions we all recognise the wisdom of that saying.

Media relations people know that the wording of the press release isn’t the most important thing to worry about.  Once it’s been sent the words don’t really matter unless there’s a really embarrassing quotation in there.  A good reputation depends on more than what you say about yourself.

The same is true inside organisations. 

I doubt that few people really pick over the wording of news stories internally – unless they’re a bit odd or they’re trying to prove something.  It makes little difference if the well-chosen word or the pithy phrase has been approved by a committee if the reader just doesn’t trust the organisation, care about the message or is just too busy doing their job to notice.

What people think about their employer depends on their experience – not just what they hear.  Frankly It ain’t what you say – it’s what you do that makes impressions.

And it’s at this point that many people despair.  Is it the job of the humble internal communicator to influence how individual managers behave or what policies HR are dreaming up this week?

Frankly?  Yes.

One of my PR heroes was sacked from a job once when he explained to the CEO that the only way he could stop the press saying the company mistreated staff was for the company to stop mistreating staff.   What an interesting example to internal communicators.

I’m not saying that we should all go out of our way to make ourselves unpopular.  But we do need to point out occasionally that ‘communications’ won’t solve wider management problems.  And perhaps bring a note of reality to those pedantic discussions about commas and pronouns.

And the only way to do that with authority is to get out and about.  Sitting in late night word weighing contests is not where the work gets done.  Great IC specialists are talking to real people in the organisation and getting to grips with what people really think and what stops them understanding the corporate message.

It really is no one else’s job to really understand what people think and how they react to events in the organisation.  HR isn’t always trusted and other managers will have their own agenda.  Leaders should know they can trust the communicators for an honest and helpful view of employee sentiment.

Realising that was the antidote to those painful debates about the wording of communications.  When you see all the energy going into the choice of adjective in a notice it’s a sure sign that someone is missing the point.  A well informed communicator will rarely be focused on sterile arguments about language and will be able to direct attention to the real issues in the organisation.

So, the next time you find yourself quibbling over the relevance of a particular word, ask yourself if there is something better you could be doing with your time.

This was originally published in Profile - the magazine of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.