Simply-Blogging

More news from the land of crisis

Following up my spam post the other day, what should drop into my mailbox but another mailing from Ragan.  I have to admit that I do love their daily posting - if you don't subscribe, its worth a look.

I particularly liked this story - they surveyed communicators to see how the current crisis was impacting people.

In short, it says that everyone is worried but that people are looking to comms for help.  Jim Ysela sums it up with his thought that ten years ago people might not have seen comms as having much of a role during a financial downturn.  This time around they have higher expectations of their comms function.

I hope Jim is right (and that people are up to the challenge)

Liam

Why do communicators talk like idiots?

Just found this excellent posting which says it all!

Liam

Ethics

I have found myself in several conversations recently about job losses and how best to communicate them - hardly surprising eh?

Inevitably people say that you have to be "open and honest" and tick off all the reasons why being secretive or economic with the truth is a very bad idea.  Which I don't disagree with.

However, practice is somewhat different for most commuicators.

There are the stockmarket rules that govern timing and managers who don't want to give the impression that cuts are being made because the company is going broke (even though that's exactly why cuts are being made).

Then you have to contend in international companies with the uncertainty caused by different regulatory regimes governing job losses.  You mmight want to give people some idea of when thier employment will cease, but its pretty hard to predict it in Germany, Italy or France...

Finally, the awful truth can be that HR is in such disarray that they can't actually work out the figures or Finance are driving the timing so that the job losses have the best whole year effect on the balance sheet.

Under these circumstances openness can be foolhardy in the extreme and 'honesty' becomes a rather wooly, subjective concept.

But if IC doesn't keep true to some values where will it all end up?

I have found two things to be useful recently.

Firstly, getting in early in the conversation and setting out the options with pro's and con's clearly spelt out.  Painting a clear picture of the risks faced by the company has been really useful and it moves the conversation from wishy washy hand-wringing to a sensible management debate about how best to manage internal and external reputations.

Secondly, find a test of what's right.  My working code is "is this fair?"  - if you can't be completely candid or the bluntest interpretation of fact is too damaging at least you can ask if what you plan is fair to all concerned.

The idea is that trying to see the best interests of employees is the minimum that a communicator can do.

I wonder how other people approach the issue?

Liam

Just Plain Nuts

Reading HR Magazine this week I came accross this great interview with the HR boss of Cable & Wireless in which he mentions a feedback campaign called "Just Plain Nuts". 

Apparently you can tell your boss about something at work that is driving you mad and see if it can be fixed....

But best of all... in this edition is an article on HR Metrics which opens with the phrase "Directors need to transform the airy cliche about people being their greatest asset into a guiding principle of business strategy."

Sound familiar?

I have been growing increasingly impatient with some of the waffle I've been seeing recently on the subject of metrics for IC.

My problem is that I can see that if you do x and have result y, then you can start building a measurement strategy but what if you can't show how Y results from X?  And that's what most of IC is like - although you wouldn't believe it from most of the stuff that seems to be written on the subject.

Last week I saw 3 different pieces of nonsense which went into great lengths to describe mathametical formulae for showing that as a result of superior communications some sort of amazing business result could be attributed.  In one case there was a particular emphasis on showing a specific ROI figure (which, if credible would have stunned any passing finance director).

The only difficulty was that cunningly hidden away was an assumption that communication was the sole or main causal factor at work.

So, for example, HR want more managers to conduct performance reviews and ask communications for help.  If suddenly the number of reviews increases five fold should IC claim the credit?  Of course not - well at least not until we've seen what else was happening by way of leadership, systems etc....

I have always taken the line that we shouldn't obsess about the figures - mainly because the energy involved in getting close to an accurate figure isn't justified by the marginal benefit it brings.  In short it is enough to know that you are moving things in the right direction and at the right sort of speed.

So, do you remember the scene in Dead Poets Society when the students are told to rip from their textbooks an essay explaining how to calculate the greatness of a poem?  That's just plain nuts isn't it?

Liam

Is ghost blogging OK in IC?

A regular issue on Black Belt courses that I have run is whether it is acceptable to ghost write blogs for senior managers.  Afterall, writing statements on behalf of leaders is what we spend a lot of time doing anyway.

However, a posting by pr blogger Simon Collister caught my eye.  His message seems to be that ghost writing blogs is bad practice - and I tend to agree with him because of the implied authenticity...

But I wonder if that will last for much longer?

Liam