Change & Internal Communications : Engagement, involvement, morale, motivation

Employee engagement: does anyone agree what it is?

David Ferrabee — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:16:00 GMT

Scott and I have just been going through some slides on the topic.

I talked to HR Directors at a CIPR conference on the subject on Wednesday.

It wasn't a very good performance. I had so much to say that I just talked without breathing for 50 minutes and sat down. After which they looked more tired than I did.

But there are two things about employee engagement that I think are quite important:

1) It never stops

You have to approach it through all channels (especially leadership) constantly.
It's much easier to erode than it is to build.
It takes a long, long time to do... and then you still have to keep at it.

2) It's usually done wrong

Many people think employee engagement is about balloons and bar-b-ques.
What people really want is to be involved in the business -- to know how their work helps the company succeed.
People want to do their job as well as they can and see how that makes the whole company succeed.

If you are running a "Best Total Cost" business (for Discipline of Market Leaders fans) then maybe you can get away with balloons and CEO breakfasts. But in knowledge businesses, you should need to get people involved.

Is that too simple?

/df

Companies must learn to celebrate success

David Ferrabee — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT

ON PUTNEY BRIDGE -- It's 9:10 on a Sunday morning. And we are here for a reason. They're walking a donkey across the bridge.

As one does.

It's from one church to the other for Palm Sunday. My kids thought it was hysterical that the donkey emptied his bladder half way across the bridge. I was too taken up with the fact that no one seemed to notice a donkey and 100 tweedy singer wandering across a busy London thoroughfare.

One lady smiled. But she had red hair of a colour that doesn't appear in nature - so she was herself exceptional. But cars didn't slow, passers-by did not look up.

Have we really come to be disinterested in the unexpected?

Last week we set another major milestone for our change and internal comms consultancy. More people wanting our help, in more countries, on a greater diversity of projects, mean that we have set new records.

So we took time to celebrate. It wasn't an obvious thing to do. Because everyone is pretty busy. And people like to be busy. And I am now worried about April -- it's not as strong as it should be... and don't talk to me about Q3!

We are great at finding reasons not to recognise, or enjoy success. But everyone needs to. It's one of the main reasons we get out of bed to go to work. It's not for the pay, or the coffee... it's for the community and feeling of achievement.

Celebrating success is the reason that we are all here.

When something remarkable happens you have to take some time out to celebrate. These are the milestones by which we measure our lives.

As they say: wake up and smell the donkey.

(Yes. I'm sorry.)

/df

Strategy, objectives, competencies & performance management

David Ferrabee — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:33:00 GMT

Are you bored yet?

Normally you only have to say the word "competency" and people suddenly find they have other pressing engagements.

Now let's add that we are also talking about communication of all of the above.

Right, I am the only one still reading now?

We have recently helped a business connect its strategy to personal objectives: How does what I do connect to what the business is trying to do?

We have also created a better competency framework: What are the real key skills needed in this company and for this job?

[Our client had between 30 and 60 competencies for each job! When I was in university I used to work part-time as a tennis pro. And I found that when I had told someone to "keep your eye on the ball", "bend your knees", "keep your head down" and "step into it"... They were incapable of hitting anything... And some fell down! So we broke the competencies into three simple groups and got rid of all the obvious ones.]

Then we helped our client to create a decent performance management programme: Who is going to measure my work, when, how and compared to what?

Now we are trying to create a plan for rolling it out... for making it work... that is... for communicating it.

And that's pretty important. You must tell people:

what your strategy is
how the strategy connects to their objectives
how objectives and competencies are related
how they will be measured against both

If you don't communicate this well, how can you expect people to understand it?

It seems so simple. But we tend to make such a mess out of it.

/df

Social Media Forum: Who knows what'll happen?

David Ferrabee — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:02:00 GMT

LONDON -- Tomorrow Phil and I present at Melcrum's conference for technophiles.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of mood the whole thing has.

I know late last year Neville Hobson (who is on before us) blogged from the podium, while waiting to present. Which sounds kind of rude.

We have clients like HP and Microsoft coming. It'll be interesting to see how the technology companies compare to the banks and insurance companies that will also be there.

Sometimes this business has the most unlikely pioneers.

I'll also be quite interested to see what Phil and I present. It's going to be a"real time" show. I expect the slides to change right up to the last minute...

We're taking requests too: Any holiday snaps you want us to show? Messages for the 100 delegates? This is you chance...

/df

Attitude: how to succeed in business

David Ferrabee — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:00:00 GMT

LEAVING KIAWAH -- How many ways are there to be successful in work?

I think there must be fewer than there are books on the subject.

I was in Barnes and Noble in Charleston, South Carolina yesterday browsing through the business section. And there are LOTS of books to tell you what to do:

"The seven secrets..."
"The immutable rules of business..."
"Everything you need to know..."
"Leadership 101..."

It's amazing. And they're going so cheap! There were sale tables filled with them. It's a crime that they're almost giving all these secrets away.

I've had a couple of good chats with my dad about this this week.

He's interested in how your physical and emotional health can control your overall success. Citing a friend who I know who beat his cancer through radiation, but then his body gave out.

If you can master the head, heart and body you can beat anything. But one alone won't get you there.

/df

Mega-mergers: Corus & Tata

David Ferrabee — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:51:00 GMT

DOHA -- It's been about six or seven years since we had those mergers that made your heart stop.

Chrysler and who?

Glaxo and who?

Warner and what?

And many years later not all of those look like a great idea.

But they are back in season again. GM is doing what? Marks & Spencer and...?

Companies that have long been stars in the firmament are suddenly talking about things that seem to betray our belief that great companies endure.

But this time it's different. And the Tata-Corus merger is a good example.

The rules have changed.

It is no longer about one big stable western brand-name taking over a rival. The new world is knocking on the door. Deals are being done that create companies that are bigger, stronger and more effective, but not based in Europe and America.

When SAIC bought Rover, people in Britain were surprised.

When Dubai Ports World tried to make acquisitions in America the response was 'hysteria'.

But the arrival of Tata in the UK seems almost obvious by now.

What is really interesting about this round of M&As -- and I have been working M&As for a decade -- is that the new companies are writing their own rules.

No more AOL(who?)TimeWarner. No more Daimler(why?)Chrysler.

It seems that the new M&A is more sure-footed. And they are asking the right questions. They are ensuring the right governance... And they are making sure that people are taken along.

Hooray.

/df

P.S. We fired them all

David Ferrabee — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:00:00 GMT

LONDON -- No one likes to be the barer of bad news. But that's no excuse for the consistently horrible way that redundancies are communicated.

A reduction in force...

Corporate synergies...

A big restructuring...

Rationalisation...

Inefficiencies...

"You have a new text message..."

There are many ways of doing it. Most of them are poor. And the end result is some pretty serious symptoms:

LOSS OF TRUST

People feel they have been misled. You don't have to be affected directly by layoffs to feel the pain. "Has the deal changed?" Uncertainty breads fear. "How come no one is talking about this?" Things happen in whispers. And when the whispers start, they're not about good things.

DISILLUSIONMENT

People stop recognising the business they joined, and start becoming suspicious of it. "This isn't the same anymore." And people don't feel that they have changed... So it must be the business.

BREAKDOWN OF BUSINESS CONTINUITY

People stop doing the little things they need to do to keep the business going. "No one really cares if I do this." The need for any discretionary effort disappears. "They sack people at random here anyway." A slow decline of effort... and productivity.

***

So... That's where communications comes in. You can have the most amazingly executed merger, or acquisition, or divestiture, or lay-offs and no one will ever know. Because it's not the systems and processes that make successful businesses. It's not immaculate execution or flawless operations. It's people.

Here's how we make it work. (And we do make it work fairly painlessly for businesses that want to keep it together.)

CONTEXT

Tell employees that they and the business have changed. There is a reason for this change. It is rational, understandable, and eventually quite acceptable. It is not a secret.

CONCLUSION

There is an objective hidden in here. There's something people can see and understand. It's not about simply heading out into the dark. (And it's not about: executive bonuses, payback, boardroom testosterone, the influence of evil consultants, analysts tantrums, weak leaders, broken promises, or making *your* life hard.)

THINGS YOU CAN DO

It doesn't just happen to you or around you. It happens with you. Here are things that you can do to help, ways in which this will affect you, etc. Get involved.

***

Every now and then, in moments of great sobriety and rectitude, I get asked what exactly management consultants are good for anyway. And this is a good case for an answer. When a company does something that it hasn't done before: a merger, a restructure, an acquisition, or a downsizing, then consultants are invaluable. In changes that affect people, we can save you an absolute fortune in lost productivity, by doing it right the first time.

/df

Who is YOUR audience? (Mine's Laura's mum)

David Ferrabee — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:20:00 GMT

We're working with a brilliant global manufacturing client to review their communications now.

One of the executives we interviewed said "I always test the corporate videos on Ali. The moment Ali's eyes glaze over and he starts to nod off, I switch it off."

Most of us don't write for Ali. We write for the Booker Prize judges or our creative writing teacher.

But they're not our audience.

We need to find our proverbial Ali and prepare corporate communications for them.

***

So, Tuesday I found out who my audience is. And I'm very excited about it.

My colleagues were complaining about how their friends don't understand what they do. And Laura says: "My mum doesn't know what I do... But she does read David's blog?!"

Isn't that excellent?

My mum doesn't even read this.

(Then again maybe I shouldn't have told her I am an airline pilot...)

***

So, to those who read, please jump in. Regular readership of this blog has increased by 5 times in the last few months. Thanks. But, while it's really nice of you to look in. Why not say Hi to Laura's mum while you're here..

/df

P.S. I am behind on reading and plugging Phil's blog. I like this one, mostly because it makes me sound cool... And, of course, Laura's in it.

Corporate nationalism

David Ferrabee — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:55:00 GMT

I've just been in Ireland for a week. With my mobile phone and Blackberry mostly turned off. It's been great.

But it gives you a chance to look outside of our regular world and see things from a new angle. I read a lot of Irish history during the week, which is really complicated. But the two biggest epiphanies of the week (thank you James Joyce) have to do with the USA and the Middle East.

Obviously...?

We stayed in houses rented out by a Hilton complex. My father-in-law is a Cuban. He's a Canadian citizen. Has lived there for 40 years. But once a Cuban, always a Cuban. And the Hilton has recently decided it won't offer accommodation to Cubans. It turned away a bunch at it's Oslo hotel.

Why?

Good question.

They say they are enforcing the US law, and they are a US company.

Hmm.

I expected my relative to be angry when he heard we were going to a Hilton -- he's very proud. Instead he was... well... nervous.

And that upsets me even more.

It's corporate nationalism.

Then there's the moment you know you're not in Kansas any more. When you are sitting in the Wicklow Mountains in Ireland watching... Al Jazeera news channel.

Frequent readers will know that I am a regular visitor to the Middle East, and Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based, is one of my favourite parts of the world.

So, what can I make of a scan on international news channels available in a remote part of Ireland, when:

BBC News 24 - is reporting wall-to-wall on the gun death of a 15 year old in South London.

CNN - is talking at length about some obscure entertainment story

Al Jazeera - is reporting in detail on the US Congresses vote against President Bush's plans to send more troops to Iraq.

Guess which one I watched?

Many businesses assume the primacy of their world view. But product and service are king. Buyers... and employees... come to companies for what they are offering. Not for their politics.

In the short- and long-term, it's a mistake to think otherwise.

/df

The Office: Nature or nurture?

David Ferrabee — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:49:00 GMT

My old boss Bill Quirke used to love to say that a middle managers job was to "shield front line employees from the blinding brilliance of the leader's vision", and interpret the dangerous rumblings of front line staff for leaders.

Middle managers are the smelly bit of cheese in the middle of the corporate sandwich. And a survey of employers release yesterday shows just how unloved they are:

"Useless middle managers £220B in lost productivity."

The research, done by the HR consultancy Hay, implies that senior execs think middle managers are the whole reason that they (the senior execs) are not succeeding in their jobs.

That's a bit rich, isn't it?

Kind of like saying the dog ate your homework.

Or the baby broke wind.

The truth is that middle managers have the hardest job in the company.

They get no training.

They get no support.

They have little real power.

Their employees don't like them and their managers abuse them.

Fortunately, there is also a growing body of evidence that managers.... or leaders, as I prefer to call them... need more support from the business. Not least in better learning and development... and clearer roles and job requirements. (January's HBR takes it all on.)

We see that new trend first hand in the number of clients we are providing leadership (and manager) skills training for. The recipients are so giddy with shock and joy by the time we get them, that they're raving about this being "the best thing the company has ever done for them."

The Telegraph took great pleasure in reporting the Hay research, saying that "David Brents 'are costing us £220B'."

I have only occasionally watched The Office, and always through the fingers of both hands. But the crushingly painful thing about David Brent is that he's only the way he is because he is unsupervised, undirected and unskilled.

Who's fault is that?

/df

The changing workforce: you need to ask Y

David Ferrabee — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:29:00 GMT

There was an article in the Sunday Times in London yesterday that suggests that change is bad.

"The latest generation of graduates — Generation Y — shows the most extreme traits of self-absorption."

In my opinion, that would be very funny if it were in The Onion. But it's presented as news in the A-section of a great newspaper. It's what the Brits quite aptly call getting a hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Generation Y is not putting their own interests ahead of the company's because they're spoiled and self-indulgent. They are doing it because they are the smartest, most savvy generation yet. And most businesses have little they can honestly offer them.

This is not a generation that will blindly follow. There is too much history, too much experience and too much information easily at their disposal.

And the deal has changed.

There used to be an implicit deal in the business world: you give us your imagination, you time, you sweat and your youth, and we (the business) will look after you, support you, develop you and arrange for your comfortable retirement.

Maybe that deal never actually existed, but for those who went to work after WWII through to my generation (often called Gen X) society told us this was likely to happen.

Nowadays young people are under few illusions. Companies will pay as little as possible, will give you fewer and fewer benefits and will spit you out when it suits them, not when it suits you.

So the reaction has been for Gen Y to start looking after their own interests better. Asking for more money. Demanding better work. Looking for the best available training, and moving jobs when it suits them...

Because they know that there is little allegiance to people from the corporation these days. They'd have to be dim to repay that with theirs.

Why am I so interested in this?

Because organisations still don't get it. And primarily they don't understand how they can work around this new development.

For example, research consistently shows that employees value training and autonomy over pay. But companies insist on trying to buy commitment, rather than building it.

We know that people would rather be well managed than given prizes or awards. But organisations don't support people to learn how to be better managers.

They know all this. As an employer you should listen to them.

/df

What is change management?

David Ferrabee — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:55:00 GMT

Um. Good question.

I my last post I had the social media apostles take exception to the idea that internal communications could be about managing conversations. So now I'm hesitating about the concept of managing change.

But I will soldier on.

Maybe even make a quick diversion to add a social media angle. In some respects the internet and all other modern communication tools add some important capabilities to managing change:

the ability to personalise
access to masses of information to better offer context
an outlet by which you can measure progress

So, let me get back on track.

What is change management?

Change management is the process of preparing and navigating an organisation through change. To do so you need to know three primary things:

Where am I now?
Where do I want to be?
How am I going to get there?

Then there's the question:
What challenges and opportunities lie along the way?

What is so hard about that?

Quite a bit actually.

If you don't know where you are, you are never going to find your way out. That means context, history, style, tradition... all sorts of things.

If you don't know where you are going, you are not likely to find yourself anywhere relevant. So what does the destination look like, how does it feel, what does it do differently...?

And the you have to understand the journey. What needs to change? By how much? By whom? What will be affected by that? Why and how...? Etc.

It ain't easy. And it requires a strange combination of creative and analytical skills. You need to be a master of process, and capable of thinking in many different ways.

Questions?

/df

Symbols of power

David Ferrabee — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:40:00 GMT

I sold my little red sports car on ebay this weekend. It's the only one I have ever had. And I missed it instantly.

Now I have a big minivan. And people make rude gestures to me in the street, just for being there.

I think I am due a mid-life crisis.

But just as the little red sports car is a symbols of middle age anxiety (insurance companies won't even cover under-25s for my old car -- how youthful is that?), there are symbols of power in business.

In our London office it's glass. And light. We have no offices, so glass has to do. And the more senior or long-serving people sit closest to the windows. Oh, and blackberries. They are grade- or influence-based, of course.

You may laugh, but these symbols are very important. They are a quick short-hand for many things. Not because they are important, but because they are real, tactile and easy to read.

These are the systems and processes that tell people what and who is important in the business.

Internal and change communicators need to be aware of them, at the very least, and manage them ideally.

What are your symbols? What are some great historical ones?

All I an think of is the Jomo Kenyatta of my childhood with a little elephant hair whip.

Tell me yours.

/df

'Hippy-ier than thou'

David Ferrabee — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:38:00 GMT

I've got a friend named Will who I have a drink with every few months. He's a brilliant character. And often has some really interesting insights into work and life.

Last night he was describing a situation where he had a life-changing incident in the New Mexican badlands. He was 20, and alcohol and drug-free. Experiencing the earth's natural energy on an Indian reservation.

As one does.

"Look, I don't want to be hippy-ier than thou, but this had a real effect on how I now see the world. And it's all come back to me now..."

And I just love that turn of phrase.

My hippy-ier than thou moment does have a business context and a business reference.

Years ago a took a 6 month course in how to be a coach. Now, I don't like the idea of business coaching. I think too many people are doing it, and mostly operating without a licence.

But my course was taught by a remarkable man, named Terry Morgan.

You won't find a website for him, or a listing in the yellow pages. But his clients know how to find him.

Whenever one of us arrived late, or came to say that our clients needed us and we wouldn't be at the course, Terry always refused to give us absolution. And when we said "I'm sorry, I really don't have a choice..." Terry would get really animated.

"You always have a choice. Everything you do it because you have a choice. You make hundreds of choices every day. I cannot accept 'I don't have a choice,' as an excuse."

And he's right.

If I were clever, I would write a book around the idea. Like "The Celestine Prophecy" or "Who Moved my Cheese?" And I could retire.

But I choose not to.

The application of this simple (slightly hippy-ish) piece of wisdom runs across life, and is not restricted to work.

When my wife and I have difficult conversations about money -- which I am sure no one else ever has -- I always end up thinking 'how did we get into this cycle of earn and spend? We do have a choice. There are plenty of things you can do, places you can live etc. that don't require the kind of life I feel forced to live.

I have a choice.

It's making decisions that we hate -- but we're spoiled for choices.

Peace, man.

/df

BP & EMI - more in common than random letters of the alphabet

David Ferrabee — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:22:00 GMT

I usually try to avoid writing about specific companies. Not least when I know the companies. And I know great people at both of these places. And they are equally, but different, iconic British companies.

Lord Browne of Madingley was said to be the greatest businessman outside the US by Fortune magazine. (Seriously, what kind of a category is that?!)

So what do they have in common?

Well, they're both getting the stuffing kicked out of them this weekend of January 13-14, 2007. And it looks set to continue.

But more importantly they both have business issues that are broadly "people issues". Both needing the kind of help we've seen others get successfully: help connecting people to what the business is trying to do... managing change... adapting to it... making the most of it.

Let's start with EMI.

The business has been popular for analysts to kick around. One of those companies that grumpy people point to as a sign of some malaise.

But it's actually a brilliant business with a really rich history that most of us can relate to. The difficulty is that it is a collection of smaller businesses. Each label has it's own management. It's own back office functions.

There are many arguments for this: keeping entrepreneurial culture, focus on service and the small company ethic... But let's be honest. That's got to be a bit of an anachronism these days. There is so much to argue for bringing things together. Not least the professionalism of the service.

And what about a company run by music fans. Isn't that a bit like a train company run by trainspotters? The business is changing. It's not about AOR and talent spotting anymore. It's about MySpace and downloads. But that doesn't mean it's not got legs.

The people who work at EMI need to learn to adapt to a changing environment. They're still doing the same stuff. They just need to know how to do it in different ways.

BP is the same... but different.

The papers say everyone knows they need a "cultural change that will run through the group."

Just as many business journalists talked about Browne as a rock star for many years, they were equally able to turn around and declare him a liability with stunning speed. In the media opinions are contagious.

The common issue that EMI and BP share is that markets and marketing are catching up with them. Their markets are changing. People in key business areas are making greater demands. The media is pointing them out as wounded antelope.

And they also find themselves behind the eight ball on a marketing front. They cannot convince skeptics that they are anything other than in a defensive position. And all their attempts to turn that around are hampered by the perception.

Finally, you have to ask yourself where this comes from. How does a business get itself into this position? And how does a business turn things around?

Your people.

I know my view is too simple for many. But it helps that it's most often true.

/df

Change & Internal Communications : Engagement, involvement, morale, motivation

Employee engagement: does anyone agree what it is?

Companies must learn to celebrate success

Strategy, objectives, competencies & performance management

Social Media Forum: Who knows what'll happen?

Attitude: how to succeed in business

Mega-mergers: Corus & Tata

P.S. We fired them all

Who is YOUR audience? (Mine's Laura's mum)

Corporate nationalism

*The Office*: Nature or nurture?

The changing workforce: you need to ask Y

What is change management?

Symbols of power

'Hippy-ier than thou'

BP & EMI - more in common than random letters of the alphabet

The Office: Nature or nurture?