Internal communications - it's not rocket science

Return on investment - worth the effort?

There have been a few discussions recently on the ROI issue on a number of fora.  

Sadly a few have generated more heat than light so I decided not to join in, but I did want to make a couple of points...which is why I have my own blog!

As a management discipline, communications should always act with data.  I hope the days are long gone when the gut feel from hoary old hacks was considered to be a useful guide to action or an excuse for evaluation.

If you accept the need for data you then hit another problem.

What is an acceptable level of data for communications?

This is a problem which has exercised better minds than mine and I would praise the work of Angela Sinikas for anyone who wants to explore the subject further. And some of the work of Kathryn Yates at Towers Watson demonstrates the potential value of research into this area.

The central question is how to evaluate the impact of communications inputs in bringing about change.  When behaviours at work are the product of many different forces, how do you reach a reliable or unequivocal assessment of the value of communications.

Angela has produced some very interesting case studies.  She does tend towards accentuating tracking very specific behaviours - because you can isolate where behavuoural change has happened and hopefully isolate a limited number of potential drivers.  The Towers Watson models operate on a more grand scale and are equally interesting.

Now, the methodologies of all practitioners are open to question and should be challenged. Only through challenge and debate do we move forward.

But because I might disagree (or in my case simply not understand) with the methodologies, do I think the endeavor is worthless?

Of course not.

It is my personal experience that the most effective communicators come to conversations with data.  The stars of our profession are excited by what they can learn from the data that is available (check out Charlie Nordblum's Communicative Leadership group on Linked-in to hear what they are talking about).

It is therefore my prejudice that the mark of a potential leader in our profession is an interest in data and a willingness to explore issues like ROI.  I don't know the answers but I do believe that they are worth worrying about.

 

If your survey findings are 'scores' who's the winner?

For years I've banged on about the need to have your hands on decent data if you want to be influential in communications.

But I had a conversation this week that has made me groan inside.  Why do people treat data like some sort of tally or report card?  Why can't they think of intelligence as a tool or guide to help shape communications programmes?

The discussion arose when a friend told me that her organisation was debating the costs of their grand annual employee opinion survey.  Like many organisations at the moment this one is wondering if it needs to run the poll this year.  Apparently, because times have been tough the bosses know that the 'scores' are going to be lousy - what's the point giving people another forum for moaning.

Things are not helped by the fact that the results from this organisation are published in a league table (yep it's in the public sector).

You'd think that the world had moved on from the days when having an organised listening exercise was seen as weird fad.  You'd have hoped that managers had learnt that like any management process the availability of sound data and information would lead to better decision-making and greater effectivness.

But no, by linking bonuses to 'Engagement Survey Scores' or by turning the process into a once a year ritual we've let employers miss the point.  The tables of responses have become for many organisations an end in themselves - it is sufficient to gather the board every 12 months to inspect the HR Director's PowerPoint deck and congratulate each other that a survey is run.

If the annual staff survey is losing what little credibility it ever had, perhaps there is a real opportunity for communications managers.  It is my belief that senior leaders listen to the advisor who brings both insight and knowledge.  If the staff survey has failed to deliver intelligence, maybe it's time for comms leaders to put themselves forward.l opportunity.  

Liam

Three ages of internal research

Last week we held a small seminar at the office looking at how employee research is evolving.

My colleagues from our research division came along and we talked about three ages of employee research and how it matches the evolving approach organisations have to where their employees add value.

The first age of employee research was the Personnel Age when all that ever happened was the fairly flat employee survey.  You know the sort of thing… do you like your job? Are you happy with your pay?  Have you anything nice to say.

And the results were presented in lots of graphs showing that 27% of people like the canteen and 65% of employees would like better communication…

These surveys didn’t really show much and no one really cared.  As long as leaders could pretend they were listening it was all fine.  In fact the only time they mattered was in the month leading up to the field period (when everyone panicked that we had to find something good to say about what we did last year as a result of the feedback) and when we were trying to get the response rate up to at least 5% better than last time.

Then the age of engagement came along and survey companies bent over backwards to show how motivated staff would be happy to ‘stay and strive’.  The questions that are asked take a more intelligent look at the relationships between attitudes and effectiveness in the workplace.  In some cases there is even an attempt to segment the internal audiences.

Interestingly, there are some people out there who claim that conducting an engagement survey is actually in itself an engaging experience for staff.  As my colleague Graham said, that’s a bit like hoping that a pig will get fat by weighing it.

And the third age?

That's the age of the network and it’s the trickiest for the researcher.

At the moment there’s a view that the value in the workplace comes from collaboration and building networks.  But how does the researcher get to understand them?

There are tools out there like SONAR to help make sense of what is going on, but its still an evolving picture.

Which bring me back to my current bee in my bonnet – communicators have to have real personal relationships that reach right into the organisation that they represent….but you probably guessed I was going to say that anyway?

Liam 

Intelligence-led Internal Communication

In the last couple of weeks research has kept coming up as a topic of conversation.

That’s partly because I ran a class for the CIPR Diploma on evaluation and another for the Post Graduate Diploma in Public Communications at Leeds Trinity on internal communications.  And it came up as a significant issue in a simple audit I’ve just finished.

And best of all, I’m feeling less and less like a mild obsessive sitting in the corner that no one listens to.

My thinking is quite simple – possibly simplistic.  If an internal comms person wants to get the attention of people who make the decisions that affects them then there are two possible sources of influence – control of resource and specialist knowledge.

The former has a number of weaknesses as a strategy for gaining influence.  Most strikingly, it can easily lead to the IC function making a pitch as the experts at posting stuff on the web and sending out emails.  You might be the only people who can do it,  but you risk finding it’s the only thing you’re allowed to do.

But if you own information that no one else has it’s a different proposition.  In my experience people who know stuff get listened to.

However, more importantly is the role that good quality intelligence should take in shaping messaging, defining segmentations, choosing channels and measuring impact.  I’ve long been staggered at the number of comms programmes that are launched on the basis of nothing more than the gut feel of a couple of people. 

And how many communicators recognise the situation when a carefully considered strategy is derailed because a senior manager has been getting some ‘negative feedback’ which turns out to be a bit of gossip overheard in the car park?

I think though that I’m noticing a difference. 

A few years ago when I banged on about this stuff I either got balnk looks from communicators or was told that it was all too difficult.  Now the conversation seems to have moved on to ‘yes I know I should be doing it but...’ or debate about some of the finer points of techniques.

And at least one Government Department has a carefully developed internal segmentation model – which makes my heart very glad (in a deeply geeky way).

So has the day of Intelligence-led IC finally arrived?

Liam

 

Liam FitzPatrick

Bell Pottinger

Internal Communications

Change communications

Employee survey

Employee research

Staff surveys - should we just drop it?

I've had three conversations in the last couple of weeks with communicators wondering how they wrestle control of the staff survey from HR.  The issue seems to be that the annual survey has turned into a meaningless routine that provides neither insight or comfort to anyone; a dreadful shame when communicators can't do their job without decent data.

No one would dream of launching an advertising campaign without research, TV companies stand or fall by their ratings and marketeers can usually tell you how much money their latest campaign generated.  Even PR is getting to grips with the whole measurement thing and the UK's Central Office of Information has been consulting agencies on its roster how it develops its effectiveness measures.

But when it comes to internal communication, all we get is the dreary annual survey which asks a predictable battery of questions...the answers to which are merely a reflection of how people felt on the day they completed the study.  And when the snapshot is only taken annually, the whole exercise is of dubious value to anyone - especially the staff who get harassed into completing the usual banal questions about how well they feel they are paid or whether they feel they company lives up to its values.

Part of the issue is that there is rarely any decent analysis into the results.  There might be some 'benchmarking' so you can tell if your company has happier or less happy workers than the company around the corner - but it's often meaningless because the categories offered by research companies are so broad that they prevent any meaningful comparisons.

Sometimes there is an attempt to define the underlying factors that shape engagement, but it's not all that common.

But rarely is there any decent segmentation (I'm a convert as it saved my skin some years ago - Download Measurement and crisis).

I've come around to the view that most of the time IC people should forget what the HR department have cooked up and get on with the business of running their own research and evaluation operation.  The best results I've seen in recent years have come when we're set up simple tracking arrangements and constructed panels.  After all, if communications people don't know what's going on, they can't be much use to anyone can they?

Liam

Can we stop fretting about the value of Internal Communications?

Just saw this article which contains the claim that companies are hoping to retain talented staff through better internal communications. 

If there has been one good thing from the current recession I think it could be the realisation among the less forward thinking leaders that good internal communications is worth the investment.

The challenge now is to deliver on the faith...

Liam 

On line research

I'll own up to being a bit of a closet geek.  I quite enjoy research (which comes as a surprise to anyone who has seen my accounts).

But I get a real kick out of gathering data and seeing how you can apply it to communications.

That's why I've recruited Vijay Sodiwala of Caucus to lay on an IABC event in London in November.  Tickets are available.

Vijay is going to show us how some of the on-line tools take research beyond the realms of internet surveys and into remote focus groups and panel discussions.  He's talked me through some of the stakeholder work they do for the NHS, recruiting communities of interest and understanding their attitudes.  And I have to say it's pretty exciting (in a not at all geeky way).

I think a communicator has to know their audiences better than anyone else - I think these tools will help us considerably.

Liam

Measurement and crisis

Found this article deep in the internet about work I did years ago.  I'd forgotten what a good writer Kieron Shaw is...

Liam

Evaluation - advice from the trainers' guru

It seems that a fair proportion of the thinking about evaluation of IC owes much to historic debates about evaluating training.  In particular, Donald Kirkpatrick has been a thought leader in this field for many years and much of what he says resonates with those of us who are responsible for making sure things work and have an impact.

There's a write up on the website The Training Zone that I just enjoyed reading.

Liam