OK, let me first say that I will try very hard not to leave behind any typos this time, seeing as readers of this blog seem far more exercised about these small errors than the actual content of the pieces. But on to more serious topics: twice in the past 24 hours I've had conversations with people who've asked about what I (and Redhouse Lane more generally) do and expressed a fervent wish that their employers would bring us in to trouble shoot communications problems and work out a comprehensive communications strategy.
The more shocking of these conversations was with a friend who's a director with a large public body. The organisation is in the midst of a big change programme, the purpose of which has never been terribly well-defined, and the process of which has been fraught with anxiety, hesitation, practical complications and incompetent consultants. The result is that staff are disorientated, confused and in fear. They believe their jobs are under threat, that whole departments are being closed down, that the entire organisation is being radically pruned. The truth is much less drastic - a new centre is being created, to improve customer service, which means some people's jobs will change. The 'big idea' was that this change would make the organisation better. But of course it's done the opposite. Because everyone's scared and demoralised, productivity has plummeted and staff and customers alike are worse off. The organisation's best people are resigning in droves.
So what's gone wrong? It sounds like a failure of nerve, poor leadership and lack of coordination. Most of all, it's a glaring example of appalling communication. The wrong things said in the wrong way at the wrong time to the wrong people, or nothing said to anyone at all. So easy to see, from the outside, and so easy to avoid with some clear planning and most of all, a sharp injection of common sense.
The solution in the short term would be for the chief executive to clear his diary for the next couple of weeks and go around the organisation's various locations to talk to people, explain what's really going on, answer questions and allay fears. At the same time a communications plan should map out clearly a set of messages, channels and a communications schedule, so that the deep discomfort felt in the organisation doesn't turn into a terminal crisis. But it's not going to happen. The organisation is far more concerned with its external reputation and keeping up appearances with people in power than with its internal stability.
And there's the second lesson from this story (the first being 'communicate, communicate, communicate'): employees are an organisation's biggest asset and strongest advocates. If employees have turned against you, no amount of PR will repair the damage to your reputation nor, ultimately, to your business's ability to survive.
01 October 2009
Why companies need us!
OK, let me first say that I will try very hard not to leave behind any typos this time, seeing as readers of this blog seem far more exercised about these small errors than the actual content of the pieces. But on to more serious topics: twice in the past 24 hours I've had conversations with people who've asked about what I (and Redhouse Lane more generally) do and expressed a fervent wish that their employers would bring us in to trouble shoot communications problems and work out a comprehensive communications strategy.
The more shocking of these conversations was with a friend who's a director with a large public body. The organisation is in the midst of a big change programme, the purpose of which has never been terribly well-defined, and the process of which has been fraught with anxiety, hesitation, practical complications and incompetent consultants. The result is that staff are disorientated, confused and in fear. They believe their jobs are under threat, that whole departments are being closed down, that the entire organisation is being radically pruned. The truth is much less drastic - a new centre is being created, to improve customer service, which means some people's jobs will change. The 'big idea' was that this change would make the organisation better. But of course it's done the opposite. Because everyone's scared and demoralised, productivity has plummeted and staff and customers alike are worse off. The organisation's best people are resigning in droves.
So what's gone wrong? It sounds like a failure of nerve, poor leadership and lack of coordination. Most of all, it's a glaring example of appalling communication. The wrong things said in the wrong way at the wrong time to the wrong people, or nothing said to anyone at all. So easy to see, from the outside, and so easy to avoid with some clear planning and most of all, a sharp injection of common sense.
The solution in the short term would be for the chief executive to clear his diary for the next couple of weeks and go around the organisation's various locations to talk to people, explain what's really going on, answer questions and allay fears. At the same time a communications plan should map out clearly a set of messages, channels and a communications schedule, so that the deep discomfort felt in the organisation doesn't turn into a terminal crisis. But it's not going to happen. The organisation is far more concerned with its external reputation and keeping up appearances with people in power than with its internal stability.
And there's the second lesson from this story (the first being 'communicate, communicate, communicate'): employees are an organisation's biggest asset and strongest advocates. If employees have turned against you, no amount of PR will repair the damage to your reputation nor, ultimately, to your business's ability to survive.
Tagged under: