« November 2004 | Main | January 2005 »

December 16, 2004

The trouble with feedback: A true story

Only the names and some key facts have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty.

The division president was very angry.

He was angry that the communication manager at a facility where a segment of his employees worked (along with those of other divisions) had included his employees in a communication assessment without consulting him.

He was angry that his employees in the assessment study (about 60 people in five focus groups) were “negative” about his quarterly all-hands meetings. Employees thought those sessions could be a lot more effective: more candid, more specific, more participative.

And he was angry at me because my firm conducted the assessment and wrote the report. He was so angry, in fact, that he was showing all the signs of preparing to shoot the messenger.

I had been summoned to an urgent meeting with the division president and some of his staff to explain (i.e., defend) our findings. The intention was to browbeat me into “admitting” that the feedback wasn’t true. Only trouble was, it was true: we reported exactly what those employees said. They liked the notion of the all-hands meetings, but they knew the meetings could be more dynamic and more meaningful. And, like employees everywhere, they had tangible suggestions—ideas that I thought were very helpful.

It was a shame that the division president was too angry to listen to these helpful suggestions. In fact, he was ready to cancel future all-hands events. He had invested a lot of time and energy into those sessions, he said, and if employees didn’t appreciate them, why should he continue?

At our meeting, I didn’t say much. The division president was demonstrating very clearly that he wouldn’t listen to anything that could be construed as negative. “Constructive criticism” did not appear to be a term the president was familiar with.

As the president glowered, I thought about the trouble with feedback. It’s risky. You have to be open to the notion that people will have viewpoints that may be critical, messy, irrational, demanding, unappreciative and, very possibly, quite brilliant. This honesty may make you uncomfortable. It may make you mad. You may want to question it. You may even want to quit.

What happens next is key. Do you get over yourself (and your ego), settle down and listen to what these folks have to say? Or, like the division president, do you shut down, become spiteful, and punish the people who honestly shared their perspectives?

The truth can make you strong. It can help you succeed. It can even set you free. But only if you let it.

Posted by Alison Davis at 08:35 AM | Comments (1)

December 03, 2004

A lesson from Procter & Gamble

I just came back from lunch and was catching up on my e-mails when I read in one of my electronic newsletters a piece (linked from The New York Times) on Procter & Gamble’s latest effort to re-invent marketing. It’s so interesting that I had to share it with you right away (I still owe web log readers my next installment of what’s cool in USA Today, and will get that posted soon.)

P&G is one smart company, and anyone who has to communicate to any group of stakeholders (especially busy, distracted, skeptical people . . . like your employees) can learn from those guys in Ohio.

Procter & Gamble has declared that mass marketing may not be completely dead, but it sure is sick—mainly because the media is fragmenting and consumers increasingly control the experience. So the company is trying all kinds of new ways to reach people, including creating advertisements that seem a lot more like service editorial than traditional “buy it” ads.

The latest variation on this approach can be seen by linking to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/business/media/03adco.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all). P&G is combining compelling elements of celebrity involvement (in this case, Hilary Duff), with web logs and social networks.

It’s not about hitting consumers over the head with product attribute messages; it’s about creating an environment in which people want to spend time.

Naturally, I think this has significant implications for employee communication. Many organizations are still operating on the premise, “If I send this message, employees will not only read it, they’ll understand it, believe it and act on it.” But the captive audience is a thing of the past. We’ve got to give employees a reason to pay attention—they’ve got to get something out of the experience that helps them meet their needs.

Procter & Gamble gets this, at least when it comes to marketing to customers. (I don’t know how P&G approaches employee communication, and I’d be interested to see whether the same philosophy applies.)

What have you done to approach communication differently?

Posted by Alison Davis at 12:59 PM

December 01, 2004

What the news can teach you about employee communication (part 1)

Yesterday morning I found myself at the Radisson hotel in Manchester, New Hampshire, eating breakfast and reading USA Today (what I was doing there is a tale I’ll tell another time.) Although I think USA Today is terrific, I don’t always read the newspaper—even a publication junkie like me has to draw the line somewhere (three newspapers a day is my limit).

But once again I was struck by the fact that I usually find something in USA Today that directly relates to employee communication. Yesterday, I hit the jackpot: There were three articles that describe issues that impact many companies and their workers. During the next several days, I’ll provide information about each of these, giving you a link so you can read each article for yourself, and sharing a few insights about what each story can teach about employee communication.

The lead story, “Think your commute is tough? For extreme commuters, 90 minutes is quick,” was a terrific exploration of a growing trend: To find affordable housing and a better lifestyle, an increasing number of employees are choosing to commute very long distances. According to reporters Debbie Howlett and Paul Overberg, 3.4 million Americans endure an extreme commute of 90 minutes or more each way to work. They’re among the fastest-growing segment of commuters, whose travel times are more than triple the national average of 25.5 minutes each way. (For more, link to http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-29-commute_x.htm)

Communication impact
If your organization has locations in major metropolitan areas, chances are good some of your employees are extreme commuters. This presents a challenge—these folks have even less spare time than the rest of us—and an opportunity.

Consider: Are your communication channels taking advantage of the time commuters spend in a car or on a train or bus? (Example: some companies are now providing radio-style audio reports recorded on CDs for sales representatives. Would a broader segment of employees find this useful?)

Other issues to consider: Is your communication sensitive to employees' time pressures? Are there ways communication could actually make commuters’ lives easier?

Got any ideas or best practices? Please share them with us. Thanks.

Posted by Alison Davis at 12:33 PM