« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 25, 2005
“Hyperfragmentation”: What it means and why you should care
Back in “the good old days,” home entertainment choices were limited: With only three television networks, you could watch “The Ed Sullivan Show,” or get up and turn the dial to “The Wonderful World of Disney,” or switch to whatever was on the third network, or turn off the set.
When you get to work the next morning, you could bet that a large percentage of your co-workers had also seen “your” show, so you’d have something to talk about at the coffee machine. And after your coffee break, you could spend a few minutes reading the only employee communication vehicle available: the company newsletter.
Today, of course, there is a dizzying proliferation of media. Most Americans with satellite or cable service subscribe to about 100 television channels. If we don’t want to watch TV, we can opt for pay-for-view, DVDs, video games, or, of course, the Internet.
People from the media and advertising industries call this phenomenon “hyperfragmentation,” because the term describes how the audience has not only become segmented into demographic groups (young men watching sports, women viewing sitcoms)—it has shattered into thousands of pieces that are scattered in all directions. Just take pro football fans, for example—with the availability of Direct Ticket on satellite TV, on Sunday alone they have a choice of 13 games, not just three.
This is a problem for advertisers because their audience shares are getting smaller and smaller as people’s entertainment choices become more and more disparate. And the problem is intensifying, as even more new forms of media become affordable and accessible.
Explore this phenomenon for yourself: At the office, ask your co-workers how they spent yesterday evening. Except for a few “must-see” shows (one of which, sadly enough, is “American Idol”), you’ll get nearly as many answers as the number of people you ask.
As someone involved in employee communication, why should you care about hyperfragmentation? Because it’s a reality in internal as well as external communication. That old company newsletter has morphed into a multitude—there are publications (print or electronic) for corporate, divisions, locations and functions. Intranet sites have sprung up like mushrooms. And e-mail—well, it’s overwhelming.
As if today’s environment isn’t challenging enough, the future holds even more fragmentation. Tomorrow’s employees will have a rich choice of media, including hand-held cellphones/PDAs, plasma bulletin boards, and much much more.
The game has changed. The captive audience is dead. To get employees’ attention, you will need to make bold changes that cut through the clutter.
It’s time to take a deep breath and get started.
Posted by Alison Davis at 02:20 PM
March 16, 2005
What Bernie Ebbers didn’t want to hear?
Did Bernie really do it? Yesterday a federal jury found the former WorldCom CEO guilty of all nine counts of criminal charges, including conspiracy to commit fraud by falsifying financial results.
Jurors didn’t believe Mr. Ebbers’s claims that he knew nothing about the accounting fraud taking place at WorldCom while he was chief executive. As Vincent Wright, juror N. 7, put it, “He was the man who was in charge. It’s just kind of hard to sit there and think he didn’t know what was going on.”
But it’s possible that Mr. Ebbers actually didn’t know what was going on because he didn’t want to hear it. Like other hard-charging, Type A, performance-driven senior leaders, Mr. Ebbers may have shut down the discussion any time the news was bad, troubling, or simply at odds with his beliefs or wishes.
Impossible? Not at all. Although I have no inside information on what went on at WorldCom—honest, Mr. Spitzer—I have seen the inner workings of many corporations that are far less dysfunctional.
Many well-intentioned, honest executives are terrible listeners. And since they’re under such intense pressure to hit their targets, these leaders are even less likely to be receptive to messengers who bring word that there’s a problem with making the numbers.
At WorldCom, approaching the boss with an issue might have gone like this:
- Not meeting an objective? “I don’t want to hear it.”
- Trouble with operations in Tulsa? “Solve the problem—don’t stand there talking about it.”
- Got a nagging suspicion that something’s rotten in Denmark? “I don’t have time for hunches.”
My theory—that Mr. Ebbers really didn’t know—is directly at odds with former WorldCom Chief Financial Officer Scott Sullivan’s extensive testimony that he told Mr. Ebbers everything. But the jury didn’t fully believe Mr. Sullivan, and I find it entirely plausible that a CEO and a CFO can spend a lot of time together without really communicating. I’ve seen firsthand how senior leaders tell the CEO what they think he wants to hear. Mr. Ebbers hired Mr. Sullivan to get the job done, not burden him with a lot of troubling details.
If my speculation is accurate, does that mean Mr. Ebbers was innocent? Actually, no. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones instructed the jury that in order to find Mr. Ebbers guilty, it would be enough to find that he “deliberately closed his eyes” to the fraud, even if he didn’t participate in it directly.
According to Mr. Wright, juror No. 7, “A blind eye is not going to get him an excuse.”
Or, put another way, the thing that Mr. Ebbers may have been most guilty of was not listening, but he was guilty just the same.
Posted by Alison Davis at 11:15 AM | Comments (2)
March 11, 2005
The (big) trouble with e-mail
This week’s story (part business news, part tabloid scandal) about Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher has many fascinating facets, but the one I’m fixated on is the role e-mail played in the affair.
In case you missed it, Mr. Stonecipher was forced to resign after an anonymous source at Boeing provided the board with “explicit” e-mails the former CEO had written to an employee with whom he was having an extramarital affair. The relationship didn’t get Mr. Stonecipher fired; it was the fact that he sent those e-mails in violation of Boeing’s ethics rules prohibiting senior leaders from damaging the company’s reputation.
What was Harry thinking?
It’s easy to feel superior (“Even if I did have an affair, I’d certainly never send sexy notes via the company e-mail system!”), but the fact remains that every one of us is in danger of being caught in e-mail’s sneaky trap. This form of communication is simply not what it appears to be:
- E-mail seems confidential, but your e-mail is certainly being monitored: In a recent American Management Association survey of 840 U.S. companies, 60% said they monitor employees’ e-mail, and workplace privacy experts say that’s probably a conservative estimate. Companies are most likely to track e-mail to and from the outside world, but an increasing percentage are also monitoring internal e-mail conversations.
- E-mail seems temporary, but in many company systems, an e-mail is forever. Think of all those executives who have gotten in trouble because of old e-mail transgressions; for instance, another former Boeing top executive, Michael Sears, Credit Suisse First Boston’s Frank Quattrone, and Merrill Lynch’s Henry Blodgett.
- E-mail seems like virtual conversation, but it’s also a written form of communication. Say something in the heat of the moment, and it vaporizes into the air—you can always take it back or apologize. But write a flippant, inappropriate, stupid comment in an e-mail and it’s a matter of record. It can be forwarded to anyone, including the competition, a member of the media or the chairman of the board. It can be used against you as evidence. It can haunt you forever.
Why does this matter? E-mail is the number one method of communication in most organizations. It’s virtually impossible to get work done without using e-mail. Colleagues don’t work down the hall—they’re across the country or around the world. It’s maddeningly difficult to get someone on the phone. E-mail is often employees’ only choice for transmitting important information.
And yet, in most organizations, employees are up on the e-mail high wire working without a net. Guidelines are needed, as is guidance. Who better to step in and provide that help than communication professionals?
Have a comment or a point of view? Feel free to share it here—and, if you prefer, send me an e-mail.
Posted by Alison Davis at 02:56 PM | Comments (1)
March 08, 2005
Is "film studies" communication’s future?
Thinking about furthering your education? Considering an advanced degree like an M.B.A.? An article in last Sunday’s New York Times (“Is a Cinema Studies Degree The New M.B.A.?” by Elizabeth Van Ness, March 6, 2005) makes a case for a different discipline—film studies—advocating that the subject can be useful not only in entertainment, but also in business, politics and any field where persuasion is key.
“At a time when street gangs warn informers with DVD productions about the fate of ‘snitches’ and both terrorists and their adversaries routinely communicate in elaborately staged videos, it is not altogether surprising that film school . . . is beginning to attract those who believe that cinema isn’t so much a profession as the professional language of the future,” Ms. Van Ness writes.
More than 600 colleges and universities in the U.S. offer programs in film studies or related subjects. And since very few graduates actually become directors or producers, many students are using what they’ve learned to be successful in other fields.
Like, say, employee communication? The article doesn’t say so explicitly, but there were several thought-provoking perspectives about the power of film:
- “People endowed with social power and prestige are able to use film and media images to reinforce that power—we need to look at film to grant power to those who are marginalized or currently not represented,” said Rick Herbst, a graduate of the University of Notre Dame who’s now at Yale Law School.
- “The greatest digital divide is between those who can read and write with media, and those who can’t,” said Elizabeth Daley, dean of the School of Cinema-Television at the University of Southern California. U.S.C., the nation’s oldest film school, believes that media competency is as fundamental as the ability to read and write.As the article reports, more than 60 general academic courses at U.S.C. requires students to create projects that use video, sound and Internet components. Says Dean Daley, “If I had my way, our multimedia literacy honors program would be required of every student in the university.”
In my view, too many communication professionals still spend far too much of their time with words—words sent via e-mail, or posted on a web page, or printed in a publication. In the digital future, words will become secondary to images, and the greatest power in communication will reside in people who can create moving images that are retrieved via personal computer, PDA, or even cell phone.
Film school, anyone?
Posted by Alison Davis at 04:04 PM | Comments (1)
March 02, 2005
Does saying something make it so?
I’ve spent my career helping organizations communicate more effectively, and I truly believe that communication be a powerful force—to create learning, build new beliefs, and support change.
But I am also keenly aware of communication’s limitations. Just because a senior leader tells employees to act differently doesn’t guarantee it will happen. Articulating “values” on a poster doesn’t mean those words represent an organization’s actual operating principles. Saying something doesn’t make it so.
In fact, in these often cynical times, saying something—if it doesn’t match reality—may work against you.
That’s why I felt a healthy dose of skepticism when I read Alan Murray’s column, “Citigroup CEO Pursues Culture of Ethics,” in today’s Wall Street Journal. CEO Chuck Prince is committed to creating a culture of ethics at Citigroup, and he’s willing to spend at least half his time over the next several years to make it happen.
The effort is beginning with “a massive campaign,” according to the article, that began yesterday. “Many of the company’s 300,000 employees in 100 countries gathered to watch a movie that traced the company’s history and called on employees to make Citigroup ‘the most respected global financial-services company.’” Announced changes include annual ethics training for all employees (with special emphasis on top managers), increased emphasis on compliance and audit, and changes in the way management compensation is calculated. Mr. Prince will tour the world this year, spreading the word to employees.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this, I suppose—unless you consider that Citigroup has long had a reputation for having a ruthless culture where the ability to set and meet ambitious financial goals is the definition of success. Has performance become less important than ethics? If a manager doesn’t meet his or her targets, but behaves ethically, will he or she still be rewarded (given a bonus, promoted, etc.)? In a company where money is literally what is produced, how much value does an intangible principle possess?
I have often counseled clients to wait before communicating an effort like this one—wait until they have the operational framework in place, until they understand all the implications, until they’re really sure they will commit, for the long haul, what it takes to build and sustain such radical change.
But senior leaders are men (and women) of action, and they’re chomping at the bit to move forward, and they want to communicate now.
Again, nothing inherently wrong with that (after all, it’s how I make my living), as long as senior leaders understand that the initial communication is not even the first step in the long road ahead.
Communication is easy. Action, which is what really matters, is the hard part.
Posted by Alison Davis at 01:56 PM