« October 2008 | Main | December 2008 »

November 21, 2008

The break up

My college-age son’s girlfriend is in the process of breaking up with him. This would be painful enough, but for the fact that she seems to be trying to let him down easy, which means it’s more confusing and drawn-out (“I think we need a break.” “We both should see other people.” “Let’s not decide yet.”) than if she had quickly and abruptly dumped him.

But I’m not writing to comment on the girlfriend’s behavior (although I must confess that a word that rhymes with “glitch” keeps running through my head)—like all entries in this blog, this one’s about communication.

Here’s my point: 2008 communication tools helped my son and his girlfriend stay close, and those same tools are now breaking his heart.

When they each went off to separate universities this September, the 80 miles or so that separated them didn’t feel like a barrier. They text-messaged constantly. They talked by cell phone several times a day. They’d spend evenings alternating between studying, instant messaging, chatting or poking on Facebook, and video chatting via iChat or Skype .

But then the girlfriend met a new guy at school. Sparks flew. And she began delivering messages (via all the 2.0 communication forms) to my son about “space,” “other people,” “It’s not you; it’s me,” etc.

And then she proceeded to shut down communication. Maybe they shouldn’t iChat every day, she suggested. Or talk so much by phone. She took longer and longer to answer his text messages. She laid low on Facebook.

Being no dummy, my son suggested that he and his girlfriend get together in person to work things out. But she’s been putting him off, probably because she’s engaged in face-to-face communication with the other guy. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

And, although this brings back painful memories of the time I received a “Dear John” letter while I was in college (that’s how old I am), I also think those times were easier. At least the guy who dumped me couldn’t de-Friend me on Facebook. My humiliation was private, not up there on social media for all the world to see.

Breaking up is hard (harder than ever) to do.

Posted by Alison Davis at 03:16 PM | Comments (4)

November 11, 2008

President Elect and Chief Communications Officer

A week has passed since the U.S. Presidential election, and a lot of what happened is fading into the distance.

But before it passes out of short-term memory, I think it’s useful to reflect on the lessons President-Elect Barack Obama can teach all of us about how to communicate effectively in today’s world. After all, one of Obama’s most significant talents is his ability to get his message across

So I thought I’d aggregate the best of these perspectives for you, so you can gain inspiration. Many of the techniques the Obama campaign used are applicable for any of us who communicate to any audience:

A clear, concise vision
As Jack and Suzy Welch write in Business Week, Obama’s mission was “clear and aspirational.” And he stuck to it.

Modern tools
Obama’s campaign was brilliant about using the Internet, including Web 2.0 and social media, to “reinvent the way campaigns are run,” according to Wired.

“A master of visual imagery.”
Don’t forget that Obama also used a relatively old tool—television—to bring his messages to life. As Variety reports, the debates, his commercials, and television interviews, Obama projected a message of hope and calm.

Moving Millennials
Voters age 18 – 29 voted for Obama by a significant margin. And part of the reason is that the Obama campaign understood how to reach this generation, according to Advertising Age.

Graphic design
It may seem trivial, but even Obama’s logo and campaign materials were effective, says The Guardian, at conveying a modern, forward-looking message.

Persuasion
Obama understood that people aren’t persuaded by the facts—they vote with their emotions. So, writes Al Ries in Advertising Age, the campaign used the principles of persuasion (and, by the way, marketing and sales) to make the case for change.

Remember my motto: Inspiration is everywhere. You just need to know how to leverage good ideas in your own work.

Posted by Alison Davis at 03:41 PM

November 05, 2008

McCain and Obama’s election night speeches: How direct, how simple

Last night I stayed up late to watch the Presidential election results, and then stayed up even later to watch John McCain’s concession speech and Barack Obama’s victory speech.

Naturally, I was most interested in the tone and content of each speech: McCain gracious, noble, and honorable, and Obama proud but humble, grateful, and resolute. As had been the case throughout the campaign, the two candidates had very different styles: McCain more blunt and plain-talking; Obama more of an inspiring orator.

But, despite the differences, both speeches had two things in common. They were very direct. And they were extremely simple.

So simple, in fact, that I felt compelled to analyze them further. So I ran them through the Flesch reading ease test, which gives a score from 0 (complex) to 100 (simple) for how understandable a piece of writing is. And I also applied the Flesch-Kincaid test, which assigns a grade level rating; for example, sixth grade or 12th grade. (See more about each at Wikipedia.

(Both tests are available in the Spelling/Grammar tool in Microsoft Word or you can download tools from various web sites.)

Here’s what I learned:

McCain’s speech scored 73.3 on the Flesch reading ease test, meaning that what he said would be easily understandable by a 13-year-old. And he got a 6.9 (meaning just under seventh grade level) on the Flesch-Kincaid grade level rating.

Here’s a sample of how McCain spoke: “Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country, and I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.”

Obama’s speech scored slightly lower on the Flesch reading ease test—70.7—which probably had to do with his style of sentences that go on for a while, building an idea over several phrases. (70.7 would also be understood by a 13-year-old). And his Flesch-Kincaid score—7.1—was also slightly higher than McCain.

Here’s a short segment of Obama’s speech: “It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled—Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states; we are and always will be the United States of America.”

Here’s my point: In today’s complicated world, your communication needs to be this simple. If you’re creating communication—leader talking points, e-mails, intranet content, etc.—that’s at the 10th or 12th grade level, and scores below 50 on the Flesch reading ease test, you run the risk of turning people off or confusing them.

You can’t run that risk. So you must simplify.

Posted by Alison Davis at 11:38 AM

November 04, 2008

A quick look at wikis (Q&A, part 5)

This is the final installment on my mission to answer questions from the web cast I led last Wednesday, “Engaging Employees During Uncertain Times.” During the session, I mentioned that we have a great opportunity to use new Web 2.0 tools, like wikis, to encourage employee participation.

Q: What’s a wiki?

A: Wiki is a Hawaiian word for “quick” that has, in the web world, has come to mean “a page or collection of web pages that allows any user to contribute or modify content,” according to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

(By the way, there’s been some debate about the reliability of Wikipedia, because it’s not a true encyclopedia edited by experts, but so democratic that it’s possible for entries to be factually incorrect. Yet people increasingly rely on Wikipedia for “credible information,” according to a survey by the Pew Internet Research project: 36% of Americans consult Wikipedia, and 50% of college-educated Americans do so.)

Q: Can you provide more details on wikis? Where are some examples and how can you get started?

A: The tech magazine InformationWeek regularly features articles on how companies are using wikis and other Web 2.0 tools. Here are some recent stories:

Q: How do you know whether to use a wiki, a blog, social networking or some other tool?

A: The same way you make any decision about how best to use a communication channel: based on your objectives. If your objective is to create a forum where employees can collaborate to create content, a wiki is for you.

Posted by Alison Davis at 02:37 PM

Q&A, part 4

(I continue to answer questions from last Wednesday’s web cast about “Engaging Employees During Uncertain Times.”)

Q: This is a comment, not a question. While I love all the new vehicles that Web 2.0 provides us with, we can’t forget that face-to-face communication (or telephone/live video) is still viewed as the most effective regardless of culture and generation.

A:: Right you are. Plus, the fun thing about some of the Web 2.0 stuff is that it creates some of the human interaction that makes face-to-face so rich and compelling.

Q: The majority of employees at our company don’t have access to a personal computer. What are other things we can do?

A: Leaders and managers are always important, but they become even more so when your workforce is not wired. Leaders (like the plant or store manager) emphasize what’s important to the organization, and what the factory or store or unit should focus on; managers, of course, interpret organization-wide information to “what our team needs to do.”

Q: Are there existing tools like surveys or ROI studies we can use as templates?

A: The International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) offers a number of books and toolkits on measurement:

Q: We are looking at web cast technology and it seems to be very expensive. Any suggestions?

A: Shop around, negotiate, and make sure to buy only what you need. A lot of systems have a lot of bells and whistles, but others are more straightforward and no-nonsense. Make sure you’re not buying a Mercedes when a Toyota works just fine.

Q: Most employees are reluctant to speak out during meetings. How can you encourage participation?

A: I have a lot to say about this—I give a whole workshop on remaking town hall meetings to make them more participative—but I’ll try to make it brief. The key reason that employees are reluctant to speak out during meetings is because meetings are poorly structured to encourage interaction. A 10-minute Q&A section does not elicit participation—it shuts people down. If you really want employees to speak out, they need time (lots of it), a safe venue (breakouts, for instance, not a big crowd), and leaders who demonstrate that they welcome all kinds of feedback, including negative comments.

Q: What suggestions do you have for alternatives for Web 2.0 tactics to make communications more engaging? We have a skeletal portal and rely on e-mail primarily for internal communication.

A: If e-mail is your primary tool, ask yourself whether e-mail could be more dynamic and interactive. And then ask IT what’s possible, even with a skeletal portal and a minimum budget. Some cool Web 2.0 tools are actually free—you just have to get over IT’s “not invented here/I’m not putting that within my firewall” objections.

Posted by Alison Davis at 10:20 AM

November 03, 2008

Uncertain times call for giving up control: (Webcast Qs, part 3)

Last Wednesday I led a webcast on “Engaging Employees in Uncertain Times,” during which participants asked more than 50 questions—too many to cover in the time allotted. Here’s the third installment of answering those questions.

One of the strategies I suggested for engaging employees is to use Web 2.0 and/or social media. Employees are looking for connection and context, and tools like wikis, blogs, social networks and message boards provide both. Plus, I’ve found that when everything is in upheaval, you often have an opportunity to make big changes—management is more open to ideas that will make a difference.

Participants asked a lot of questions about wikis, which I’ll answer in tomorrow’s blog. They also asked questions about the lack of control that comes with social media:

Here’s my answer: You’ve already lost control of communication, so you might as well go with it. You may think you have control, but you don’t. (Your senior management and legal department may think they have control, but they don’t, either.) Even if all your internal communication is packaged, spun, approved, and static, your employees are out there in the world, finding out unvarnished stuff about your company, making comments (anonymously) in message boards, connecting with each other through social media, and otherwise acting like communication is a contact sport.

Employees are well aware that they’re not the audience, they’re in the game. So why are you still treating them as if they are content to sit quietly in their seats, watching the CEO do all the talking?

It’s high time (especially during uncertain times) that we communicators change the definition of our role. We can no longer succeed by being only producers or packagers. To succeed in this Web 2.0 world, we need to facilitate communication, not simply create it.

That means sacrificing control in order to gain involvement. It means taking a risk in order to achieve authenticity. And it means trusting employees enough to encourage them to create, comment, rate and participate.

Is this scary? Yes, it is. Will the legal department kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor in protest? Probably.

But the reward—being able to engage employees—is worth the risk.

Posted by Alison Davis at 03:01 PM