Let's cut to the chase. It's my strong belief that if we're not managing communication internally to improve performance and, in turn, to add to shareholder value, then we should stop what we're doing and do something that does.
No function or process inside of today's highly competitive businesses enjoys the luxury of existing for sentimental reasons, because "it's always been there" or because "we can't figure out how to measure its value." That's bunk.
A few weeks ago I met with the communication folks at a well-known technology company that has enjoyed incredible growth. They've made some acquisitions and have added a host of new products and services. I asked which performance areas were important to them as they assessed their communication process and function. A member of the internal communication team spoke up: "Oh, I don't think we're interested in communication in terms of its impact on performance. We just want to know if people are getting corporate messages." Her boss quickly corrected her. "Performance is all we care about," he said.
Indeed, performance is all we should care about. Performance, as in improving quality and service, reducing cycle time, enhancing speed to market, driving out costs or stimulating innovation.
I realize performance-based communication is a new concept for those of us who have risen through the ranks as media generators - town criers, so to speak. We've been in charge of "getting the news out." The old journalistic model has defined our work. Give them the corporate message from on high. Spin it a little - or a lot. Expect people to believe it, and act accordingly.
Those days are gone. Today's communication practitioners need to focus on improving the communication process, not just the formal media and channels. They need to do so for one reason - to improve the business of the business.
Undoubtedly many PR NEWS readers are responsible for external communication - public relations, media relations, advertising, marcom, government relations, I/R and public affairs. I began my career with those responsibilities, first as a governor's press secretary and later as head of PR and advertising for two national organizations. Then I joined Towers Perrin and began focusing on helping clients improve internal communication. That's when I learned the occasional similarities and huge differences between managing external vs. internal communication.
The primary goal of external communication management is to change perceptions and, ultimately, behavior. Get people to buy your product, subscribe to your service or vote for your candidate. External communication is largely one way - from you to your customers or other external stakeholders. It's formal media and channel-driven. Although it's usually audience- or niche-oriented, the goal is usually to get individuals to take action.
Internal communication management is very different. Its goal is to create shared meaning among a group of people - an organization's employees. It is relationship-driven. Its goal is to generate both individual and team commitment to an organization's vision and business strategy.
The information customers need to make purchasing decisions is very different from the information employees need to commit to an organization.
Customers buy when they perceive quality, service and value, as they define each. However, employees buy - or commit - when they understand the context of the business, the vision and strategy, and their roles in realizing the vision and implementing the strategy. They need to know they have the resources to help them succeed and that there's a stake in the game - that they'll benefit when they deliver.
And while employees also receive communication from formal media channels, much of the information that drives their behavior comes from two other sources:
- Leaders, managers and supervisors - not just what they say but also what they do.
- The system's infrastructure, or plumbing that undergirds every organization. Pay and measurement systems communicate loudly about what's valued, as do organizational structure, work environment, learning and development opportunities, resource allocation decisions, levels of involvement, planning and work processes.
Managing internal communication effectively means managing these three sources -leadership, the systems infrastructure and formal media - as an integrated system.
So, while external and internal communication each have their challenges and complexities, they're very different. They can't be managed the same way.
Communication practitioners who've spent most of their time managing external communication are often surprised to learn that generating employee commitment to a corporate vision or business strategy can't be accomplished by "getting the news out" or rolling out another program or "campaign." It just doesn't work that way.
In future columns, I'll explore these differences and discuss the concept of communication system management. I'll share best practices from some of the best companies in the world, and touch on some of the mistakes we're making as we try to take our companies to new places.
Let me hear from you.
Jim Shaffer is senior partner-leadership change with Towers Perrin in Rosslyn, Va. 703/351-4751.