The CEO of an insurance firm in the Midwest recently bumped into an employee one night while walking to his car. The woman wanted to know why communications at the company was so poor and if he was committed to doing something about it.
Wanting to be responsive, the following week the CEO decided to hold two sessions with employees to give them updates on the company. His rationale was good: He would address half of the employees in the morning session and the remainder in an afternoon session and fill them in on the latest developments at the company.
During the first session he briefed the standing-room-only crowd on the company’s progress over the past year and plans for the year ahead. When he finished, however, an employee raised his hand.
“I’m sorry,” the CEO said. “I am not prepared to take questions today.” With that, he walked off the stage. He refused to take questions in the afternoon session as well.
Remarkably, he later told an assistant that he thought the sessions had gone off “exceedingly well.”
He didn’t realize that he had confused “information” for “communication.” As a result, he had actually inflicted more harm on his relationship with employees than if he had remained holed up in the executive suite.
In short: “Information” flows one way (usually top down), “communication” is a dialogue with employees.
We are often called into companies where internal communications is either very weak or non existent. Much of the time, the leadership cannot understand why the company grapevine is so active and employees do not appear to be “team players.”
The first question we have for the senior team is, “Where do your employees get their information about what’s going on around here?” Often they will mention a letter to employees issued periodically by the CEO or a newsletter that contains very little news. Seldom do I hear that management has an active, vibrant way to not only send information to employees, but to also gather employees’ opinions, ideas and suggestions and move that up through the organization.
Employees do not feel that anyone is listening to them. If management is NOT listening, perhaps someone on the e-mail or lunch room grapevine will. The need to be heard is a basic human need that is often unmet in an organization.
When we assess an organization, we are much more interested in how communication flows up the organization rather than down. How are employee complaints, ideas, suggestions, gripes and concerns collected and addressed? How often and how candidly do employees get to “vent” about working conditions, wages, benefits and other issues? Who listens and more importantly, is that person or group empowered to take action?
Is this rare? Well, when the former Burlington Northern Railroad (now part of BNSF) tried an employee forum many years ago, the communicators were shocked when one of the first calls came from a USA Today reporter who wanted to write a story on the “unique way” the company was listening to employees. He wrote the story (“More Substance than Fluff”) and suddenly communicators from companies across the country were calling the railroad for tips on how to replicate it.
One of the more effective communications channels we’ve seen recently is at a hospital in North Carolina. The regular employee publication there devotes one full page to feedback from employees. It’s a no-subject-barred program that gives real insight into what needs to be addressed in the organization.
It’s called “Ask Doctor Sig” and its widely popular, according to the hospital’s director of marketing. One person is responsible for the column and the company’s intranet site also has a “Dr Sig Forum” that is even more popular.
“It’s wild,” “Dr. Sig” (who is never identified in order to avoid being called at home at all hours) told me. “We get a lot of complaints comments and opinions on the forum.”
Recent topics on the on-line forum included complaints about a “poorly maintained” employee directory, an employee insurance complaint, the hospital’s smoking policy, low employee morale and one employee complaining that another had obtained his e-mail address without permission.
The hospital is exploring allowing blogging on topics in the future.
For employers today, it’s essential that the two-way road of communications, both to and from employees, be a multi-lane avenue of information flow. Senior managers who refuse to allow employees to vent through official channels are inviting them to “take the complaint outside” – to neighbors, the general community, unions, and so on.
The internet page, blogs, publications, verbal programs, video productions as well as face-to-face meetings should be designed to allow employees to receive information and “have their say.” Many senior managers are reluctant to do this, fearful that a few negative individuals will dominate the forum. Others often dismiss the idea, saying “we already know what employees think.” After 27 years in the communications business, we can assure them they do not.
Back at the hospital, all agree that abuse in the “Dr Sig” forums has to be checked and the comments kept on topic, but the hospital has long learned that if employees are allowed to vent, it allows the senior team to obtain a view that is still rare for a company: A look into what’s on employees’ minds.