The future of communication -- Part 2 (6-10)

Looking at the future of organisational communication makes you realise what broad topic it is.
Communication affect the way we manage, what we manage, how we structure the business, what we present to the outside world and much more.

Let's look at the second half of the 10 things to look for in the future of communication.

6) ASSET EMPLOYEES
It's not considered odd for non-executive directors of big organisations to be hired based on the benefits of 'association'.

'Oh, she's on their Board, they must be good!'

Look for this to start to happen more with employees. You can already see this with the US Postal Service cycling team, where company sponsors athletes to compete in their name.

7) CHIEF COMMUNICATION OFFICER
We have CIO's. Many of whom are purely technical people. Yes, technology represents a major corporate investment, but in the old days, before we had PCs and networks, the CIO might have been called the office manager, or, worse still the stationery clerk.

However, everyone from Michael Porter to Jack Welch is linking leadership to communication. Research into successful businesses is also constantly pointing to effective change and communication skills as core requirements. So, why do we not have businesses turning to Chief Communications Officers to bring it all together?

I think we will.

8) LEADERSHIP PLACEMENT

Effective leadership communication can be so important to a business that companies will have to hire it in. Not just the effective manager, but in the future his alter ego, the effective leader of people.

Much like Prime Ministers and Presidents have become the face and voice of a background administration -- businesses will find they are so busy doing the work that they need to hire a figurehead to talk it up.

9) BACK-END CHANNEL INTEGRATION

Employee communication of the future is all about choice. We talked about that above. However, that presents a compelling problem for business communicators. How do you manage the exponential variety of channels. Do you have to re-craft everything for 15 different formats?

No.

If you do now you should be doing something about it. Think of MSNBC or CNN and take a lead from them in multi-formatting. Make the content drop into multiple formats without multiple formatting.

As they used to say at the start of the Six Million Dollar Man: 'we have the technology.'

10) VIRTUAL WORK EXPERIENCE

Today I have candidates coming for job interviews who say "I could tell I want to work here before I even crossed the threshold." That says a lot about the atmosphere of a big communications agency. And it says a lot about how people choose their jobs.

Most of us focus a lot on 'the task' when we look to recruit. Reality is different. People are increasingly making career decisions based on the people, the atmosphere and the quotidian routine.

How do you get people to see, feel and really experience the workplace and the job? A virtual work experience is how. Think about the virtual tours offered on real estate websites. Add a few more elements of interaction and voila you have a virtual work experience.

CONCLUSION

Clearly my bias is showing in this series. In my mind the title could just as easily have been "The future is communication".

However, any way you look at it the ability to make a human connection is going to be increasingly important in business. What Edward Hallowell calls the 'human moment'. Communication is all about that. You ignore that at your peril.

/df

The future of communication (5 of 10)

There's a fantastic news item in yesterday's newspapers about Duke University in the USA giving all new students iPods. The idea is that they can use them to study - uploading audio files about student life and even lecture tapes.

And why not!

We regularly ask our clients to compare how they access information about the world to how their organisation communicates with employees.

At the private school I went to 20 years ago the students have walked into class with their laptops and accessed the LAN for their assignments for years.

When I went there we had a single computer room where we learned to type:

10 goto line 20
20 end

And we were seriously advanced in computer science. I'm not even 40.

Where will organisational communication be in 5 years? I have a few ideas.

1) NO PUSH
There will be no such thing as an all-employee email. Employees will have all the power to chose what they want to hear about. You will have to fight for access to their attention.

2) DIRECT ACCESS
No self-respecting manager or chief exec will accept intermediaries carrying forward their messages. We will all be broadcasters... Like this blog... Talking directly to our chosen audiences. (See also Podcasting - coming soon.)

3) NETWORKS OF INTEREST
In less than a generation almost all major organisations moved from line management to matrix management. We are now seeing a new kind of management emerging based on 'networks of interest'. Work is beind shared across functions, geographies and even between business (sometimes amongst competitors) based on the need and ability to deliver.

4) OBJECTIVE SHARING
Surveys consistently show that organisations are failing to get employees to understand business goals. Generally speaking about half tend to know what their business goals are. Fewer still know what they personally need to do to help reach them.

As a result of this serious communication issue managers have already started to find a "work around". Contracters and even full time employees will increasingly see companies hiring people whose personal objectives align with the job the company needs performed.

5) EBAY PROCUREMENT
The idea of setting up a mass production textile in the western world would seem daft in 2005. By 2010 we will probably feel the same way about graphic design work and many other professional services. Already there is little reason why large organisations couldn't clearly state their needs, certify a dozen companies and put whole swathes of discrete 'communication' projects out to tender. In the future they won't all be won in New York, Tokyo or Paris.

More soon.

/df

How do we stop talking rubbish?

What are we supposed to do when we are asked to 'socialise a document'?

Why do we insist on talking about 'learnings', and 'synergies', and saying something will be 'impactful'. About 10 years ago a friend in advertising told me he felt a new chocolate biscuits were a 'mouthfeel experience'. I told him he was mad. I was wrong. His client liked the idea, and last week I actually saw the word 'mouthfeel' in a totally unrelated, real advertisement.

What do these new words mean?

Some would say they fill a gap in our language. I am not so sure.

Like doctors and lawyers I think they are way of talking that suggest exclusivity -- and we think they make us sound clever.

They don't. We sound silly.

I have recently taken to explaining my job by saying 'I help companies talk to their employees'. How does that sound?

I am asking! There's a 'comment' capability on this blog for a reason.

Maybe someone can make the argument that differences of language is what makes ours a profession. As George Bernard Shaw said professions are "conspiracies against the laity". Some might argue that's a good thing.

Not me.

/df

Is it Spring in the M&A market?

Twice in almost as many weeks we have been called in to talk about some messy European M&As. Newspaper reports back up our experience that mergers are once again on the rise.

But it feels different this time from the rush to buy of the late 1990s, early 2000.

For one thing the companies are smaller. Companies with only a few thousand employees wouldn't have troubled consultants a few years ago.

And for another thing they are focusing on different things.

Last time it was all about value. Getting more for the shareholder. They weren't concerned enough about the transition of people or business continuity. It felt like CEOs putting their ledgers together and making snap decicions.

Corporate speed dating, if you will.

The lonely walk home, at dawn, in wrinkled party clothes, then followed.

Today it's different.

Communication is central to early planning. We are being asked how to make sure that the marriages work.

That's great.

And a major step forward.

But at the same time we are now seeing a frightening lack of attention to another key ingredient -- corporate culture.

'What is this organisation really like?'

Without studying, understanding and managing corporate cultures you are smashing two companies together without the tools they need to do their jobs effectively.

Think of it as akin to sending your top rowing team out to play hockey... with their oars!

/df

Should I stay... or should I go now?

I had a surprise visit from a friend today. "I quit my job last month," he said, with an amazing grin. "I was half way in to the office one day, when I stopped on a bench in Hyde Park and decided I wasn't going in to go to work any more."

The company was powerless.

But why do organisations let this happen? It's like running out of petrol on the motorway: "Didn't you read the dials? Didn't you know this was coming?"

Sadly most organisations have no idea about the motivation levels of their people. Managers and measurement either don't know or won't ask.

At the same time research on retirement says people want to work longer. While companies are trying to get rid of them. My amazing dad, who is still shy of 70, has found a new career as a social commentator and general rabble-rouser. I dare you to tell him to stop.

So, why do we find ourselves desperately trying to keep the young ones and lose the old ones? I suspect it's got a lot to do with the way we are managing people... the way we are talking to them. The listening that we are not doing.

/df

Change? "Non, merci!"

I am in France this week on holiday. Everything seems very quiet after last weekend's referendum on the EU constitution. It brought about a shocking revaltion to some: people don't like change.

My point is not to comment on European politics (I'm not that foolish) but to ask if there isn't a universal truth here somewhere?

I remember during one of the Canadian referenda that I worked on in the 1990's the federal government looked at length to see if there was a way they could ask a question where 'no' was the desired answer. People would rather say 'no'.

After the eventual No vote (we are 3 for 3 in Canada) research showed that a big motivator for how people voted was how they thought others would vote.

Which suggests another universal truth to me: People like to be lead. Most of us have enough trouble with our daily lives. When it comes to big issues we'll go with the crowd.

Especially if they are saying "Non, merci."

/df