What does really advanced IC look like?
Sue and I were sitting in a bar the other night discussing this subject so what follows may not be as coherent as it sounded at the time.... I was starting a migrane but I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me!
We have a perenniel problem on Black Belt - we get people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a mix of experience. And we have to make sure that they all leave with a good experience. But we've always had a problem helping those people who hope there is a new Holy Grail of IC...
The problem is that I don't think there is one. When you think about what the "really advanced IC people are doing" it tends to be all about having sound systems, making links with the business startegy and helping leaders to lead.
That's it. Nothing too radical there is there?
We do spend a lot of time sharing the latest reserach we know about - drawing on a variety of sources including Melcrum's Strategic Reaserach Forum. and normally, with 20 people in the room, there is someone who can share a new insight into most of the topics we cover.
Yet there does seem to be an insecurity in our craft that we keep hoping to uncover a wholly new perspective on IC. But I'm coming to the conclusion that there isn't one....
I think that human knowledge moves in small steps for the most part - and occasionally takes big steps forward. This means that most of us won't see the difference between one small learning and the next. In fact, the normal state of affairs in any body of knowlege is movement so slow that it makes the average glacier look like it's in overdrive.
If you look at John Smythe's much awaited and excellent new book you'll see that he's still referring to a great deal of the good work that was done by his agency Smythe Dorward Lambert in the 1990's. Even Isaac Newton was keen to stress that he owed much of his discoveries to other the work of people who went before him - he said that his elevated status was due to the fact that he was standing 'on the shoulders of giants.'
The truth is that in IC, like most branches of human activity, nothing much actually changes that dramatically. If you think that somewhere someone is doing "really advanced" ninja-level IC you're probably going to be disappointed.
Maybe the advances in New Social Media are going to change the IC game but, for now, the really advanced stuff? It seems to mean sticking to doing the basics really well in support of clear objectives...
Or am I'm missing something again?
Liam
Ah Liam - that's the question that keeps my internal comms mojo going....
As a cycling I hope you can relate to my view. Graham Obree built a new bike which was different to the views of all the experts, and went against convention. He didn't come up with an alternative to the bike, he went back to basics and improved it.
At the same time - he had a gift for cycling and he worked incredibly hard at it. Regardless of his bike - without his talent, without his confidence, without his commitment - he never would have had the success.
So bringing that back to communications. We don't need alternative to the bike. The bike works fine, but we are still on penny farthings in most companies. The Graham Obree internal comms bike is one that is hand in hand with the business strategy, that focuses on action not propoganda, and fits the organisation.
But who is on the bike? I am no Graham Obree, and I can count on one hand the cyclists who I think are internal comms heroes. Where are the people who are in bed with the CEOs and the board, and making me think "wow" I want to be like you?
Advanced IC? It's a people thing. Holy Grail? It's a people thing. A comms channel is not going to stop CEOs in their tracks. Someone soon is going to do a Jack Welch, or a Martin Sorrell for Internal Comms - and then we get advanced IC,because we will get permission and support to do the basics well - and build the bike that wins.
Posted by: Mark Darby | January 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM
How about approaches from cultures radically different from ours?
Posted by: Timm | January 21, 2008 at 04:42 AM
I can't believe you nicked my blog post, FitzPatrick!
There's no advanced in my book. Internal comms is about problem solving. We very rarely have exactly the same business problem to solve, which means every time you have to think again about how to use the basic processes and tools to address the latest conundrum. (At least, I do). I can't think of a single example in my entire career where I haven't looked back afterwards and thought 'If I did this again I'd do x differently' or 'Maybe I'd try y'. Simple tools, not easy to apply well - not properly, REALLY well.
As we learn more, or things move on, we get new things to put in the tool box - like social media, like learning what other cultures do. I don't think those things are necessarily 'advanced' - I think they are additional tools.
Someone I have a huge amount of respect for and I class as one of the best people in the industry called me last week to ask what I did for my own development and if I knew of any 'advanced' courses. My answer was no. My development consists of reading lots, putting myself in unfamiliar situations I'm scared of, learning on the job (running Black Belt, line manager courses and always working on the latest Melcrum research piece teaches me loads) and every now and again learning a new skill - life coaching was one, and this year I'll probably finally get around to doing my MBTI accreditation.
But 'advanced' IC per se? Nope, I don't buy it. If there ever comes a day I can say I couldn't possibly have any more to learn about the basics, maybe I'll change my mind.
Posted by: Sue | January 21, 2008 at 09:02 PM
Great late night bar drinking conversation!
I have always believed the Holy Grail is getting the basics right.....and inspite of this time after time leaders and Internal Communicators miss the point!
Good food for thought!
Posted by: Kim England | January 22, 2008 at 03:46 PM
If I've understood you corectly Mark I think I disagree.
It would be interesting if a radical new approach emerged but I think yearning for a saviour is one of the things that hurts many of our fellow professionals.
I'm with Kim - getting the basics right is the way forward. Do that and you don't need someone to shift the paradigm (sorry Sue).
Liam
Liam
Posted by: Liam | January 23, 2008 at 06:15 AM
Excellent - not enough IC people disagree on things.
I don't see it as a single person, although I believe it to be a knock-on effect, but just some serious support from heavy hitting CEOs. I honestly don't believe we have that yet.
I am in full agreement with getting back to basics though as that is what the CEOs will say. They are not going to talk about social media, or the outsourcing of operational communications. Are they going to talk about having personal dialogue with employees so they can turn the strategy into action, give the company a greater competitive advantage (or whatever the current business focus is) and improve the bottom line.
I would love to see Sam Hodlin comment on this - because I know he is a huge fan of 1 page comms plans, 3 messages, a few channels. He does basic very well. In fact - I might just email him!
Mark
Posted by: Mark Darby | January 23, 2008 at 09:43 AM
To some degree, Liam is guilty of playing the odds here. It's hard to suggest that there is a fundamental innovation coming in IC without him following up to say "what is it then?" Trouble is of course, if I knew exactly, then we'd already be doing it and it wouldn't be that advanced.
However, I'll go out on the limb and suggest that the radical change in IC will be propelled by social media and it will be the understanding that IC should not be separate from the process side of IT. That the flow of information around the organisation should not be arbitrarily divided into "business analytics" and "social community and people management" departments, but these things have to be examined and built together.
How? Well I'm still working on that.
In the meantime, the other innovation won't be just learning from other cultures, but recognising the number of cultures within the organisation and developing techniques to address that. This of course also links into general media theories about the fragmentation of the audience. And no, social media won't make this problem go away. (And yes, this is a plug for my current work ideas!)
Posted by: Indy | January 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Having my cake and eating it? Surely not?
My idea is that we probably know - in terms of practice - how to IC. But the circumstances in which we do it will change.
So to Indy's point (and probably to Timm's as well) workplaces are bound to evolve; we may have to change our thinking about cultures or technologies may redefine how we relate to each other. Global economic collapse may finally happen...
But the practice of good IC is probably able to cope as long as we stick to the basics - good execution and good planning.
OK, we still need to develop in the areas of segmentation and evaluation, but the essential paradigm is still robust.
And I'll be the first to applaud if someone comes-up with some real game-changing innovations...but right now?
Liam
Posted by: Liam | January 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I couldn't resist this one--I've published a reply on my blog: http://CommsOffensive325.blogharbor.com
Are you going to EuroComm?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Klein | January 30, 2008 at 10:44 AM