Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

It's quite a bug bear of mine that, as a profession, we often seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Activities are deemed good/bad, in/out - a bit like those lists you get in women's magazines about 'what's hot and what's not.'  Some examples would be:

• IN - strategy                         OUT - tactics
• IN - engagement                    OUT - raising awareness, giving
                                                     information
• IN - consultancy & coaching     OUT - crafting and drafting

Nothing against those things on the left. I'm all for them. But we have this nasty habit of  assuming that because one thing is 'in', the other thing has to be 'out. There is no in between. 

I think I'm a reasonably competent communicator (no corporate plugging intended) but I still find myself questioning whether the solutions I'm recommending are too 'tactical'. Or feeling guilty because I happen to like writing. Or wondering whether people will look down their noses at a conference if I'm not speaking about scenarios that could genuinely be termed examples of engagement.

Then I give myself a good slap and remind myself not to fall into the 'either/or, in/out' trap, because the things on BOTH sides are important.

• Tactics for the sake of tactics ('we have a newsletter because it's al ways been there') - thumbs down.  But strategy on its own goes nowhere. Strategy sets the direction and should drive - surprise - what tactics to use. Tactics are how strategy gets brought to life.
• Consultancy and coaching - yep, great, all for it. But crafting and drafting too - one of the most important skills valued by CEOs in Melcrum's recent research into what CEOs want from their internal comms people. Their companies have complex strategies, they want people to understand them, they need comms people with good messaging, crafting and drafting skills to make them simple, memorable and understandable.
• Engagement. Yes, if you want people to change attitudes and behaviours, you need to choose tactics from the top of the escalator which involve people. If you just need them to understand something, having a conversation with them will probably work fine. If you just need to raise awareness about something, telling them is OK. Honestly. And sometimes, 'just telling people' something - well - can be incredibly difficult and takes skill and persistence. Ask anyone who communicates with dispersed employee groups who hardly ever get together face to face, have no access to a computer and never stop anywhere for long enough to read anything.

Just wanted to put my two penneth in on this one.

Sue

PS I had to smile at the message that came up from istockphoto.com when I bought the baby photo:  "Purchase small child." !

 

Comments

[Lee Smith, Gatehouse]

Sue

There's a really interesting parallel here with the world of HR.

At the last CIPD conference the HR profession took a real bashing because of its new found obsession with everything strategy.

In his opening address Royal Mail chairman Allan Leighton said that "too much time is spent on strategy [which] only accounts for 20%". He went on to say that execution is the most difficult thing and that's what makes winners win. It seems that in its hunger to reposition itself as a strategic function, HR is losing sight of the basics -the very things that business leaders want it for.

Sound familiar?

I can see this happening in internal comms too - as our profession matures we're all so busy fighting to be accepted and taken seriously by the board, that we're letting go of our 'bread & butter' tactical skills.

I agree wholeheartedly with you - tactical implementation is just as important as strategy, crafting and drafting just as vital as coaching the CEO.

Let's not lose sight of this in our rush to the top!

Lee
www.talkingic.typepad.com

[Mark Darby]

I have to agree with both Sue and Lee on this one.

Sue - it's even in my coffee stained BlackBelt book that one of the most important things you can do for your CEO is deliver the basics well. Get that right (each and every time) and doors open faster and quicker for things like strategy.

Lee - I went to the CIPD Reward conference last week and it seemed like 70% of the presentations were on Rewards Strategies for the next decade. Isn't it better to spend more time communicating to your employees on reward rather than what might happen in 10 years time.

[Mike Klein]

Great revelation here--those seeking to move the Internal Comms profession upmarket are doing so by shedding that which allows us to add the strategic value we do add.

But for me, the shift that's required is not one away from tactics and skills, but one towards a more powerful orientation--about where we focus our combined arsenal of strategic and tactical skills.

In my view, way too much energy in internal comms is focused on trying to communicate with whole organisations or to position leaders/senior managers in so doing. Way too little is spent on identifying the people who really make the difference, and in channeling communication, energy and resources towards shifting those people so
that the others around them follow.

And the good news--the ability to understand how leadership, energy, and communications flows in an organisation is a skill rather than some divinely-imbued attribute. Whoever can start teaching this skill so that their students really get it may yet transform this profession.

[Sue]

There's a good debate going on about this over on Lee's Talking IC blog too - in fact I got confused and referred to your post, Mike, in my comment on Lee's blog. Whoever reads my comment will be thinking 'What's she talking about? (happens to me often!)

Mark - yes, absolutely true. I remember my CEO yelling very loudly just before a leadership conference when he noticed a mistake on one of his slides. Afterwards, one of my team said "HOW can you work with him?!" But I was just kicking myself for leaving the checking to someone else. As they say, 'trust is won by many actions and can be lost by one'. (I don't know who said that, but I read it years ago, and I've remembered it ever since).

Mike, are you talking about knowing who the important stakeholders and influencers are and seeing how things spread through networks? I am on the lookout for case studies on exactly that subject right now, so if anyone knows of any, please mail me on sue.dewhurst@competentcommunicators.com

[Jasbinder]

Sue, interesting that you frame it almost as an 'either/or' situation - and I hope most front-line communicators don't see it that way. I think the list of what's 'in' reflects the fact that increasing numbers at C- and D-level are coming round to the thinking there is a link between effective communication and the bottom line. But to get to that point has meant that those that have the ear of these executives have had to re-frame the conversation using a more relevant (high-level) approach. In many cases, the excitement around E2.0 has acted as a trojan horse to talk about how and why businesses communicate. This can only be a Good Thing. Your list is accurate, but a snapshot in time. If communicators stopped there and didn't follow through with the 'doing' part of the equation, then this hard-fought opportunity would be wasted.

[Sue]

Hi Jasbinder,

I think we may be saying the same thing ...except that in my experience many people DO see the ins/outs as an either/or. When Liam and I carried out our research into our competency framework, many heads of communication told us that when people in their teams were promoted, they thought it meant they could now just be 'strategic' and wouldn't have to do any 'doing' any more - because tactical work was for junior people.

I'm actually arguing that both sides of the equation are important and it shouldn't be an either/or - that's precisely my point

[Mike Klein]

Case studies? I'd kill for a few myself--this research, though obvious, has so far proven tough to get companies to commission (as it may reveal information they aren't prepared to handle)... There's a guy named Mark Reynolds who was with an outfit called CatalystUK which focused on a particular Social Network Analysis tool--he might be a good starting point.

[Sue]

Great - thanks Mike. I'll try getting in touch with Mark.

[Kieron Shaw]

I believe this is a vital discussion for our profession to have right now.

I think we all agree that both sides of the equation are important. The key point of Sue’s piece for me, which should not be missed, is that while the 1990s/2000s message to “focus on strategy, not tactics” (while necessary to drive IC away from focusing ONLY on tactical deployment) was not only (a) obviously hugely simplistic, which is fine … but (b) that simplicity has led, really worryingly, to it now becoming a blind mission statement for an awful lot of the profession – intoned robotically and endlessly by those who use it think it is a black-and-white truth, rather than a useful guidepost.

So the function has almost become a victim of its own skill at “spinning” the message to its own people. New ICers coming up through the profession (or those who want to be seen to be “talking the right game”) chant it like a mantra, without even thinking about it. They’re so inculcated with the message, not its meaning, that they often honestly do think that even saying the word “tactic” equates to incompetence.

Equally, therefore, it’s got to a stage where even talking about the nuts and bolts of the profession – crafting, drafting, media management, etc - is now genuinely seen as heresy by a vast number of communicators. If a communicator extols the virtue of a particular tactical approach at a conference, the Pavlovian response of 90% of the audience is to moo loudly and disregard everything they say. It would be taken as de facto proof that their work was worthless.

If we are to build a truly skilled pool of IC professionals for the next generation, we need to spend more time now making sure they understand the subtlety of that message – that strategies give you direction and a business-centred- focus… but it’s a deep understanding of the right tactical armoury that will get you to the strategic goal; and that, when all is said and done, your CEO values you most for being able to use your unique combination of expertise in language, persuasion, media management and employee psychology to take a complex situation in a complex organisation and make it magically resonate with everyone.

Talking “strategy” and “engagement” to approval from the board is one thing – just make sure those in your own team who are listening to you don’t think that’s all there is to it.

Anyway, that’s my two penn’orth.

[Kieron Shaw]

Whoah. That was actually more like two hundred penn'orth, now I see it all in one go...