Communication Ammo, by Sean Williams

In a review of the new book by Michael S. Malone, “The Future Arrived Yesterday,” in the Wall Street Journal, author Delves Broughton sees problems reconciling the continuing move to more virtual companies with employees stubborn desire for security and meaning in their jobs.

“The challenge now, for companies, is to manage ever more rapid change (not only the technological kind) and to satisfy the desires of workers who may favor security and stability as much independence or the freedom to hop from one job to another. In “The Future Arrived Yesterday,” Mr. Malone describes the “protean corporation,” an emerging thing of changing shape, hard-at-the-center, soft around the edges — a highly adaptive form of organization.”

At the heart of the book’s thesis is the thought that the modern corporation will be entrepreneurial, with a small core and a ‘cloud’ of freelancers and contractors surrounding the core. The role of the CEO will be to energize and guide, repeatedly, this cloud of people.

The implications for communication are obvious — first, will PR/Comms people be part of the leadership core, or will they be relegated to the cloud? If the CEO is in charge of inspiration and guidance, how will that change his or her relationship with external constituencies? How will the news media, fractured and niche-focused, play into the communication mix?

Virtual companies often struggle to build a sense of community within their ranks — and because that sense of belonging and connection to co-workers and one’s manager is essential to engagement (and to the exercise of discretionary effort — excellence), how can communicators help create it?

The future may well be virtual, but the issues that virtuality carries with it will challenge the communications function in these organizations.

Chuck Gose at Mediatile takes exception to the Gallup engagement surveys, in a post on his blog.

“Of course, every company wants engaged employees because, according to many employee surveys out there, these employees perform better, provide boosts in profitability, miss less days of work, provide better customer service, smile more, yada, yada, yada…Well of course engaged employees do these things. If people like what they do and/or where they work, they are going to take more pride in what they do and as a result provide better returns. What I’m beginning to wonder though is what impact does a company actually have on employee engagement. Those employees have made the choice to be engaged in their business.”

I agree that ‘engagement’ may officially be a buzzword at this point, but the term is a summary. The Gallup methodology is well-established, and to the extent that organizations make an effort to improve the processes and systems being measured, there can be real progress to making that organization a great place to work. And that organization will tend to perform better than its unenlightened peers, according to both company and independent research.

Chuck’s objective, of course, is to point out the role that effective communication plays in contributing to engagement — and in that, we fully agree.

In the May-June issue (members only) of IABC’s Communication World, author and marketing maven Merry Elrick explores ROI on communications, mostly from the marcom side.

She offers up a formula for calculating ROI (gross margin – communication investment)/communication investment = ROI (% total investment). Rightly, Elrick points out the limitations of that method — it only works when there is a direct relationship between communication investment and revenue. I’d add that there will always be disagreements about how much of the increased revenue, higher sales or cost savings was actually attributable to the communication activity in question.

Elrick also offers a list of marketing goals and associated business outcomes — but still makes a couple of leaps of faith. For example, does increased customer satisfaction result in a decline in customer service costs? Does brand loyalty increase long-term shareholder value?

I’d say the answer may be “yes,” but we won’t know without considering the other inputs to the outcomes she describes.

This is a peril in PR – the C-Suite is OK with our taking credit for outcomes within our control, but they tend to minimize their importance. We definitely need to prove the connection between communication outcomes and business incomes, and that’s why research, evaluation and measurement are critical.

We just need to have a better strategy than simply claiming credit.

In the May 10 edition of the New York Times, Zurich Financial Services CEO James J. Schiro reveals a novel approach to senior leadership communications. He actually does it. Himself.

Reporter Adam Bryant interviews Schiro on communication, and what with the use of YouTube for short messages, a PowerPoint theory that says, “Three slides, three points,” and a commitment to hire people with strong interpersonal skills (not only technical competence), Schiro makes me wish I worked for Zurich.

The mission of my blog is to comment on the communication universe and offer tips and techniques to help you improve your communications.  Don’t be surprised if my counsel seems simple — it is.  Most business organizations know what they need to do to communicate effectively, they just don’t do it.  My job is to help you think differently about what and how you communicate, and translate that thought into measurable action.

And, I beg your indulgence. This is a work in progress and very early in its genesis.

See you later.