Posts Tagged ‘effective communication’

Employers shocked, shocked, that morale is low

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

In what can be described only as a stunning command of the obvious, a MetLife study shows that workers are growing restive as the economy rebounds from three years of struggle, and that employers are oblivious.

A story in the 28 March edition of USA Today quotes a psychologist saying that workers are stressed after watching co-workers get fired, being told to take on more work for the same pay, and longer hours. The MetLife veep is quoted (nice pop, MetLife PR!) saying that business’s understandable focus on financial matters has led to it ignoring human factors. It is pretty easy to be a “best employer” when the tide is in and Wall Street rocking.

There’s even an indirect from Towers Watson saying that companies are having a hard time “attracting employees with critical skills.”

How can any company say they’re surprised by these results? Add in a healthy dose of capitalist excess in the form of higher executive pay and you have a combustible mixture of anger and envy alongside the feeling that you need to leave to be appreciated.  During a downturn, people are OK with making less money — they indeed are just happy to have a job. After their sacrifice (which is how they see it), when the picture turns better, they expect to make up lost ground — the 3% raise isn’t enough — they didn’t get a raise for two years, so now they want 9% to pick up the slack. But Wall Street will punish any company that lets its fixed costs leap up like that!

Where’s a leader, though, who’ll redirect his or her whacking huge bonus to throw a bit more on the regular employee pile? How about a one-time 401(k) contribution? Maybe a small bonus to show the boss notices the dedication of the past few years?

If they can’t see how the tough stuff hurt loyalty and morale, they don’t deserve to be in business.

 

Share

Metrics on Relationships May Apply to Influence

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

Creative Commons

Influence has been on my mind for a while, and on Feb. 24, I posted a thought about using the methods recommended in a paper on measuring relationships by James Grunig and Linda Hon to apply to measuring influence.  The post of Feb. 28 looked at the first three of the six components of that relationship measurement strategy.  This one finishes off the list, but I’ll have more to write on this topic later on as this all percolates.

Continuing:

Commitment – The extent to which each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. Two dimensions of commitment are continuance commitment, which refers to a certain line of action, and affective commitment, which is an emotional orientation.

With no criticism intended, these last two terms are a little tough for me, so a bit of explanation. Affective commitment is the sense that the organization wants to have a relationship with me, there’s a bond between us, and I value this organization over others, so it’s my emotional perspective about that relationship. Continuance commitment if the sense that I see the organization’s actions in support of our relationship… I think.

This may fit with Twitter followers or Facebook friends. If my Twitter posse is retweeting and engaging me in discussion, I can conclude they’re interested in a relationship with me.  Their actions are the continuance commitment and my own feelings about them are the affective commitment.  This type of measurement seems like a good proxy for influence, as I can conclude that the absence of such commitment would stop influence in its tracks.

Exchange Relationship — In an exchange relationship, one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future.

Exchange relationships are the heart of commercial propositions. We pay someone for something and get it.  But, we could say that blog consortia could be evidence of exchange relationships – we agree to promote each other’s posts and comment on each other’s blogs in exchange with one another.  I am not sure whether the extent of that relationship is evidence of influence or commerce. {and not in a bad way, mind…}

Communal Relationship — In a communal relationship, both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other — even when they get nothing in return. For most public relations activities, developing communal relationships with key constituencies is much more important to achieve than would be developing exchange relationships.

This one’s the stretch, in my mind – organizations have an increasingly hard time convincing stakeholders that they’re really interested in stakeholder well-being. The management-employee communal relationship comes to mind. But on an individual basis, we could say that the maturity of social media depends on creating communal relationships online.  Actual friendship.  It seems like we’d need to see a low quotient of exchange relationship if the communal quotient is high for there to be solid evidence.

I want to explore this further – and I’d like you’re help… How do your own influencers (those who influence you) align with these elements (or not?) Does this make any sense at all to you?

 

Share

Measuring Influence ‘Might’ Use Relationship Metrics

Monday, February 28th, 2011

 

Creative Commons, by Brian Hillegas

I’ve been thinking again. Last time, I tossed out the idea that measuring influence might be gleaned from Grunig and Hon’s work on measuring relationships.  Usually, you need to get people to fill out a questionnaire to determine the quality of the relationship, but maybe looking at the public evidence is enough.  Here are three of the six elements, with comment following about the potential for adapting to qualitative influence measurement:

Control Mutuality — The degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another. Although some imbalance is natural, stable relationships require that organizations and publics each have some control over the other.

Think about that in context of online influence – being “Facebook friends” might imply a mutual influence, but being friends with an organization if one’s not a customer or other stakeholder wouldn’t seem to greet the same implication.

Still, the idea that an organization would change its behavior as a consequence of interaction with its stakeholders is the essence of Grunig’s Excellence Theory (two-way, symmetrical communication.) Retweeting on Twitter, and a content analysis of the @reply sequence (actual conversations) might lead to an index by topic – it could demonstrate the extent of control mutuality as a surrogate for mutual influence. The question is whether there’s enough in the stream to properly analyze.

Trust – One party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party. There are three dimensions to trust: integrity: the belief that an organization is fair and just … dependability: the belief that an organization will do what it says it will do … and, competence: the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do.

This, too, could be accomplished by content analysis, substituting individual for organization. Establishing the extent of trust could also indicate the opportunity for influential behavior, which could be apparent from the stream. We’d need to define the language trusted people use, but that doesn’t seem much different from a normal content analysis.

Satisfaction — The extent to which each party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced. A satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs.

This one’s tough – the nature of the relationship plays in to the analysis of satisfaction. Celebrities may make general comment about loving their fans, but is that a sincere platform for mutual satisfaction? Also, if the expectations are very low (as in celebrity culture, where the connection is, um, tenuous in reality but provides a simulation of a close relationship), does that negate the influence string?  My putative 14 year-old son may get his hair in a Beiber, demand I buy Beiber music and Beiber-esq purple garments, but is that influence or a phase? Or merely effective marketing?

Next post: the remaining three elements.

Share

Could Measures for Relationships Work for Influence?

Thursday, February 24th, 2011

What IS the formula for calculating influence?

This isn’t a stab at Klout. After reading a number of recent blog posts on influence, and participating in several of the associated discussions, I’m just weary of the chase.

My gut tells me that measuring influence is situational and specific.  You simply cannot look at tweet streams, numbers of followers, frequency of @ replies or retweets, number of Facebook friends, etc., and draw conclusions about someone’s influence, and there’s research that supports that idea.

Trey Pennington, Justin Goldsborough, Shonali Burke and Mark W. Schaefer are in the fray (and I’ve commented in a couple of cases), and I wrote my own post on the topic.  It’s been an interesting conversation split between the “Klout is useless” – “Klout is making a good attempt” and my fringe element rantings that we need better research to figure out how to measure influence.

The deal is that there are few independently researched efforts to investigate the claims of well-intentioned entrepreneurs.  There’s inevitably a black box that contains the algorithms and secret formulas, and no one wants to subject their potential cash cow to measurement that might render it an Edsel.

James Grunig and Linda Hon wrote a seminal paper about measuring relationships that might hold a key to figuring out how to measure influence.  To determine strength of relationships, they write, focus on six components: Control Mutuality, Trust, Satisfaction, Commitment, Exchange Relationship and Communal Relationship.  Coming up next week, a look at each element and how they may or may not apply to measuring influence.

BTW, I found out recently that my Technorati Authority score is 406. My Klout score is 46.  I have no idea what that means.  But I want to better understand influence, so I’m going to run this down for a while.

Share

Measuring Influence: 4 Learnings

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

Measurement isn't just bells and whistles

Measurement for its own sake is a waste of everyone’s time and money. It’s got to be in service of a strategy.

You might say that the foregoing statement is a canard; no one is beating down our doors asking us to just measure something, anything.  But there remain a feisty few, particularly on the social media side of the equation, who keep offering up horsepuckey in the guise of gold bullion.

Witness “4 Ways to Measure Social Media…,” a well-intentioned piece from last summer on Social Media Examiner. Author Nichole Kelly subheads the article with “exposure,” “engagement,” “influence” and “lead generation” — the “4 ways.”  Kelly’s on firm ground about exposure, pointing out the difficulty of a) getting good data and b) ensuring you’re counting only once, though equating reach to awareness is a colossal mistake.  Engagement,  too, is solid (if output-based), covering @replies, DMs, links clicked, comments and subscriptions. Good stuff.

Influence is listed third and lead generation fourth, showing exposure, engagement and influence as the top of the funnel leading to conversion.

The section on influence is underdone, and erroneously says tone (positive, negative, neutral) IS influence.  In fact, according to Yahoo!’s Duncan Watts, Winter Mason, and Jake Hofman, and the University of Michgan’s Etyan Bakshy, influence can’t be credibly determined from content analysis. Read all about it.

I heard Watts speak on this topic during the snowy last week of January at a meeting of the Institute for PR Commission on research, measurement and evaluation, of which I’m a member. Influence is a huge question, and Watts, et.al.’s work made me recall the somewhat hoary idea that understanding your specific audience (whether final audience or intermediary) is a lot more important than trying to calculate the exact number of impressions represented by friends of friends and retweet followers.

I pick on influence because it’s the biggest question in social media.  In fact, it’s been a big question in communication in general since the days of Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet and the two-step flow. Who are the “opinion leaders” and how do we calculate their effectiveness?

Here are four questions that hold promise when considering how to measure influence:

  1. Does the opinion leader “play” in the right sandbox for our intended audience/stakeholder?  Chris Brogan and Brian Solis have lots of followers, tribes that hang on their every tweet. Are their tribes our tribes?  They’ve got awesome scale by sheer numbers, but it’s anyone’s guess how involved they are or whether their followers in turn reach people we care about. We could get Brogan or Solis to talk about our service, product, leader or whatever, but to what end if their followers aren’t the right fit for us?
  2. Can we create a solid chain of links from the opinion leader’s actions to our desired actions?  If we’re working on building corporate reputation, retweets, Facebook “likes” and blog comments should have a relationship to opinions voiced by our final target audience. Simply passing along a leader’s statement (tweet, post, comment, etc.) shouldn’t be construed as adoption! Here’s where content analysis shows promise, especially in blogs and perhaps during Twitter chats. The opinion leader’s output should have some effect if he/she is truly influencing others. Note that this is a qualitative effort and suffers from lack of scale.
  3. Are we mistaking popularity for influence?  Celebrities routinely land atop the Twitter rankings, and there are brands on Facebook with upteen hundreds of thousands of “friends.” But having a lot of friends/followers just makes you popular. See #2 above.  We’ve long wondered about how to judge the effectiveness of influence in conventional relationships, but I don’t think many of us think the most popular student in high school was necessarily the most influential.
  4. Are we inappropriately drawing general conclusions from narrow findings?  Influence is personal and specific.  We make assumptions about readers of newspapers, TV viewers, etc., and have a body of research to back those assumptions up.  In social media, the appearance of influence may be mere output, or outtake at best. Outcomes outside of e-commerce are tough to come by, though clear objectives can solve this problem quickly.

The best measurement starts with research up front, which informs our strategy and objective-setting, followed by more research to determine effectiveness and progress toward objectives.  It’s not just tactical measurement designed to cover our butts or justify our budgets, especially when it’s trying to measure influence.

Share

Planes, Trains, Cabs, Buses. Waiting.

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

This is what 15 inches of snow in less than 24 hours looks like.

With the winter that the northeast US has suffered, I shouldn’t have been surprised that this week’s snowfall put a serious crimp in my little one-night jaunt to the City That Never Sleeps for an IPR Measurement Commission meeting.  Thank heavens for Jeremy and Alice, who welcomed me into their home for an extra night solo, and even fed me granola this morning.

Wednesday dawned to a wicked wind and big snowflakes. By 11 a.m., my 4:10 Continental Airlines flight home was canceled, rebooked to 7:30 p.m. But this snowstorm was a two-part invention in pain, and the second movement hit (sleet and freezing rain) just as the evening commute was starting. Colleagues on United and others got the axe, and I decided I’d rather spend another evening on Jeremy and Alice’s guest bed than run the risk of being marooned for the night in the comfort and luxury of LaGuardia Airport.

So, I rebooked for 10 a.m. Thursday, well after the snowmaggedon was due to end and with plenty of time to negotiate Manhattan’s buses, streets and subways.

Au Contraire, mon frere. We got about 15 inches in Central Park.

At 7 a.m., my 10 was canceled, Continental wasn’t answering its phones, the Web site offered no alternatives and I was sweating bullets. I Tweeted to @Continental pleading for help (followed them) and a  little later, they DM’d me asking for confirm and deets. In the meantime, I hied myself off to Penn Station, where Continental maintains a ticket office, by subway.  The office was closed, probably because the 15 inch snowfall on the island was about the same as the other boroughs and immediate vicinity. I boarded a New York Airport bus van (a private company) at Penn Station, went to Grand Central, got on a larger bus, waited for 40 minutes or so, then made a fairly easy jaunt to the airport.

At LaGuardia, the Continental staff solved my problem, crowbarring me into a seat on a 6 p.m. flight. Of course, it was barely 1 p.m. at the time, meaning I faced a long afternoon. Fortunately, the President’s Club has good wi-fi. I’m writing this from a cozy carrel.

So how did Continental do?  What could they do? As talented an airline as they are (thank you for maintaining a hub in Cleveland!), they can’t change the laws of physics and conjure up airplanes on the spot. They have to come from other places, and with basically a full day flights to re-jigger, they did what they could. It helped, I’m sure, to present myself here at the airport and talk to a real person (who was very nice and helpful.)

I wish that when they cancelled my Thursday morning flight, they’d rebooked me immediately, as they did on Wednesday afternoon. I wish they could have had enough telephone operators on hand that I could have learned my fate earlier in the day. But all in all, Continental confirmed why they are my airline of choice. I got treated with respect, the Twitter operator tried to help me out, and in the end, I’m on the way home.

I hope the new United does as well.

Share

Measurement Musing: Questions…No Answers…

Monday, December 20th, 2010

Public Relations measurement is so essential, yet so poorly understood. I’m sure it’s my bad that after gaining one client upon launching my business that focused on measurement, I haven’t had a second.  I’ve done some strategy work, some writing, and now am working on a  long-term project for a client that once again, has no measurement component to it.

I do wonder whether I’m just not the right person to help organizations measure — there are other, longer standing, better educated folks out there. Maybe it’s my destiny to stick in the internal communications space, rather than the measurement angle.  Of course, I try never to make life decisions any time from December through February — the seasonal affective disorder reaches its nadir (or zenith) as the winter solstice arrives and lingers through the cold, gray months.

I introduced measurement to my PR Tactics class at Kent State this fall — just a brief tablespoonful — I’m hoping that they remember it as they enter the profession. One thing’s for sure — they certainly had better measurement components in their final projects! Whoo-hoo!

This spring, I’m teaching a course in PR Metrics — so perhaps this is how I can drive measurement into our profession: give it to the kids who’ll replace the dinosaurs in a few years…

Speaking of which, I’ll be sourcing case studies in measurement — and entertaining guest speakers (either in person or by Skype) — so if you can help me out, let me know!

More questions:

Why do so many companies still see news media and social media as mutually exclusive instead of related?

When thinking about measuring social media, why we want to categorize it in the same way we do news media?

Why do we think reaching the most people is better than reaching the right ones?

Why do we want to define influence as only occurring through social media, and why do we so narrowly define it IN social media?

How come we can’t come up with a better means of determining appropriate scope and scale?

Why do people think the only marker of PR intelligence and value relates to external communication?

Why do companies fail to measure employee communication outcomes? Matter of fact, why do we still count clips?

Why am I thinking these hairy thoughts ?

Are these rhetorical questions? (No…)

BTW, don’t miss the Twitter chat, #MeasurePR with @Shonali Burke, Tuesday at 12 noon.

Share

Quote-fest on Ragan.com story

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

Say, while it’s still in the clear, have a look at a story on Ragan.com about jargon, featuring yours truly (and two #ICChat pals, @RJFarr and @Wheati) as the expert(s). http://bit.ly/dTQmJf

Share

Oy, such Tsuris!

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

I like running Communication AMMO, especially now that there’s actual REVENUE in the business. Thanks, David R.! In my Media Management course, we have to create a business, and I’ve created a Frankenstein monster. The thing is, it might be a good idea. So now I’m paranoid – should I actually make the business real, sacrifice untold thousands to try and build it, or just accept whatever grade I get and continue my march to academia? I already HAVE a business that’s (mostly) sucking cash amid hope for the future. I’m no serial entrepreneur. Feh!

Share

From Solitary to Social… Becoming a New Communicator

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

By Heather Marks

Heather Marks, Avery DennisonOver the last few years, a common theme has emerged when talking about the future of the communications profession: a shift from creating communication to enabling it.

That doesn’t mean that what I’ve spent years learning and practicing is worthless. To me, it implies that I now need to take everything I know and learn how to apply it differently.

Eeek!

Over the years, I’ve noticed that many employee communicators would rather wrestle with words on paper than engage in live conversation, much less negotiate with clients who think they already know what they want. Probably the toughest thing I’ve ever had to do is force myself to confidently push back and convince a client to stop long enough to consider taking a different approach.

That’s why I’m so passionate about measurement. If you can measure it, you can sell it to senior management! [Hear,hear! Ed.]

Add in the challenge of convincing a client that it’s time for them to learn something new to become a better leader and communicator… now that’s hard. And for me, the advent of employee social networking requires looking at everything I do from different perspective and developing completely new skills. It’s already time to move from enabling to… connecting.

Here’s what I mean. At Avery Dennison, we’ve rolled out a complete suite of social networking tools for employees as an add-on to our traditional intranet portal. Suddenly, employees are in control of the content –not me, nor our executives. Sure, we can still push messages out, but now those communications are in competition with the energy, creativity, hands-on expertise and passionate exchange of ideas that is occurring among employees, without our help. This meant we needed to change how we thought about, planned and did communications.

Our response

First, we relaxed our internal “corporate” voice to be more conversational and engaging. Frankly, that’s something that needed to happen anyway, and it has made employees stop and actually pay more attention to corporate messages.

Second, rather than expecting our executives to suddenly become expert social networkers – or even be experts ourselves – we’re mining the rich content employees are developing to highlight stories that best serve the company’s vision, objectives, values and leadership principles. We’re not eliminating corporate news stories or leadership messages, we’re just giving MORE space and attention to what employees at every level are saying – encouraging, elevating and celebrating the good work that’s already happening.

People move in the direction of the things they talk about. So, why not find the good “talk” that’s happening and get people talking about it even more?

This has fundamentally changed the work I do and how I do it. I write less than ever before – and I’m actually OK with it! For me, corporate employee communications is no longer about getting direction from business leaders and then sitting down alone to develop strategies and formal written communications. It’s about being curious about what other people are doing and saying, shaping a consistent and meaningful voice out of the communication noise – wherever it is generated — connecting ideas and people, and collaborating.

Not everyone is excited about or comfortable with the changes happening in our profession, and there is still plenty of room for those who prefer writing to socializing and connecting. But, I’m more interested in outcomes than output, and I’m excited to see how all of this plays out.

What about you?

Heather Marks is Director, Communications Technology, Corporate Communications, for Avery Dennison Corporation, the producer of consumer products, pressure-sensitive adhesives and materials.

Follow her on Twitter @HeatherLMarks, where she talks food (as the co-owner of Heather’s Heat and Flavor, the spice/sauce/salsa stores in Lyndhurst and Hudson, Ohio.)

Share