I’ve been a regular reader of the New York Times’ Corner Office series, where they interview a senior executive, usually a CEO, about how they hire, how they lead and manage and what they do. There is a central theme that runs through literally all of these interviews: communication excellence.
Every exec talks about how important communication is to their work — both by them and with them. Of course, there is a bit of the “usual” about that kind of statement. No one would ever say, “communication is not important at all in my work.” But what I find striking about this observation is that ostensibly, we public relations people are the experts in communication, but get too easily dismissed from the leadership table. We are welcome during times of crisis (the one time, it seems, that the mahogany row types understand our value) but aren’t regularly consulted about the communication dynamics of decisions.
Additionally, financial pressures often lead to cuts in the communication staff that could help the company deal with the financial issues, particularly internal communication. It’s a fact that internal communication pros earn less than their media relations colleagues and tend to be lightly regarded. I’ve encountered this in my own career. I feel reasonably comfortable saying that generally, businesses don’t care about internal communication very much at all. They care about “getting the word out” internally, or “making sure we’re all rowing in the same direction.” But honest improvement in the process of communication within the enterprise? Not so much.
Why?
Some of the issue emerges from a distinct lack of communication curriculum in colleges of business. Marketing, management theory, finance and operations, but no communication theory that could help leaders understand their workers (and customers) better. More of the blame goes to convenient financial thinking. It’s easier to impose across-the-board cuts than dig into an income statement and excise the real waste, duplication and nonessentials.
One company had a largely decentralized communication structure that permitted significant duplication in communication infrastructure. Some such duplication is inevitable in a multi-national company, but why have 40-something different intranets, run on multifarious platforms? Why not unify newsletter design under a singular brand? This company really has no idea what it spends on communication, because the units are autonomous — the financials are opaque.
Canada’s Bombardier (a few years ago) published a paper newsletter that permitted regions to wrap their own around the corporate version. All the design elements reinforced the brand. You knew it was a Bombardier newsletter whether you were in Montreal or Dublin, Ireland. That kind of consistency is economical.
How about automating manual processes on the intranet? Sounds like it should be an easy sell, but companies look at the up-front costs and decide to forget it.
I fault us. As the putative experts, we should have a deep understanding of how moving communications levers will create value for the business.
But too many of us don’t have a clue, and that means, when the going gets tough, we’re the ones who get told to get going…out the door.