Good Internal Communications is a High Percentage Play

Merriam-Webster online defines logistics as “the handling of the details of an operation.”

UPS has a new commercial out now that I really love (of course it’s sports related), that features the Doug Flutie Hail Mary against the Miami Hurricanes back in 1984. And while that was a spectacular play, UPS’ use of it to describe and define what logistics means to them is brilliant. Strategy, teamwork, and execution … “That’s logistics. And that is what we do.” That’s a little different than Merriam-Webster.

Defining Internal Communications (IC) is a little trickier; Merriam-Webster doesn’t have an entry online and if you Google it, you get about 46,900,000 results (in 0.37 seconds no less!). Since this is my post, I thought I’d give you my definition of IC: Yes, IC is about encouraging communication – interpersonal, interdepartmental, vertical and horizontal – but it’s not just conversations, it’s about finding ways for the organization to do those things better. It’s about maximizing organizational effectiveness.

The best companies – and people too – are always looking for ways to improve: Ways to improve the bottom line/salary; ways to improve processes/methods; ways to become more efficient/ better time managers, and especially ways to reduce frustration. That last one applies equally to companies and individuals because nothing stifles productivity, creativity, innovation, and motivation like frustration.

That’s where an effective IC function can play a vital role in an organization. Internal communicators are constantly on the lookout for ways to improve the workplace and reduce frustration.

In The Enemy of Engagement: Put an End to Workplace Frustration – and Get the Most from Your Employees, Mark Royal and Tom Agnew define that enemy as frustration. To overcome that frustration, they outline the necessity of providing the tools to do the job properly and making sure good employees are put in position to make their greatest contributions.

It is through effective internal communications that organizations are able to uncover where the frustrations lie. Exposing those frustrations and finding solutions is at the heart of IC, because ultimately internal communications is about maximizing organizational effectiveness. And one of the keys to employee engagement is effective internal communications.

Accounting is busy handling receivables and payables. Marketing is busy trying to figure out the best way to find and target new customers. Sales focuses on closing that next deal. Content producers strive to present the newest and best information. Customer Service stands on the front lines making sure customer satisfaction remains high. New Product Development looks for the newest way to serve existing customers while also trying to attract new ones. And Human Resources tries to keep their heads above water with benefits, regulations, counseling, complaints, and maybe most important of all employee satisfaction.

Because all these people are busy with their “day jobs,” internal communicators can focus on the internal and external forces that stand in the way of people getting those jobs done to the best of their ability. The day job of internal communications is finding and eliminating frustrations and barriers to organizational success and improving the flow of information throughout the organization.

I was on site in Connecticut last week, and noticed two employees standing in an open, newly vacant area chatting. One was holding a bowl of cereal and the other was holding a cup of coffee. It struck me that an ideal complement to that area would be several high-top tables where people could gather and chat – it’s those drive-by meetings that are gold mines for companies. We should encourage impromptu employee gatherings where camaraderie is built and ideas are shared.

You see it’s not just about the communication itself, it’s about what we can do to make the organization communicate better. High-top tables, internal communication? Yep.

Here’s the kicker: There is no downside to striving toward a culture of effective, open communication – it truly is an everyone-wins proposition. The cost is low, the returns are high, people stay informed, collaboration increases, innovation soars and everybody wins.

And here’s another thing, and I’ve said this over and over, but the numbers don’t lie: Organizations with effective internal communications have higher employee engagement. Higher employee engagement leads to higher productivity and higher profit margins. That’s not opinion, it’s fact and there is a mountain of quantifiable research and empirical evidence to back it up.

So, since higher profitability and higher profit margins is the reason we’re here, why not make effective internal communications a priority.

However you define it, you can’t deny the effectiveness of good internal communications.

Just Say It!

I love to laugh more than just about anything, so I’m a dedicated reader of the daily comics in the newspaper. Yeah, I’m one of the last old timers still getting the paper delivered, but it helps me get my day started off on the right foot.

Now I don’t sit there in a loud guffaw (usually), but a good chuckle can be had on most days and that seems like a good way to start my day. Dilbert’s a good stand-by if all the others don’t come through for me, and Tuesday’s (Sept. 28, 2012) Dilbert was particularly timely.

The Dilbert characters Ratbert and Bob the Dinosaur are sitting at a table:

Ratbert: Let’s talk like idiots.
Bob: Ha ha! You go first!

Ratbert: Slap lipstick on the pig, put a stake in the ground, and view it from 30,000 feet.
Bob: That deliverable is actionable.

Ratbert: Wait … why do I suddenly feel like hiring you?
Bob: And why do I feel underpaid?

I wouldn't characterize it as idiot talk, but if you work anywhere near a corporate-type setting, you know how hilarious that is. If you don’t, you should read Get Fuzzy – those guys are usually good for a smile first thing in the morning too.

There’s been much written and said in the communications field recently about cutting jargon from messages and just saying what you mean, and this strip hit the nail right on the head. The funny thing about jargon is how quickly it seems to catch on.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about “low-hanging fruit” when they meant “the easy stuff?” And how about “space” when they mean “job” or “industry?” The first time I heard someone say, “How long have you been in that space?” I had no idea what they were talking about.

“Solutions” is another popular one. Like, “We’re your corporate printing solutions provider.” What does that mean? Are you a traditional printer? Are you in the copier business?

And the ever-popular, “At the end of the day,” which has many meanings including “When this project is done.” But according to the Office Life’s Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary it really means “The speaker would like you to know that he has a profound understanding about what is important and what is not.” Hmm, better watch usage of that one.

Everybody nowadays seems to provide solutions in their space. It’d be cool if they just did their job and provided products and/or services, wouldn’t it?

Of all of that jargon though, the one I like least is “smartest person in the room.” Like the others, it isn’t completely clear, and may oftentimes be a person’s opinion of themselves. In my experience, it’s usually said about someone who’s forceful, opinionated, typically inflexible and oftentimes overbearing – all of which would disqualify this person from smartest if you asked me. I'd say the smart ones are usually inquisitive, open-minded, willing to learn, and value input and feedback.

You’ve probably heard the old saying that, “Two heads are better than one,” right? Unlike corporate jargon/garbage/clutter, old sayings are old sayings for a reason: More often than not, they’re accurate, clear and true! This old saying is especially true when it comes to the smartest person in the room because that person definitely needs more input and feedback.

George Bernard Shaw said, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” Good communication is ongoing, clear and to the point.

Don’t let your message get confused because you got caught up in jargon. If you have something to say, just say it. Your audience will be clear about what you mean, and you’ll be free from the bondage of confusion and misunderstanding. It may make YOU the smartest person in the room.

Good Communication: It's Personal

I was listening to sports talk radio the other day (shocking, huh?), and Vanderbilt football coach James Franklin called in unexpectedly. This guy is one charismatic son of a gun. After listening to him, you’re hard-pressed to not like him – he’s one of the most positive, upbeat people you’ll ever hear – especially for a football coach. His enthusiasm is contagious.

He was talking about a lot of things related to his program, including how important it is for the Nashville community to rally around the Commodores. He made a case that a successful Vandy football program benefits the community as a whole. I was ready to buy season tickets by the time he was done!

For me though, the most impactful thing he had to say was about the importance of trust for his program to be successful: Trust between the coaches, trust between the players, and trust between the coaches and players.

And they go to great lengths to develop a culture that fosters what they’re trying to do as a program. They are deliberate in their transparency, their honesty, their development of relationships, and their openness to opinions and suggestions from players and coaches alike. Coach Franklin says those things are absolutely necessary for his people to function as a team and to be successful.

Aren’t those the same things that make all organizations sustainably successful? Why don’t more organizations do a better job emulating success?

We spend a lot of time talking about “best practices.” But what are best practices except tried and true methods others have used successfully? They all had a starting point, didn’t they? Someone, somewhere said, “What if we try this?” and it worked. Boom! New “Best Practice.”

It’s no different with good communications – internal, interdepartmental, external – there are plenty of accepted best practices that work great. But what they all require – all best practices – is the buy-in and participation of everyone in the organization.

Good internal communication doesn’t come “one size fits all.” It’s customized so that there are elements that fit no matter your communication style. Everyone isn’t comfortable with the same things: Some people are outgoing, while others are more reserved – they need different ways to give and receive information of all kinds.

I’ve talked a lot about the importance of good communication and how it’s imperative that it be a two-way, give and take relationship. Don’t be confined by the perceptions of others regarding the “right” way to communicate – do what you’re comfortable doing.

I’ve often said that the best wine and cigars are the ones you like best – not what someone else likes best. I believe the same about good communication: The best method is the one that works best for each individual, not necessarily what works best for me.

Here’s the thing though: It’s only going to be as good as we all make it. We have to participate, get involved and do our part –deliberately – to make good communication a reality.

Sydney Smith is credited with saying, “It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little – do what you can.” And Edmund Burke said, "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."

They are eerily similar, but I thought the sentiment was worth repeating.

Good internal communication, and the trust that it can develop, is important to all organizations – especially those with growth on their minds. Do what you can, even if it’s only a little.

Do The Things We Want To Do

My mom tells a story about how I came up to her when I was about 15 years old and asked her if they’d let me adopt when I got old enough. She said, “I don’t know. Why?” And I replied, “Well, I don’t want to get married, but I do want to have kids.” I don’t remember that exchange at all, but for as long as I can remember I wanted to have kids.

Well, I did get married a little over 23 years ago, and my wife and I have two boys – Tyler’s 18 and Sam is 15. Like most families, there have been rough spots here and there, but I can say I have enjoyed parenthood WAY more than I thought I would – and like I said, I was really looking forward to it.

One of the most frustrating things about parenting though is that your kids can’t learn from your mistakes; they have to make their own. The best we can hope for is that we raise them right, give them a good moral compass and hope they follow the right path. That sucks.

I remember when I was 18 (a looong time ago). It was great to know everything do only what I wanted to do (well, almost), and live the bullet-proof life that was my birthright. I also remember how much smarter I was than my parents. “No way that could happen.” Of course it usually did – I always learned things the hard way.

My 18-year old is still under the youthful illusion that he shouldn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to do, that any inquiry is an interrogation, and household rules are prison-like. I’m pretty confident that he’ll see the light eventually – most of us do.

So, Tyler’s getting ready to move out, Sam just had a birthday and I’m getting ready to have another birthday. They’re growing up – I didn’t want that to happen so quickly. But those three things got me thinking about what age does to our thought processes. (I haven’t had one of those birthdays that smacked me between the eyes, so this wasn’t like some “come to Jesus” revelation moment – just contemplative).

I thought especially about the idea that when we were young we oftentimes didn’t do things we didn’t want to do. Now we do things all the time that we don’t want to do – that’s part of being an adult and having responsibility.

What about doing the things we DO want to do? Why don’t we do more of those things? I’m not just talking about Bucket List-type stuff – although you should make time for those things too. I’m talking about personal stuff and even work stuff that we want to do but choose not do for one reason or another. Maybe it’s because even though you want to do something and know it’s the right thing to do, it’s a new direction or departure from the norm that might be a little uncomfortable.

Grey beards like me know that the only way to get comfortable with something uncomfortable is to do it. And it takes repetition to get comfortable doing new things.

We’ve been talking for the last 16 months about creating a culture of open communication, and I don’t recall anyone saying that it would be a bad thing. In fact, just about everyone seems to be in agreement that it’s a great ideal to shoot for. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be getting embraced the way you might think it be, and the only reason I can come up with is that it’s new, a little uncomfortable and maybe everyone’s waiting for someone else to go first.

Doing things we want to do is sometimes times harder than doing the things we don’t want to do. Open communication and the culture change that accompanies it is not easy, and there will inevitably be bumps along the way – there always is with change. Change is a dynamic evolution for an organization and it requires the participation of everyone to become reality.

A culture of open communication is an absolute necessity if organizations in today’s world are going to be successful. I read an article today that said by 2015 36% of the workforce is going to be comprised of millennials, and they are going to demand open communication in the workplace – and it won’t be long before they’re in a position to do just that.

I’m going to keep trying to coach my boys through the pitfalls and hoping they learn to do more of the things they don’t want to do. And I’ll keep trying to advance the culture of open communication. Experience tells me both of those things will lead to much smoother paths in the future.

Three Important Factors of Team Success

My 15U baseball team had a tournament last week in which we played pretty well through the first three games – we were 2-1, but really should’ve won the other one too. The temperatures in Nashville those days were 105 and 107 degrees! By the third day – the 109 degree day – we started to show some signs of wilting.

We had a manpower problem though – only nine of our 12 players were available for the tournament. And while that would normally be a challenge in a tournament anyway, it was especially challenging with those temperatures because we had no way of providing anyone downtime during the games.

Another problem that arises when you’re shorthanded is that you can’t always put your best people in their best positions – you have to do the best you can with the numbers you have. If you’re only playing a game or two, you can get by with a skeleton crew, but when your task is large, you need all hands on deck.

Needless to say, the combination of being shorthanded, ridiculous temperatures, and playing guys out of position was our undoing: We made it into tournament play, but then lost our first game. I think those things ultimately had an impact on our guys psyche too – when mistakes break your spirit early, it’s hard to recover.

It got me thinking about organizational teams and the importance of those three conditions in business:

• ·    Manpower: Proper staffing levels are critical. When people have more on their plates than they can handle, they tend to achieve acceptable, not excellent.
• ·    Good working conditions: This applies not only to workplace comfort and tools, but not having hostile working conditions either. As with team sports, encouragement oftentimes goes a lot farther that criticism, and having the necessary tools and conditions to perform is imperative.
• ·    Maximize talent: Let people do what they do best. I believe in a well-rounded player/worker who knows how the pieces work together to produce the whole. But I also believe everyone should play to their strengths – it benefits the team and the organization as a whole when well-rounded teams have experts doing what they do best.

These components are essential to success whether on the playing field or in the office. Teams and organizations can flourish or flounder in much the same way.

When you have a well-rounded, fully-staffed team, you get better input and therefore better output. You have the ability to give and get specialized thinking, unique perspectives, and hopefully more spirited discussion and better all-around group thinking.

More participation. More diversity. Better end results.

Confidence v. Arrogance - There IS a Difference

I’ve been coaching baseball for about 13 years – age groups from 4-year olds to 15-year olds – and I’ve come to appreciate a certain amount of confidence and cockiness in a player. It’s probably because with that oftentimes comes some sharp, sarcastic wit – and I LOVE that, even in kids.

I had a player about six or seven years ago who I love to talk about to this day. He played shortstop for me and he was our closer (the pitcher who comes in at the end of the games to preserve a win). I can’t tell you how many times I brought him into a game in a really tight situation – bases loaded, no outs, bottom of the last inning up by one. Yeah. Uncomfortable.

Matt didn’t care one bit – he knew he was capable of handling the situation and relished the opportunity to test himself. I don’t recall a time he didn’t succeed although I’m sure over the years there were some. But he delivered in the clutch consistently and always with a smile.

He was a big time travel hockey guy too, and he played baseball like a hockey player – 1000% everything, all the time. He was sharp as a tack – always with the snappy comeback and that twinkle in his eye. It was never disrespectful, but usually just a little left of center. Cocky and confident. He was also respectful to his teammates, and they willingly recognized him as a leader on the team, and had confidence in his ability to lead.

I had another player some years later who also had very promising skills on the field – especially at the plate. This guy could flat out hit. He also had a great deal of confidence in himself on the mound. And while he didn’t get the same consistent results as Matt, it didn’t seem to affect his image of self.

The difference between the second player and the first player is that the second player crossed the cocky/confident line to arrogance. He had a belief that he was better than those around him – including his teammates. That’s hard to coach, and hard to incorporate into a team setting. And because of his arrogance, he didn’t have the respect of his teammates.

On the other side of that fine line past cocky and confident where arrogance starts, it’s hard to communicate and collaborate too. And I don’t know anyone who relishes arrogance as a trait to admire, but I really loathe any kind of condescension – especially arrogance. Arrogant people seem to have a belief that the rules of comportment – in business and in their personal lives – don’t apply to them; that they are somehow above it all.

For me the difference between cocky and confident, and arrogant is this: Cocky and confident means I believe in myself. Arrogant means I believe I’m better than you.

I know that not everyone is comfortable with cocky, but there is a certain amount of self confidence that is necessary to be successful in life and in business. It’s the inner voice that says, “Bring on the challenge. I’m ready to test myself and make myself better. I can do this.” There’s a belief in yourself, and there’s a willingness and eagerness to continuously learn and improve yourself as a person.

On the flip side of that, I’d argue that arrogance stands in the way of progress because the arrogant person oftentimes doesn’t believe that improvement is necessary – he may even believe that improvement isn’t possible; I don’t know. What I do know is that no matter who you are there is always an opportunity to learn, and there is always someone who knows something you don’t know. Yes, there is always someone smarter than you.

Effective leaders, and those who wish to become effective leaders understand the concept of lifelong learning both personally and professionally. They have the self-confidence to be open to learning; the self confidence to admit they don’t know everything, and the willingness to learn from those around them – even those in subordinate roles.

Self confidence and a healthy belief in yourself is great. Arrogance and condescension may work for a while, but you’ll never truly have allies to help you succeed in life or business. Effective leaders not only have confidence (some with a dash of cocky), they also have another necessary ingredient – committed followers.

Satisfaction is Good, Engagement is Great

I was at my youngest son’s high school baseball game last night, and my wife and I chose to sit in seats that were somewhat away from the other parents on the team. We chose the spot not to be antisocial, but so that we could have a fuller view of the entire field – we hate obstructed-view seats!

After we’d been there for a while one of the other dads came over and sat down next to me and said, “Man, I wish I’d waited until you guys got here ‘cause I got my chair in the wrong place, and I don’t wanna be rude and move now. They’re all over there talking non-stop, and none of it’s about baseball; not even this game.”

It got me thinking about the difference between satisfaction and engagement (Yeah, I know. I can’t help it.)

You see those folks sitting over there talking were very happy to be at the game and socialize – and maybe even miss a play, hit, or pitch. That’s satisfaction.

For my wife (Chaney) and I, and that other dad, we’re happy to be there, and we’re willing to socialize between innings, but we don’t want to miss any of the action on the field. We’re not only there because our kids are playing; we’re also real baseball fans. That’s engagement.

Satisfaction is great and it’s a nice goal for companies to reach for – it means they care about their employees. But engagement is a difference maker. With engagement they’re not only satisfied, they’re giving that extra effort that turns into positive results on the bottom line for their organization.

Employee engagement is all about how the employee feels about the employer, and specifically the extra effort they’re willing to give.

That’s how you determine engagement – with that extra effort – not satisfaction, and that’s why companies with a higher level of engagement outperform those with lower engagement (or worse, disengagement).

The key with engagement is the reciprocal relationship between the two: What extra effort is the employer willing to give in return? If employees don’t have that connection with the employer, there’s virtually no chance for engagement.

That’s where managers come in.

Managers at all levels play a very important role in the engagement equation because they are the ones with whom employees (direct reports) have the most contact – to many employees their manager IS the company.

Good managers are in tune with their people and know how to motivate each of them individually. If they’re effective, that can lead to engagement and the extra effort that comes with it. The payback for managers is better personnel development, better unit performance and better company performance – it’s a can’t lose proposition.

It’s good to have satisfied employees. It’s great to have engaged employees.

If you want to improve yourself as a manager, ask yourself this question: Are my people there to socialize, or are they there to watch the game?