Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:17 — 23.0MB) | Embed
Communicating news to employees used to be a straightforward proposition: Publish the company newspaper or magazine, and give everyone the same information at the same time. Today, communicators can target news by audience, location, channel, source, and relevance. But the greater challenge is deciding what qualifies as news and what you hope employees will think, feel, or do after receiving it. In this episode of “On The Same Page,” Shel Holtz and Mark Dollins discuss why employee news cannot be one-size-fits-all — or a one-and-done — and explore the importance of timing, sequencing, trusted voices, employee influence networks, and planning for what happens after the announcement.
Raw transcript:
Shel Holtz: So, Mark, I don’t know about you, but when I got into this business, communicating news to employees was what employee communication was all about. Was that true for you?
Mark Dollins: Yes, exactly right. Often, it was one size fits all: Hit that button, and now everybody knows. It was really simple.
Shel Holtz: My first job was with an energy company, ARCO, which doesn’t exist anymore. It was acquired by British Petroleum after I left.
An interesting story: One of the people I knew who was still there—Dave Orman, who ran the department—said someone at BP who had been with another company it acquired asked whether he knew how to pronounce his company’s name. I think it was Amoco. Dave said, “No, how do you pronounce it?” He replied, “BP. The Amoco is silent.”
Mark Dollins: Clever. I like it.
Shel Holtz: Just to give you a heads-up about what it was going to be like.
We had a newspaper. Sometimes it was eight pages; sometimes it was 16. Every Friday, it was delivered to all 55,000 employees in the company. Everybody got the news, and everybody got the same news.
Today, there are organizations doing internal communication that don’t actually have a news vehicle. They don’t communicate the news. They’ve shifted entirely to a proactive, strategic approach to communication.
Mark Dollins: We may have been separated at birth, because my first corporate job was also with an energy company. Our communication to employees was a monthly magazine—anywhere from 32 to 38 pages. To your point, everybody got exactly the same news and information at the same time.
There really wasn’t a sense of urgency. Communicating news meant communicating what we decided was news employees needed to know, when we decided they needed to know it.
Things have changed considerably with the advent of social media and immediate communication. Of course, there also used to be a wall between internal and external communication. You could get away with some things. That’s not possible anymore. That wall is invisible.
Shel Holtz: I remember when I was at ARCO, Dave brought Roger D’Aprix in to speak to us. I believe he was with Xerox at the time. Roger was pushing this whole notion of proactive communication: You communicate to prepare employees for what’s coming, ensure they are aligned, and make sure they know what they need to know to understand and support whatever is about to happen.
Everybody on the ARCO staff, with the exception of the graphic designers, had a daily newspaper background. We were all newspaper reporters. That was what they wanted—people who could report the news.
There was pushback against what Roger said: “You mean we’re not going to report when the Trans-Alaska Pipeline terminus station blows up and kills three employees?”
You do need to report that, but you also need to be proactive. Today, though, let’s talk about news.
Mark Dollins: Indeed. How we communicate news today is critical. While one size doesn’t fit all in communicating news, I believe it is important to apply a strategic filter when deciding how to report it.
Shel Holtz: Do you want to report absolutely everything that goes on? Even in public journalism, you don’t report everything that happens. There are editorial decisions. What is news?
Mark Dollins: That’s the most basic question: What is news? What makes people interested? What is going to produce an “Aha!” rather than a “Ho-hum, I’m not interested”?
Shel Holtz: Of course, news in an organizational or internal communication context is not necessarily defined the same way it would be at the Los Angeles Times or The Wall Street Journal.
Mark Dollins: Remember all the filters you were supposed to apply in journalism school—proximity, timeliness, relevance, and so forth? Some are applicable here, and some less so.
For global companies, proximity may not be geographic. The connection may be that my company’s name is involved. That gives it some relevance.
Shel Holtz: But what’s relevant to an employee in Paris working in sales is not necessarily relevant to an employee in Peoria working in a manufacturing facility.
When we started—with your monthly magazine and my weekly newspaper—the technology limited what we could do to tailor the news to different audiences. Today, that is drop-dead easy.
Mark Dollins: Exactly. We can repackage and repurpose it for the channel we choose.
Shel Holtz: You can deliver news to the people who will be interested in it or whose jobs will be affected by it, without bothering somebody who is going to look at it and say, “Why are they sending this to me? This has nothing to do with me.”
Mark Dollins: When you’re faced with a “news item” for your organization, what filters do you run it through? How do you decide whether and how to treat it strategically?
Shel Holtz: We have established employee profiles. I had wanted to create profiles forever, but we didn’t have the resources or time to do it right.
Then I attended a conference where Andrea Greenhous was speaking. I think you were at the same conference—the PRSA Internal Communications Conference in Atlanta.
Andrea talked about three profiles she uses: hard to convince, hard to reach, and everyone else. I expanded on that. I think we have five profiles based on those three.
That’s one filter we use: Is this someone we really need to convince, or someone who merely needs to be aware?
Another filter is what the news reinforces. We tell stories that reinforce our core values. We have six core values, which I think I could actually name if I were pressed. We have a strategic plan with four planks, and we have a purpose statement that expresses our higher calling.
Through our storytelling and news reporting, we try to reinforce those things. We tell stories demonstrating that we are true to our values and that we are making decisions consistent with the planks of the strategic plan.
Mark Dollins: And consistent with your earlier point, your purpose.
That’s where many organizations miss the boat. Even when they have legitimate good news—“We’re launching a new product” or “We’re acquiring this company”—they explain the mechanics of how it will work but miss the opportunity to say, “This is how it supports our purpose, our whole reason for being.”
If it connects to a specific strategy, explain that: “We’ve said we’re going to expand into these adjacencies as a strategic priority for the next three or four years. Look at how this action accomplishes that.”
Sometimes, when you dig just below the news, you wonder why anybody would care, because no connection has been made to the organization’s purpose, mission, or strategy. As internal communicators, we have to think about the application and relevance to stakeholders.
Shel Holtz: Obviously, there will be news stories without a clear connection to one of those things, but they’re so big that you must communicate them anyway.
Before we started recording, we were talking about announcing a new CEO. That may happen because your succession plan has kicked in and the existing CEO is retiring. It could also happen because the CEO dropped dead of a heart attack or was removed by the board under questionable circumstances.
Mark Dollins: This ties to what we discussed on our last podcast about change and change management. The way we treat news cannot be one and done. We have to consider the impacts: What’s the aftermath?
A new CEO could signal an entirely new direction for the executive leadership team and other high-priority areas of the company. If you’re going to announce the news, you need to think about whether something else should follow immediately or fairly quickly.
“How do we communicate the news?” is the easy question, in my opinion. You decide whether it is news and then determine how to get it to the appropriate internal stakeholders.
But if we’re not asking, “And then what?” we’re going to miss a significant opportunity, especially with bigger news items such as a new CEO, a major acquisition, or something signaling a seismic change in the direction of the company or industry.
It isn’t simply, “How do we communicate the news?” It’s, “How do we communicate the news, and what happens afterward?”
Shel Holtz: Exactly. This is one of the challenges with hiring newspaper reporters to become internal communicators.
In public journalism, you communicate something because it happened and is relevant to people who live in the area. That doesn’t fly in internal communication. You have to consider what you want from employees after they become aware of the news.
Ed Robertson at FedEx developed a model with a horrible name: the Pyramid of Communication Quality.
Mark Dollins: Rolls off the tongue.
Shel Holtz: It sounds like something from a 1940s textbook, but it’s based loosely on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
He said most executives—and the communicators they hire—think they can start at the top of the pyramid: “What do you want me to do as a result of reading this?”
But you have to move through several steps first. The communication must satisfy logistical requirements. A good example of a logistical failure would be: “Yes, we sent you the news. The news was about a change in benefits providers, and we got it to you a week after the benefits-enrollment deadline.”
Mark Dollins: Gee, thanks.
Shel Holtz: After satisfying the logistical requirements, the communication has to capture your attention. What captures the attention of someone who goes down into a mine will differ from what captures the attention of someone sitting in a boardroom.
Once it has your attention, you ask, “What does this have to do with me? Why should I pay attention? Do things improve for me as a result?”
Only after satisfying those requirements can you get to, “What do you want me to think, believe, or do?”
Mark Dollins: Your example of communicating benefits changes after they’ve already been implemented also raises the issue of timing and sequencing. Sometimes there are advantages to carefully sequencing how you communicate news.
I recently had a conversation with a dear friend about a major symphony orchestra in this country that decided earlier this year not to renew its conductor’s contract. The board of directors and CEO certainly have the right and responsibility to make that decision.
But it appears the news wasn’t communicated to internal stakeholders—namely, the orchestra’s musicians—with much thought. The musicians learned their conductor would not be returning at the same time the press release went out to everybody else.
The problem was that the musicians liked this person. They got behind him and mounted a campaign to save his job. When I saw them recently, they were wearing red carnations. I asked what that was about, and my friend explained the situation.
They are all members of the musicians’ union, so they can organize and communicate in a coordinated way. It also appears insufficient thought was given to what the outgoing conductor could say or do. He took advantage of that and communicated some things on his own.
When internal communicators are brought to the table, we may receive the press release, but we need to ask about the implications for internal stakeholders.
What are the rules of engagement for the outgoing conductor regarding what and how he can communicate? When is the announcement going out? Who is being notified, and when? What can we offer to help make the process go more smoothly for everyone, including the musicians who clearly care about this person?
Communicating the news is a simple concept. But if we don’t consider the aftermath and its impact, we may create our own problems.
Shel Holtz: They didn’t do the incoming conductor any favors either, did they?
Mark Dollins: Good luck finding someone who wants to walk into that situation. That’s going to be a challenge.
Shel Holtz: This gets to the argument I keep hearing that there is no longer a distinction between internal and external communication because the lines have blurred.
The argument goes: You send out the press release, it gets published, and everybody reads the same thing. Why do we need to communicate separately?
The musicians’ response speaks directly to that. This is exactly why you do need to communicate separately. Roger D’Aprix refers to employees as “informed insiders,” and that’s why you need to treat them differently.
Mark Dollins: We’ve seen the rise of employee activism. Employees get behind an issue or topic—rightly so in many cases—and suddenly they aren’t merely complaining to their bosses. You may have a shareholder proposal authored by employee activists.
Thinking about the aftermath of news and how we communicate it isn’t merely a nice thing to do. It’s a central and important responsibility.
Shel Holtz: Or you could have 20,000 employees walk out. That’s another possibility.
Mark Dollins: There’s that. There is also talk of a strike in the situation I mentioned.
Shel Holtz: Really?
There was certainly the case of Wayfair, which was selling furniture to ICE detention facilities. That led employees to revolt. Then there was Google, where 20,000 employees walked out in a coordinated labor action.
Google fired the communicator who helped organize all of that. She now has a book about the experience.
Mark Dollins: I’m guessing she’s making more money from that than she did in her former job.
Shel Holtz: That may be true, but I’m not sure firing her had the positive impact Google thought it would.
Mark Dollins: We should also think about whether there are champions we need to engage or pre-engage to help communicate the news. That’s a change-management concept.
It isn’t just about the press release or the announcement in the internal house organ. If this is big or significant news, let’s give it appropriate attention and equip the right people to help deliver the message in ways a digital or printed document can’t.
That includes providing context, conveying emotion, and engaging people. It’s a far more effective way of showing that we care about how the organization responds to and engages with the news than simply saying, “Here it is. Talk to you later.”
Shel Holtz: I know organizations that have mapped their influence networks and tap into the appropriate network for each type of communication.
Mark Dollins: Smart. And don’t forget the derailers. We need to know both ends of the spectrum: Who is going to help us, and who is likely to become the voice of the opposition? Perhaps we can bring those opponents around to a different way of thinking.
Shel Holtz: Another drawback of the transition from newspaper reporter to internal communicator is the tendency to think every article—and all the news we share—must be a work of journalism. That was all there was for us before.
It doesn’t have to be that way anymore. We have multiple channels and multiple ways to distribute information.
Mark Dollins: Those channels are designed to handle information differently. Some can accommodate a boatload of material. Others give you only a limited number of characters, with the option to dive deeper elsewhere.
That’s the beauty of much of the digital communication we do. It isn’t one size fits all in terms of either the end user or the channels we use to reach them.
Shel Holtz: Some of it can be visual. I can tell a story with a photo and a caption and not need anything else, if the story can be contained there.
The other question is: Who is telling the story?
I recently saw data—it may have been from Gallagher or Poppulo—indicating that people decide which news they’ll pay attention to based on who sent it.
Was it the CEO? Was it their manager? Was it the internal communication team? When you advise clients, is the source of the news a consideration?
Mark Dollins: Of course. Whose voice matters?
If you’re going to use the CEO’s voice, it ought to be a pretty important piece of news. Otherwise, you misuse the CEO’s voice, and over time nobody pays attention because it has been overleveraged.
In other cases, a subject-matter expert with credibility—or even a third party—may be a great way to get people to pay attention. Employees may think, “I haven’t heard from this person in a while,” “This is a pretty senior person,” or “This person has a great deal of expertise in this area, so I’m going to pay more attention.”
Again, it’s situational. It requires us to think—that’s what we’re paid to do. We must consider whose voice matters and how stakeholders will react.
That’s still not one size fits all. One voice may work well in one part of the organization or for a particular type of message. In other circumstances, a second or even third voice can add credibility and acceptance.
For relatively minor news, one voice may be plenty. But for something bigger, perhaps you have analysts discuss the power of combining your company with another company. Now you’re adding credibility based on the voices you choose to help share the news and the story surrounding it.
Shel Holtz: I know organizations that overcompensate for this, too. Back in my consulting days, I had a client that never wrote a news article. It didn’t have a vehicle for communicating news. Everything came from an executive, and the communication team ghostwrote all of it.
I asked, “Really? You don’t have a voice of the company you can use to share basic, ground-level news?” No. Everything came from an executive.
Mark Dollins: That’s unfortunate. We talk about brand personality and all the components that make a company a brand and a brand a company. Those are opportunities to leverage the company’s voice without necessarily attaching a human being to it.
Again, it’s situational. We have to be thoughtful about it.
Shel Holtz: I want to return to targeting for a minute.
Not only can we get relevant news into the hands of the people for whom it matters, but we can also get hyperlocal with it.
I’m a big fan of Jeff Jarvis. I read his book about what the news industry needs to do to become relevant and profitable, and I think he’s spot-on.
He says that if you want the news to be relevant to me, don’t tell me only what’s happening in my city. Tell me what’s happening on my block.
I want to know whether there is a road closure that will keep me from getting to work. I live about two miles from the Concord Pavilion, a large performing-arts venue. Our main thoroughfare, Ygnacio Valley Road, is frequently backed up because of concerts. Tell me that this road, which is two-and-a-half blocks from my house, will be backed up from 1 p.m. until midnight.
Mark Dollins: Exactly. I may need a loaf of bread and some milk, and I don’t want to spend an hour and a half getting them. Do your part as a good community neighbor and tell me the news that affects me.
Shel Holtz: We have the ability to extract that information. AI can help us automate the process to some extent and get local information to the people who need it.
We could talk about news all day, but we’ve been at this for a while, so let’s wrap it up. Any last thoughts, Mark?
Mark Dollins: Being strategic in how we communicate news is a critical component of any employee communicator’s role.
It isn’t one size fits all. We should use the tools available to make news hyperlocal, present it in the right voice, think about sequencing, and—most importantly—consider the aftermath. Those are the critical elements we need to address.
Shel Holtz: Perhaps another time we can talk about measuring the impact of the news we communicate.
Mark Dollins: Yes. You know my favorite topic is outcomes versus outputs.
Shel Holtz: We’re only guessing that we’re having an impact if we don’t measure whether we achieved the result we wanted.
Talk to you in a couple of weeks, Mark.
Mark Dollins: Amen, brother. Sounds great, Shel. Have a good one.
Related Posts
About Shel Holtz
Leave a Reply