Transparency and consensus on policy

On many occasions leaders have to make difficult or unpopular decisions to keep the business up and running and they are often enticed to not share the truth with their employees or partners or divert their attention in order to act undisturbed. Often the thought is to share the results of their actions in the right moment while avoiding the unpleasant debate about what should be done. Sometimes things go as far as the leader believing that they are the only qualified person, thus discussion is a sheer waste of time and nerves.

No matter what the case though, my advice is to not fall into that trap. Years ago I had the opportunity to observe exactly what happens when a leader decides to act independently and the truth is that it cost him everything.

Reasons in that particular case were lack of trust, many definitive stakeholders (Agle, Mitchell, Wood, 1997), variety of policy issues and political challenges, insufficient financing, internal fights and conflicts of interests. Many of those were caused by tough policy, lack of transparency and consensus, no discussion or stakeholder involvement. It is arguable whether many of those issues were not just inherited but there is no doubt that the policy of independent control and silence only deepened them.

The result was that a leader who did fight a good cause and tried to make a difference ended up voted out from the organization by the majority of those who he had worked with side by side in the previous 8 years.

I have to point out that I do not claim he never did anything wrong policy-wise. However, considering the context of the social and business environment, he did not do anything outrageous. He did create enemies by following dedicatedly his strategy but in doing so he achieved a lot in terms of organizational goals.

Then why did his allies vote him so rigorously out of the organization?

 First reason: No consensus on policy.

Even though the organization was meant to be lead by a management council most decisions were made by the leader alone. Many of the interests of those from the council were never taken into account which resulted in much expected outrage.

Second reason: Conflict of interests.

The social, business and political environment presented the leader with many challenges. First, it was the challenge of defending the interests of the organization and in doing so creating enemies both in the government and within the ranks of the organization itself when he would fail in negotiations. Second, unfortunately, influence meant privileges and high earnings, thus virtually everyone was trying to become a leader, regardless of the consequences for the organization and those dependent on it. As a result many managerial decisions were ruled out just in an effort to sabotage the leader.

Third reason: no regard to rules and regulations.

In order to achieve his goals the leader disregarded rules in connection to elections and power distribution. This resulted in outrage.

Fourth reason: no transparency.

Transparency is important as clarity about what is happening and why is a potent support drive. Not understanding or not knowing the reasons/goals/methods resulted in confusion, doubt and lack of support. In a more traditional organizational environment it would also lead to lack of motivation in employees.

Reflecting on this example a few things become obvious. A leader should accept that they cannot achieve their goals alone. They need support from employees, partners, allies, government and other key stakeholders. In this sense, an organizational understanding will mean understanding the need to engage key stakeholders in a productive dialogue. By that I mean that you must:

1. Understand the structure of the organization and the power distribution.

2. Understand the need to follow rules or propose changes when inefficiency is found.

3. Identify opinion leaders and make them your allies.

4. Understand the environment you do business in – institutions, regulations, competitors, partners, communities, identify important stakeholders.

5. Understand processes of decision making and analyze results from past experience. Consider process enhancement.

6. Understand the need of stakeholder management as a complete strategy.

Along this process you should realize that transparency is directly connected to stakeholder support and corporate image. You cannot upkeep a good image without reporting your activities and you cannot successfully manage an organization without achieving consensus on strategy. Therefore two more must-dos should be added to the list above and special attention should be paid to them:

7. Optimize internal and external communication channels enabling discussion, feedback and reaction to reported issues.

8. Maximize transparency.

Business today cannot really have secrets as there are too many ways for the truth to reach the public. Therefore it is advised to provide informational access to your activities. As a matter of fact transparency is becoming a currency in terms of both image building and image protection. Being honest with your stakeholders builds trust and support which result in sticking with the company even when a crisis hits (see for example the Johnson and Johnson Tylenol case). 

What concerns internal stakeholders, it is very important to keep them informed and to involve them in decision making. Transparency and consensus are probably even more important internally as the support or lack of support by your employees and partners means the success or the failure of the organization. A frustrated employee can do incredibly a lot of damage by not doing their job, affecting the motivation of their colleagues, going public or spreading the company’s secrets.

In two words, there are good reasons to work transparently, maybe consider different forms of reporting and stakeholder involvement, and to work on achieving consensus within the organization on organizational goals and policy, all the while keeping in mind stakeholder interests.

DIDI

Internal Communication: Brainstorming and idea-sharing

In a company, no matter the size, the process of idea-sharing is very important. It is so as it not only provides additional thoughts and points of view which always can be beneficial when evaluating or reshaping the company’s strategy, it can also contribute to valuable insights into the company, the market or the consumers’ perceptions of the company. Furthermore, sometimes what from top seems flawless, could show defects other places. For instance a marketing strategy could be thoroughly planned but fail in the implementation phase. The reasons for failure could be countless – simple human error or some unpredicted trait in consumer behavior or a new competitor. And you never know who is going to notice the problem as the first and as some marketing specialists say, in today’s world it is not the big that survives, it is the fast. Reacting to the changing environment is a requirement for survival.

Not to forget, if there are process errors in the company it is the employees who are going to notice them first. Process errors equal infectivity which equals losses. Such process errors could be found in production, in communication, in marketing, in customer service and they should be fixed as if not fixed they will not only affect productivity but will likely lead to employee frustration.

Therefore listening is an important managerial function. However, most companies, especially bigger ones, experience some difficulties collecting such input as the number of employees or the busy work schedule does not allow enough discussion. Imagine a room full of people who all want to share their thoughts. Some of those thoughts will of course not be worth the time but unfortunately in an open discussion environment they cannot be stopped.

Therefore an alternative is necessary. Environment where everybody freely can share their thought and discussion can be carried out. Before that was a challenge for many but today technologies offer us the tool to do it the right way. Using a platform as an intranet or a social network gives the opportunity to allow for enhanced employee involvement in the decision making, for better communication among employees and for idea-sharing which can be the driver of changes in the company.

The pluses here are that the added freedom and informality of a social network for example will help employees give their inputs with less self-censure and carry out discussions in the form of brainstorming without wasting working hours on that – it could be done even from home and it only takes seconds. Furthermore, such discussions do higher employee motivation as employees feel that they matter and they for real are a part of the company. Last but not least, with only a fast skim management could pick up important ideas and even more importantly, trends among employees. It does not need to be mentioned that displeased employees are dangerous if nothing is done to correct the issues.

Minuses? There are none. It is cheap; employees are happy because they have the possibility to talk and be heard; and management is happy because time-waste levels go down, employee motivation goes up and is monitored, important ideas and trends are picked up on time. So do it.

DIDI

Communication Strategist: Fight bad marketing decision making

Sometimes being a communication consultant is an easy job which only implies responsibility about the company’s direction, action and stakeholder management. However, every now and then we stumble upon management that either underestimates the importance of communication or has a strong desire to control the whole process, no matter how much they actually know about communication.

I have been in such situation where the top management disregarded my advice concerning a comprehensive marketing strategy and implemented something which they called a marketing strategy even though it was not even close to such.

The strategy plunged towards a disaster already with its launch. Management thought it was a good idea to set corporate goal disregarding resources, market analysis and without any corporate vision or mission. The result was simply something dysfunctional, a waste of time and resources.

As I was still a relatively new employee my advice was not taken seriously from the beginning. However, I did not give up. I continuously pointed out that there is need for change of strategy. Interestingly enough, my boss seemed to agree with me but did not change anything in the line of what he called marketing.

The complete crash that followed convinced him though that another approach is necessary.

Unfortunately as communication consultants we cannot allow ourselves to fail that way. Therefore a more strategic internal communication strategy is crucial. The first step we take should be locating the decision makers. We should not forget that sometimes power lies not where we expect it to. Than communication channels must be established to ensure that the decision makers can easily be reached. Of course, as next step follows the need to develop trusting relationships with those decision makers. Here an additional remark should be that sometimes decision makers are hard to reach as they are eager to follow the established communication channels and hierarchy in the company, no matter how functional they are. In such cases it is necessary to start your work as a communicator with evaluating existing internal communication channels and suggesting changes in a report supported by hard evidence.

The point here is that sometimes it is necessary to skip hierarchy levels or stubborn managers in order to avoid crashes. There is also almost always an additional challenge for new or young professionals as their opinion is often disregarded and they are perceived as inexperienced, thus not trustworthy. In such cases especially but in all other cases just the same it is a good idea to support your strategy suggestions with data. Research a lot, read a lot and create a flawless presentation of your ideas.

If that does not work pull back for a while and closely observe the communication process as ordered by management. React already with the first sign of failure or dysfunction. Prepare and present a comprehensive analysis of what is happening, why and how the company should react.

If that doesn’t work, turn to other decision makers and point out the problems. If even then nothing changes, well, better look for another job as there is obviously no place for reason where you currently work.

DIDI