Having worked in internal communication in a variety of organizations since 1997, I’ve seen and heard a lot of myths and aphorisms about “good communication” which, alas, are either untrue or deeply overstated.
Here are eight of the real doozies—I’m sure there are others; if you know of any, pile into the comments below:
Social Media is new
This one is an absolute classic—the idea that employees talk with each other informally and that those informal conversations are important is one that is as old as any organization. The only thing that’s new about social media is the technology—and how it makes this process easier. Word of mouth is timeless.
Treat employees like customers
One of the true “doh” ideas on employee communication, even if it did spawn the “internal marketing” industry in the ‘90s.
Workplace relationships are far richer than the ones employees have with their cereals and even their cars. Workplaces are where employees hold most of their personal relationships, exert much of their personal efforts and energies, and are where they derive most of the resources for the other aspects of their lives.
Employees are much more like citizens than like customers.
Good communication is free
I remember seeing this howler recently on some HR blog somewhere. It somehow places no value on the time involved with preparing, delivering and understanding any message—assuming that employees don’t work for free either. And some good communication really does cost money too.
Employees can’t say no
One of the big myths of internal communication is the assumption that, at the end of the day, the employee is not free to disagree with or resist the messages he or she is being given. I’ve found this particularly prevalent in American companies, who take a directive tone in their communication much more frequently than do European companies. The downside of presenting something as fact to staff who disagree is that can act as a charter for sabotage or at least reinforce resistance. And, despite the best efforts of corporations, resistance has hardly been eliminated from corporate cultures.
Use the disembodied “we”
Nothing smells of bad communication—not to mention resistance to individual accountability—like the use of the disembodied “we” to communicate an organization’s policies, stances, or changes in official behavior. Such use of the “royal ‘We’” can also be highly disempowering and even feed resentment among those who don’t see themselves as part of that “we”. My core writing principle—no quote, no story.
Good communication is all about recognition
Recognition is important—sometimes even critical to employee retention and morale. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that every bit of employee communication needs to be larded up with 25-year service awards for staff at far-away cafeterias. An over-emphasis on recognition in internal communication can get in the way of urgent and strategic messaging. Where possible, keep the recognition machine ring-fenced from more pressing communication activities.
It’s all about the bosses
One online conversation I saw recently discussed the extent to which an over-emphasis on quoting CEOs and senior executives was driving down readership for a certain tool—to the point where the editors stopped quoting senior management entirely. I personally think there needs to be a balance—CEOs and senior executives are effective at setting parameters and policies, but stories from the field are far better at bringing those things to life.
Line Management Cascades are the best form of communication
To many in corporations, the only “real” form of internal communication is the line management cascade—the formal presentation of authorized corporate information by the line manager to his/her staff, to be repeated step by step until the presentation reaches the shop floor unscathed.
But while cascades do an excellent job of reminding people “who’s the boss”, cascades fail on many other grounds. For one thing, they move with bovine velocity, with long gaps between delivery by a boss and by his/her direct reports, magnified over geography and hierarchy.
Secondly, the further they move, the more corrupted their tone and content become—particular when managers omit sections for time reasons (or perhaps, darker motives), or when they add in inappropriate inflections or gestures (air quotes for a new bit of terminology, for instance). Third—while less prevalent perhaps most damning—they inevitably omit information or smooth over gaps or rationales, which then prompt a surge of back-channel communication to get clarifications or seek to clarify through the distribution of rumors.
While, as my colleague Liam Fitzpatrick would say, “internal communication is not rocket science”, I would also argue that it’s neither voodoo nor witchcraft either. Being able to take on clients and bosses who seek to play “communication strategist” and overspecify tools and tactics is one way to help ensure your own effectiveness in these interesting times.
