In May last year, web designer Dustin Curtis was so aggravated by the frustrations of navigating the American Airlines (AA) website, he took to his blog and labelled his experience “a horrific displeasure”, before going on to design a new model to show how things should be done by a “competent design team”.
He may have been very surprised when his fuming rant earned a prompt response from one of the site designers at AA, acknowledging some criticisms while laying the blame on the insurmountable challenges presented by the corporate “culture and processes employed“ at AA. The outspoken employee’s 745-word email ended with the sign-off: “Very truly yours (and hoping I don’t get fired for being completely incompetent), Mr. X.”
By early November, the employee had been sacked. AA attracted a great deal of criticism for its actions on the net, but Marilyn Sarow, professor of communication at Winthrop University in the US, believes “the employee overstepped the line. He clearly was not malicious in his intent…but he didn’t solve any problems with his explanation. How much more effective it would have been for the employee to use the customer complaint to create a dialogue within the organisation.”
Converging communications
The dividing line between internal and external flows of communication is becoming a crucial issue for communicators in the age of multi-directional social media conversations, and will profoundly shape the development of the internal communication function. Mike Klein, a Brussels-based strategic communications expert, explains the dilemma this way: “Employees are an external communication channel,” he says. “They always have been, and these days, their role as an external channel is increasingly visible, important and uncontrolled.” The ability of anyone in the company to be perceived as unofficial company spokesman means that they have the responsibility not to disclose too much, but it also means that companies must reconfigure their approach to engagement and controlling messages. As the AA case makes clear, it is vital for the internal communications function to educate employees in the dos and don’ts of communication.
This new challenge adds to the roster of demands on internal communication, and helps explain why often the rest of the company is not always clear on what the definition of the function’s remit is. Helen Farrar, head of internal communications at Virgin Media, believes that “a lot of this comes down to the way that internal communication has grown over the years.” Farrar’s company is developing a strategy whereby every part of the business is engaged in communication, and where every channel is a two-way process. “This model is one that we’re working towards,” she says, “though we’re not quite there yet. The biggest hurdle we’ve found is in convincing some parts of the business of the benefits of enabling everyone as a communicator, as opposed to having an operational communications function churning the communications out.
The proof of this model really comes into its own as internal communications start to add more and more strategic value and drive engagement within the business.” Birgit Ziesche, head of internal communications at Volkswagen AG, traces the development of her department: “Until the new millennium, we only had employee magazines and the beginnings of interactive digital media,” she says. “That has now fundamentally changed. It isn’t only the technology that is growing – more important is the growing perception that internal communication really can deliver on adding value to corporate success.”
Getting the board on board
This model suggests that the role of internal communication is moving away from the production of content that cascades from the top management down, to more like directing traffic, moderating and encouraging dialogues across the organisational structure. Has facilitating inter-organisational networking – the opening up of dialogues between the different divisions – become more important than delivering a message from the top management?
Not according to Philip Lewin, group assistant vice president of corporate communications at Zürich-based power and automation technology multinational ABB: “I think all the noise in a large corporation requires even more content ownership by internal communications,” he says. “The ability of non-communicators to reach almost any audience and the natural inclination of people to promote their activities pushes a lot of low value information through most corporations… I think it’s essential that inter communications maintains the voice of management and communicates a company’s priorities with a consistent, professional voice that stays above all the noise.” Birgit Ziesche agrees: “Even in the Web 2.0 era, a message from the board or top management gives direction, a goal and a point of reference for action – so both are important. The internal communicator has to function like a gatekeeper, to intervene and provide content.”
Employees and the intranet
A company’s intranet is a prime example of the kind of dilemmas facing today’s internal communicator. Intranets provide a way for all employees to voice their opinions on how their firm should be run, but to what extent should the top management be controlling these messages? In other words, how do you balance open, valuable dialogue with a need for discretion? In general, the equilibrium here depends on each particular organisation, its social construct, the nature of the relationship between workforce and employer, and the nature of the changes being suggested. ABB has a laissez-faire attitude, according to Philip Lewin: “Unless someone posts something which is confidential, inappropriate or inaccurate, we generally don’t step in.”
The success of this approach can rest on the example made by top management; if they have nurtured the environment necessary for a healthy and respectful interchange, there should be less risk of damaging leaks and feedback. Helen Farrar believes that “you have to treat people as adults by giving them the responsibility and trusting that they will behave appropriately, and guess what – the majority of people will!” Farrar adds: “Our intranet is pretty much self-moderated and if someone says something inappropriate, they’ll be told by the community.” A lack of online anonymity helps to keep in check the worse kinds of behaviour so common elsewhere on social media, a factor that Virgin Media has taken into account. “None of our channels are anonymous,” Farrar says. “In my view, it encourages a lack of respect and allows people to hide behind their avatar. People are far more likely to phrase the same comment more constructively and respectfully if their name stands beside it.”
However, when intervention is necessary – for example in the case of negative feedback – a swift response is preferable. Just a few years ago, it could take days to coordinate a response to an internal complaint, but with new, direct means of posting feedback, it is imperative to intervene quickly or risk volumes of negative feedback within an hour. A delayed or slow response could be interpreted as indifference.
Creating understanding
Other than being a gatekeeper, what other responsibilities rest with the internal communication function? Employee engagement seems an obvious candidate – Helen Farrar sees this as a “core goal for internal communications.” (At Virgin Media, all communications includes a mechanism for employee feedback.) This goes towards creating internal understanding of the positions, policies and opportunities which differentiate the organisation – effectively, empowering the employees to be the best possible brand ambassadors.
The relationship between the internal communication and the human resource functions can shape the extent of information given to employees. Some organisations have separate structures, with HR working to protect and control the flow of information to employees and internal communication attempting to encourage a more open flow of information. Professor Sarow uses the AA case to illustrate what happens when there is an obstruction to the flow of information: “If the long-standing problems with the corporation’s website were openly recognised as an issue that the airline believed needed to address in order to meet customers needs – and employees knew of this initiative – then an employee might not have felt the need to go public with a justification for its failure.”
Internal and external implications
Many corporations are beginning to merge their communication and marketing activities into a single entity. How does this require internal communicators to evolve in their work? The breaking down of silos between the internal communication and marketing functions is a move towards an integrated strategy within an organisation, and also serves to raise awareness among internal communicators of the external implications of their work. Internal communications do not reach a terminal, hermetically-sealed audience: employees have a web of external relationships through which they represent the corporation, whether formally with customers or informally with peers, neighbours, environmental and political stakeholders and members of social networks. As Mike Klein says, this is “no evolution, it is a revolution, and it will fundamentally change the strategy and delivery of workforce communication. The stakes can not be higher.”
Involving employees in the creation of a corporate identity or brand, and then communicating that brand externally, is part of this integrated strategy, and a process familiar to Eduardo Guedes de Oliveira, head of internal communication at Portugese energy corporation Galp Energia. Before his current position, de Oliveira was involved in the external rebranding of Galp over a period of four years, and this experience influenced the formation of MyGalp, the group’s internal brand designed to engage workers around the globe. “It is my conviction that when the employees are inspired about the internal brand, the external brand is empowered by that inspiration,” he explains. “I think it’s interesting to involve the employees in the naming process to create an important goodwill towards the brand because they consider themselves part of the communication strategy. We can also improve the collaborative creativity of everyone.”
Finally, the link between internal communication and external relationships is made explicit by Marilyn Sarow, who holds that “poor internal communication leads to misunderstood messages, wasted time and low morale. In turn, this often leads to poor relationships with customers and other stakeholders who are fundamental to the organisation’s success.”