Reaching Employees Where They Are

Much of my work involves helping clients better understand and appreciate how people within their organizations communicate, and how they prefer to get information. Insights into that is the first step towards developing a communications model that effectively reaches the internal audiences.

There is no single solution, not even within one individual company. The legwork must be done, preferably by getting out and talking directly to the employees at all levels. One of my first lines of inquiry when talking with employees in that context is to determine their reading habits and how they get the information they want and need, both for personal and business purposes. (In fact, their personal habits likely echo their preferences within the business environment, which is why I ask.)

Where do they go to get their news? When there’s a big breaking news story, to what source do they turn first? Which sources do they trust most (and least), and how do they stay informed about the issues that concern them? How does that parallel the ways they get the information they need on the job – or does it? How would they prefer to get the kind of on-the-job information that helps them perform their jobs?

Establishing a pattern among a particular employee audience is critical in developing a communications strategy that reaches them in a timely fashion to assure that important management messages are getting through, and that those messages are relevant to them and their world.

But what are we to make of the growing reality that the general population is apparently becoming reading- and information-averse? Not only that, but the sharp audience declines experienced by various print and broadcast news media seem to indicate a growing distaste for conventional news sources. So where are people going now for their news? Or do they even care?

Of course, the answer largely depends on which demographic you’re talking about. Gauging by the types of advertising that predominate the evening network newscasts – geriatric medications, mobility devices, and such  – it’s safe to conclude that the older demographic is tuning in. I don’t need to point out why the evening newscasts’ audience continues to shrink.

Many among the younger demographic – the fastest growing demographic and the one that increasingly comprises your company’s internal audience – get much of their news from faux news programs, such as Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” as well as the late night talk show hosts’ opening monologues. That helps explain the scramble among politicians to be guests on those shows: that’s where their target audience is.

I raise the subject because I just read a “rant” by prolific blogger and marketer Seth Godin on the subject. It led me to do a little online research. It’s troubling to me, an inveterate book reader and newspaper consumer, to learn that the average person spends about 70 seconds each day reading the news online; that an Associated Press poll found that one-in-four people did not read a single book in 2006.

According to an August 21, 2007 article in the Washington Post, that number has been declining for more than a decade. It’s probably safe to assume that, four years later, we are likely approaching a one-in-three ratio. That’s scary stuff, and a real danger to our republican form of government.

These facts depress me, knowing that people are less well informed, apparently deliberately ignorant of current affairs. At the same time, these facts tell us that we need to adjust our approach to internal communications vehicles if we are to reach our employees with any regularity, if we are to make sure they get the information we want them to have. We must delve deeply to learn their reading habits (or lack thereof) and strive to be ever more creative in our selection and use of communications channels and tools available to us, as well as how we craft our messages.

No longer can we assume that printed newsletters, mass distribution of emails, or even “town hall meetings” are the best (or only) way to reach the broad employee audience with our critical messages. (I cringe at the recollection of a client for whom the only means of reaching its worldwide employee audience was through emails. We actually discovered that a number of employees used their spam filters to sift out the frequent emails from their CEO.)

Instead, we must tailor our communications approach to accommodate our reading-averse audience, to meet our people on territory that is familiar and comfortable to them, but that may not be for us, the communicators. Simply put, we need to connect with them where they actually are, not where we think they are or where we want them to be.

That may mean overcoming our discomfort with and lack of trust in the social media where many of our younger employees spend so much time: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the like. If we want to have an on-going dialogue with them about what’s important to the business, that’s where we need to engage them.

The Senior Partner's Question

It has been said that youth is overrated. That’s probably because, in the eyes of their elders, younger people seem always to attach themselves to the latest technology as though they had discovered the ultimate, and all previous iterations become instant antiques.

While there may be some truth to that youthful view, think back to a particular technology that, at the time, was written about in every news medium, talked about every where you went. Where is that technology today and how is it affecting our ability to communicate and do our jobs better?

Sometimes, it’s a false start. Apple’s Newton, while innovative for its time, was ultimately a failure. Yet it hinted at a technological breakthrough. Future approaches – in the form of PDAs like the Palm Pilot and, later, smartphones like the iPhone – fixed its shortcomings and realized the full benefits that Newton’s developers had hoped for.

Reminiscing recently with a friend I used to work with, I recalled a shared experience that still gives me pause regarding our attitudes toward modern communications tools and the judgment of our elders.

Some 24 years ago – a generation ago – I was an account supervisor for a small public relations agency in New York. Mind you, this was 1986 when office computers were not yet common in the office. Sure, they were making in-roads, particularly in larger organizations. The IBM PC was well on its way to displacing the established Wang systems.

A hugely successful company of the same name made the “Wang,” the first common office automation system. Wang would soon cease to exist because it failed to take PCs seriously and adapt. At the time, my firm used a mix of IBM Selectric and Smith Corona typewriters. (Yes, I know. I’m really dating myself here – straight out of Mad Men.)

Two co-workers and I thought it was time to bring computers into our operation. The three (considerably older) partners who owned the firm were skeptical. But they agreed to let us do our homework and develop a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis – which we did after much legwork and number crunching.

The day we presented our findings, the three partners gathered in the agency conference room, each bearing dubious looks, as we walked them through our findings and recommendations, detailing the efficiency improvements computers would allow us.

After thanking us for our after-hours work and acknowledging the persuasiveness of our arguments, they decided against modernizing. It wasn’t for lack of funds. It was their deep-seated skepticism of new technology. I will never forget the dismissive response of the senior partner as he paused from puffing on his pipe. (That’s back when people smoked in offices.)

“Will these computers help the account executives write any better? I doubt it.”

…which, frankly, was completely beside the point. But never mind. The discussion was over.

About a year later, I left that firm for another in Boston (which, by the way, used Honeywell computers – again, I date myself). At the time of my departure, my former firm still hadn’t computerized. In fact, the senior partner was still writing out everything in long-hand on a legal pad, which his secretary duly typed for him.

I remind myself of those long-ago words sometimes when I’m skeptical of a new technology, particularly one that might favorably impact communications and our ability to do business more efficiently. I’m wary of becoming like my old boss.

The first cell phone I ever used (rented for a trade show) was about the size of a large shoe, though it weighed considerably more. At the time, I didn’t regard it as a business tool, even though it proved helpful at the trade show. It seemed more like an attention-getting novelty – which if you’ll remember, most early cell phone users got a lot of: attention.

But as the cell phone shrunk in size and weight, as its cost came down and the quality of the connection improved, and as more people had them, the role of the cell phone as a business tool was set. Today, we can’t imagine being without them. The list goes on: PDAs, laptops, smartphones, etc.

As you know, with each new technology, there is an adaptation curve, where the early adapters pay a premium price for an okay version with limited capabilities so that we late adapters can climb aboard when it is more ubiquitous and mass production has brought the price down.

Ubiquity also means the availability of more capabilities, more users with whom to share the common platforms, etc. So late adapters get more use from the devices because there are more people out there with whom we can communicate via ever more modes.

So let’s come back to today and consider the iPhone 4 with its “FaceTime” video calling feature. While it’s a nice feature and the advertising promoting it is compelling, before video calling on smartphones becomes a common means of communication, there needs to be a lot more capable devices on the market and in the hands of a lot more consumers. According to an October 12 report on Yahoo News:

“Jupiter Research on Tuesday said that Apple's latest generation iPhone will spur adoption of video calls but the trend is stymied because different devices don't talk to one another. Juniper predicted that … the percentage of smartphone users making video calls will remain below 10 percent by the year 2015.”

As we contemplate new means of communications like video calling and other ways that improve the ability to connect with people round the clock, round the world, are we better off for it? To rephrase the question my former boss asked, will these things make us better communicators?

Tools like these are terrific and provide us a wider range of options to connect to more people in more places and times. They increase our availability to the people with whom we need to communicate.

But in the end, the importance of our willingness and ability to listen, to digest what we hear, and to respond appropriately doesn’t change. That is the heart of effective communications, not the latest and greatest technology, whether it’s an IBM Selectric, email, Twitter, Skype, a smartphone – or just an old-fashioned face-to-face meeting over a cup of coffee.