1.Shel:

Interesting post.

I only have anecdotal evidence, but I would agree with you that a strong CEO who can communicate effectively can have a tremendous impact on employee acceptance, understanding and engagement.

It just makes sense, regardless of what Larkin's surveys might say.

And a CEO who can communicate in that manner also improves the believability and effectiveness of his/her supervisors.

Imagine being a manager trying to communicate corporate strategy when the CEO can't even articulate it ... it lacks power and conviction.

As you say often, internal communicators have a number of tools they can use get the job done. Supervisor-based face-to-face is just one of those tools, and when used properly, it works. But it's not the only effective tool.

2.Shel,

Before reading your blog, I had been thinking about the importance of not getting caught up in an emotional presentation at the cost of objective analysis of facts.

As you know, I was thrilled by TJ Larkin's presentation style at the IABC luncheon. I gave him an A for his style, and I did not downgrade him for his content.

You ask excellent questions regarding whether Larkin's statements are defensible. As you said, he did not provide details about whether the findings he presented have been validated beyond the general boundaries that we heard today.

But rather than throw out his assumptions, I would ask Larkin to continue the discussion.

Face-to-Face and Change

I can't offer solid evidence to back his assertions. I can say that my professional experience as a communicator and a front-line supervisor bore true at every company where I either had employees reporting to me, or where I had solid relationships with front-line employees and supervisors and could check out the communication chain.

I agree with you that significant events or changes need to be presented and supported by top management to facilitate acceptance at all levels of an organization. But after that, as Larkin stated, the information doesn't flow gently down the organizational chart. It explodes throughout the organization at various reporting levels.

And front-line employees in the companies where I've worked got their reality checks by checking with their imediate supervisor.

Web, Paper, and Face-to-Face

You make solid comments when you say that bad web design/leader communication is bad web design/leader communication.

But your example of the benefits theme missed the mark that Larkin pointed out. You wrote:

"Continuing with the benefits theme Larkin started, let?s assume an employee wants to learn all the benefits associated with having a baby. She could read through every element of every plan in the linear print document, or visit the ?Life Events? page on the benefits site and click on ?Having a Baby, where all the information relevant to the expectant mother is aggregated. Which is more likely to produce better results?"

Larkin's point would have been to play an actual taped interview with the expectant mother, where we would hear her say, with complete confidence, inaccurate statements like, "My company pays maternity costs at a sliding scale, where they pay 100% of the costs if the baby is born after six months, 80% if it's born after seven months, and only 60% if it goes full-term." In other words, Larkin's research on this point did not have to do with peoples' preferences for obtaining information, it had to do with their comprehension of information presented on paper versus the web.

My point is that I prefer to seek additional clarification from Larkin regarding the data surrounding his conclusions. I do not want to dismiss out-of-hand his earlier points regarding the importance of letting supervisors communicate critical information to the people who report to them. Yes, the information that is given to those front-line supervisors needs to originate in a collaboration between company executives and their trusted communication advisors.

3.Shel, thanks for the report. I'm glad I was not there. My exploding brain would have made quite a mess.

Maybe the big lesson is that audiences don't think when they listen.

Lrkin's old message was garbage, and IABC spent years spreading this nonsense. And now there's more.

Your piece was very nicely written. Congratulations.

BAK

4.Hi, Tom.

First, I'd be thrilled if Larkin dropped by and engaged in a discussion. But he didn't even take questions at his session, so I'd be delightedly surprised if he did.

Second, I didn't miss his point on the web. However, if people couldn't even find all the information they wanted using a linear print approach, the question is moot. If I have a list of all benefits that apply to maternity, for example, I'll know that increasing my own life insurance is an option. Would I know that if I took a linear path through benefits information? Not likely. The creation of paths to information from the user's perspective is one of the strengths that Larkin ignored, or that his example did not embrace.

Finally, you'll find no bigger advocate for the continued use of print or face-to-face than me. I'm a huge believer in face-to-face for change. My only point is that print has the power to motivate as well. Printed words have tremendous power, and their easy dismissal bothered me.

5.Shel

I read this article after your post at the end of FIR & thought that I would like to comment, as I have conducted research that adds to the debate. Oh, sorry, this one is going to have to be long.

I can understand Larkin's point, and can see how he's jumped to it, but I believe that he's missed some vital information, probably by looking at the wrong statistical data. I also see your point about bad communication, but will suggest that it's a lot more complex than that.

As you know I'm an HR person. What I have been doing for the last 5 years is relatively unique, at least here in Europe - I've been looking at work from a marketing perspective and looking at how people 'consume' work. Basically, what get's them up in the morning, what they enjoy, what makes them decide to leave and what can make them want to join. The benefits from understanding your staff and your future employees as well as you probably understand your customers can be enormous.

One of the typical elements that we've done is to segment staff and to get an understanding of what drives different groups. We can then help visualise these groups and devise approaches that appeal more closely to them. Segmentation of staff, like in any marketing environment, can be done in many ways from understanding how groups behave as consumers to segments based on their attitudes. The later is important I think for this debate.

Segmenting on attitude is most easily done by looking at the employee opinion surveys. In my case I've done this on a few occasions, with sample sizes typically of the >50,000 range.

Most EOS data is reported pretty badly - a sort of '15% of people in division x think y). What we wanted to know was 'are there any groups that are particularly interesting' - ie are we looking at independent responses or are people who think (a) also likely to think (b). (We used techniques such as CHAID analysis on the large data sets).

What you typically see is that the majority of people are more interested in their role, their immediate managers etc than about senior leadership (Larkin's point). This is how they best respond to information because the information interests them. However, what Larkin misses is that there is a very strong link between high performers within an organisation and interest in what senior managers communicate. (We identified these people by asking a 'have you been on (x) course' when the course in question is offered to all identified high performers, and only the high performers). Note it is high performers at all levels, not necessarily people at at senior grades.

From my experience of managing teams it is clear that many leader communications aren't read. What my data suggests is that those who take time to read such communication tend to be your high performers.

The question that must follow is 'are you trying to communicate to the masses or those who make a difference'. If the answer is the first (for example changes in fire drill, which you need everyone to know) use your supervisor approach. If you want to influence your key performers then leadership communication should be your preferred channel.

6.Thanks for your insights, Andrew. I think generally your assumptions are correct, but I don't think that means that employees don't want to hear from their leaders. The questions emerge around distinguishing which messages are most appropriate coming from the top and which from the immediate supervisor. Context plays an important role. It's interesting that Mark Hurd, current CEO of Hewlett-Packard, spoke the day after Larkin and insisted that immediate supervisors cannot deliver the messages that need to come from him any more than he can deliver messages that need to come from immediate supervisors. He insisted on delivering company-wide bad news himself, for example. And he was visible. His leadership -- which rested on a foundation of direct communication with employees -- turned his former company (NEC) around and earned him IABC's Excel Award.

7.I'm not sure that there is any substantial disagreement here. I agree with you that there are many messages which are best coming from the top, especially in a time of change (the context bit). My comments were that senior management 'blanket' communication is not going to be read automatically by everyone in the organisations - in fact many will consider it organisational spam.

The interesting point is who does read it (or who have a high demand for leadership information) and that is high performers. These people will also typically be more embracing of change, have good internal networks and will be important influencers within the organisation. They're just the ones you'll want to convince.

If you consider who reads the initial communication it might only be a small proportion of the staff, however they are likely to be a highly influential group. They are likely to have management responsibility and communicate the messages to their teams quickly. If you look at the initial take-up (like Larkin) the demand might be low. However, if you look at the 'life' of the information as it flows through the organisation it is clear that leadership information is likely to ultimately to spread due to the 'influencer' nature of it's readers.

What I'm suggesting is that leadership communications are extremely important, and it is right that they are 'broadcast' to everyone. Communicators should understand, however, that the initial take up is most likely to be weighted towards an influential subset of the population. It may make sense to target the writing of the communication to these people in order to ease the following conversations that will develop. Appeal to their needs and you'll most likely spread the message quickest throughout all the organisation.

Larkin's big mistake is to look only at the percentage take-up of the initial message. What's most important is who does read it, how influential these people are and what they do with the information.

Note: of course getting managers to discuss the leadership communications with their groups will embed the information substantially and relate it to the interests of the majority of staff.

8.Andrew,

Thank you for adding to a rich discussion. Communicators have been given much to consider, thanks to Shel, you and others. I hope this topic doesn't die here in this blog, but is brought to a wider audience. I, for one, would love to hear more about your professional analysis.

Tom Keefe

9.This is a great discussion of what was surely an entertaining but provocative presentation (which I had to miss due to a prior commitment). But having read this discussion as well as Larkin's earlier materials (including his also-controversial piece in Harvard Business Review, "Reaching and Changing Frontline Employees") I'm convinced that he fails to grasp two bedrock business principles:

1. One size does not fit all.

2. Your mileage may vary.

There are undoubtedly some scenarios where every one of Larkin's observations will be 100% accurate -- but many others where they totally miss the mark. What strikes me is his "absolutist" attitude and his failure to accept that there are so many variables that are beyond our (communicators') control. For example...

- Take the contrast between two different CEOs: a strong, highly effective communicator like Mark Hurd, versus any of the innumerable CEOs who totally lack the communication skills (or interest). Would Hurd be a powerful force for communicating change and building employee acceptance? Absolutely! But if we followed Larkin's advice, we might never find out...

- The web/intranet is not only the ultimate resource for providing comprehensive, accurate, detailed information. As Shel wrote earlier, it also enables us to create paths to information from each individual user?s perspective -- something that few others can do (whether they're front-line supervisors or CEOs).

There is undoubtedly much in Larkin's research and experience that we can learn from. But by painting the picture with such a broad brush, he does a disservice to "the real world" that most of us work in. Rather than accept his conclusions at face value, it behooves us to be flexible, innovative and creative. Any communicator worth his or her salt will take advantage of the best tools and opportunities they have, to develop strategic approaches that are effective and successful for *their* situations. In my book, that's the only absolute.

10.Very interesting post - and a valuable point of view. Just wanted to express what a well-written and interesting blog this is. Thanks!