△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

What Employee Communications looks like in the networked company

Awareness is rising of the impact on business of networked employees—those workers who are continuously connected to their social circles and can tap into them at will. The discussion seems to be shifting, ever so slowly, to the characteristics of companies that, rather than inhibiting these traits, want to reap the benefits of a networked workforce. Recent posts by Olivier Blanchard and Valeria Maltoni have speculated on the nature of these companies. Olivier calls them P2P companies; Valeria refers to them as connected companies.

They both see the recruiting process changing, for example, to one of inviting people already connected to the company through online and offline social networks to come work for them. The IT department becomes the ET department—Technology Enablement. P2P companies don’t outsource customer service. Collaboration is supported by the use of the best tools available. And, according to Maltoni, “Facilitating conversations inside and outside the connected company means designing business through interactions.”

You’ll recognize more and more of these traits as existing companies evolve into networked companies and startups embrace the P2P model. But succeeding under the P2P model won’t happen just because it seems right. It’ll take work. Companies have to implement systems to support the model.

Employee Communications is a critical function that must adapt in order to accommodate its role in a networked company. Inspired by Valeria and Olivier,  I’d like to offer a list of characteristics of the employee communications function in the networked/P2P company.

Ease employee access to social networks. Both Olivier and Valeria have noted that connected companies won’t block access to social networks. Leaving access unfettered is, indeed, a requirement, but companies will need to go a few steps beyond unshackling employees from the restrictions that keep them from connecting. It will be incumbent on the internal communications function to identify communities within social networks where the company’s products, services, operations, and other dimensions are discussed and even summarize the nature of the conversation taking place in this communities. Helping employees identify where the conversation is can help them begin participating in a more meaningful way. After all, it is within some of these communities where employees will establish and build relationships with people who are likely to become candidates for employment. These networks are also where employees will glean insights from customers that could lead to product or service innovation.

Show employees who’s saying what, right now. Employees already participate in the networks and communities aligned with their interests. Some may be interested in engaging elsewhere, such as communities they’ve never heard of where the company or its brands are being discussed. At the least, companies should provide a directory of these communities. Ideally, however, companies will let employees see, in as close to real time as possible, what the members of those communities are saying about the company. You might consider this a curator role for Employee Communications, one that demonstrates the sentiment of real people with real influence who are having real conversations about your organization. I can easily see a dashboard on the intranet portal with the very latest customer sentiments along with a link to more detailed content from these communities.

Communicate research results. Organizations of all stripes spend a ton of money on consumer research. Few share the results of the research with employees company-wide; it’s data that, for one reason or another, is usually made available only to brand team members. With all employees networking with customers, knowledge of the study results can inform the conversation. Internal communications needs to become a channel for sharing the results of market research throughout the organization.

Increase business literacy. Employees need to know the business. It’s a sad fact that most frontline employees couldn’t answer basic questions about the business beyond the work of their own department. It’s equally sad that this is most often true because nobody bothers to teach them about the business and the resources for them to teach themselves aren’t readily available. Employee Communications needs to focus considerable effort on ensuring employees are savvy about the company for which they work.

Build awareness of business initiatives. In addition to general business literacy, employees need to know about specific initiatives. Employees in a hospital that has started marketing its quality ratings should know about the effort. Employees in a manufacturing organization that has taken steps to be more sustainable should be able to talk intelligently about what that means.

Make sure everyone knows the rules of the road. Too often, organizations assume that because a policy has been published, everyone knows what it is. Employee Communications needs to communicate the policies and guidelines that govern employee activity in online communities on an ongoing basis through multiple channels. No employee should ever be surprised to learn they have violated a policy.

Champion and support internal training. Some of the companies that have the most positive employee engagement are ones in which employees can attend classes to learn about how to engage. At Zappos, employees can take classes on Twitter. The Mayo Clinic offers tweetcamps, where doctors and other staff can learn about social media. Ideally, the Internal Communications team will partner with the Training department to develop learning opportunities—face-to-face and online—that will help employees get business-literate and learn about social networking and how their engagement can produce meaningful results for the company.

Enlist company advocates. Best Buy’s Twelpforce is one of the more forward-thinking initiatives for engaging front-line employees with customers. Blueshirts—the employees who work in the retail stores—volunteered to respond to queries sent via Twitter to the Twelpforce account. Companies can take this concept beyond the initiative level, finding those engaged employees—that is, the employees who want to make discretionary efforts on behalf of the company, train them, and get them into vital communities. (This kind of engagement must be disclosed and transparent, of course. I’m not suggesting anything deceptive, just a means of identifying and activating those employees who want to be part of the organization’s organic networking efforts.)

Work with ET to ensure systems support networking. If IT has transformed into Technology Enablement, they are the ideal partner for Employee Communications to identify and launch the tools employees can best use to network with one another. The technology department can also ensure the intranet supports the modules referenced earlier, such as business literacy training, communication of research results, and real-time updates of who’s saying what about the company in key online communities.

All of this has to happen along with much of the traditional work Employee Communications performs, such as letting employees know that benefits enrollment is coming, supporting an internal change process, and informing employees about decisions that will affect them. In a networked company, there’s no question in my mind that the role of Employee Communications becomes bigger and more important.

What other traits should characterize the Employee Communications function in the networked organization?

Comments
  • 1.Looks to me like the "networked organization" is synonymous with the "successful organization." The big question for me is why so many companies ignore all the information out there that tells them what it takes to do it right. After reading your post, Shel, I realize that for corporate America, "networked" is the next version of "engaged." And that's not a bad thing.

    Ron Shewchuk | November 2009

  • 2.This is a GREAT list! I've saved a copy of it so I don't forget about this and can refer to it in future.

    I don't have another characteristic to offer, but I do have a question. Shel, one of your items is making sure everyone knows the rules of the road. Have you come across any examples of good policies or guidelines for employees using social media in the business environment? I've seen a few but none that I felt were really clear, detailed and helpful for employees to really understand the realities of engaging about their companies. You may [probably] have talked about this before and I missed it, but I'd appreciate a repeat!

    Several times in the past when I've tried to convince management to open up social media to employees, that has been the major stumbling block - that we weren't able to clearly enough articulate a policy to ensure appropriate uses that would get management to agree.

    If there are some policies being used by companies who've been successfully demonstrating the value of letting employees join these conversations, I would love to be pointed to them!

    Kristen Ridley | November 2009 | Toronto, Canada

  • 3.I think, to answer Ron's question, that most organizations can't see the value of many of these types of networking because the decision makers operate on a completely different plane, where networking isn't hard, everyone answers their calls, and they have people to find them the information they require. Front-line and lower-level employees usually aren't so lucky.

    Plus, I know from my own experience (most recently with Twitter and before that Facebook) you often have to actively use a tool before you can see its value. Unfortunately, that doesn't work terribly well with businesses that are focused on ROI, especially in economic times like now.

    Michael Broadhurst | November 2009 | Toronto

  • 4.Shel - Ron's right. These are the attributes of successful organizations, regardless of the tactics they use to achieve these objectives. Organizations are worrying about social networks because leadership in many organizations still do not see the value proposition of engagement. They see engagement as something a company does -- the Gallup survey, HR-priorities, etc. We communicators do such a poor job of measuring these matters in a business-like way that the executive doesn't see the payoff.

    Conversely, the risks of unfettered communication are well established by our friends, the attorneys, and the costs well controlled by the finance arm.

    No executive would suggest a change in strategy without a significant commitment to research, yet communicators who do ask for research dollars frequently get turned down (no excuse; too many free tools are out there.) The heart of that issue, too, is the belief (often reinforced by us) that what we do is more art than science, unmeasurable and misunderstood.

    My research from 2008 showed how we can connect the dots, for example, between intranet traffic and employee comprehension, understanding and behavior. Many others have similar results. However, this topic is so poorly understood by the people who run companies that they don't grasp the significance of these findings.

    Finally, even Gallup is seeing resistance to their engagement value proposition. When times are tough, it's cold comfort to have a best friend at work, especially if he or she just got laid off. Keeping the workforce engaged won't prove an antidote to poor economic conditions -- the quality and commitment of the workforce is only one variable in the performance mix.

    Sean Williams | November 2009 | Cleveland, Ohio

  • 5.I think Valeria and Olivier have very valid points. Social networking has become a huge part of communication with the world. It is a fast, convenient and easy way to communicate with employees and customers. The challenge is that social media is always changing to be new and improved. People always have to adapt to the new functions which can be difficult for many. All the networks out there are a great marketing tool for products and services. However, people need to be very careful with what they put out there. People interpret things differently and will find a way they can sue someone for saying something offensive or untrue. Everyone needs to be aware to not violate any rules of publishing something public. Networking and awareness are two great aspects that can come from social media. Networking is going to get bigger and companies need to adjust and take advantage of it.

    molly | November 2009

  • 6.Really, really great post Shel.

    From an aspect of business that I personally love, I think what Ron and others have mentioned (ignoring the value of such a system) really boils down to Company Culture.

    What makes an Employee Communications system work - like the one you awesomely listed out - is an open and leadership driven company where employees are bought into the system and want to evangelize it and see it grow.

    Now, this is thinking outside of just social media, as it applies to the structure of a business overall. Is it something that can be adopted, thus making an EC system more easily applicable? Most definitely. But if your company or your employees aren't ready to believe in the organization and each other, then they'll have a long road ahead.

    Thanks for this post, Shel - enjoyed it a lot and has me chewing on a few thoughts.

    Sonny Gill | November 2009

  • 7.Recognizing that social media is an inextricable part of everyone's life - that technology has made "networking" an almost reflexive behavior - will go a long way toward encouraging a culture of openness within an organization, and cultivating an appropriate sensibility among its employee representatives. Educating employees about social media is becoming less a matter of introducing them to new technology than helping them recognize on-the-clock interaction as an extension of their employee identity. Allowing access to social networks won't diminish productivity if employees begin to think of social media and their personal networks as work-related resources while they're on the company clock. A good deal of concern about secrecy and privacy will be obviated by common sense and self-regulation. The same rules that govern appropriate behavior in the workplace will tend to guide online social interactions. Behavioral guidelines will mostly be a reiteration of what we already know. Making openness work may be less about guiding the process than getting out of the way.

    @d_breshears | November 2009 | ATX

  • 8.I agree with most of what you're saying - networked companies are the companies of the future, but I think your particular point about employee access to social networks (everything else I agree with!) is a little too simplified. For any business, there has to be a purpose to social media activity. I believe that this should come from the people- from the employees - but that there has to be a direct strategy. It's all very well being open and encouraging employees to use social networks but as a company you have to make sense of the conversation you're creating. Brand values are already scattered all over due to the tools (and benefits) of social media and I think it's more important than ever to have integral brand values coming from within the organisation. Employees should certainly be networked, but for a reason and with a sense of direction.

    Lauren Fisher | November 2009 | Dublin, Ireland

  • 9.Employee social networks are treasure troves of undiscovered connections that may be of benefit to a company. A salesman looking for an introduction to a potential new client may discover a previously hidden contact among their friends on Facebook or LinkedIn. A creative director looking for a Flash developer may receive a more reliable recommendation from someone in their peer network than they would working with a recruiter. A hundred close friends on a social network may turn into an impromptu focus group. I'm not sure what strategic guidance would look like, other than maybe "Use it for business-type stuff when you're on the clock, and don't divulge any information that would get you fired if you did it in any other communication context." I mean, strategic guidance is great, but most of the guidelines are going to be restatements of what we already know. Most employees are smart enough to know what's acceptable and what's not (and if they don't, well, you're already screwed because you're not going to stop social media engagement altogether). Of course, if by "strategy" you mean "cultivating a sense of responsibility and helping employees recognize the business benefits of social networks," then I totally agree. Otherwise, I'm afraid that the confines of a strategy dictated from the top may strangle the very innovation openness is intended to encourage. The bottom line is that we don't know all of the potential benefits of incorporating social media into our professional toolbox, and until we do, we should err on the side of flexibility and be confident that common sense will rein in the types of risky or counter-productive behavior we fear.

    @d_breshears | November 2009 | ATX

Comment Form

« Back