In a recent interview I conducted for For Immediate Release, PR measurement guru Katie Paine tossed off a wonderful line. Noting that many executives want to blog in order to get their feet wet, Katie pondered whether the measurement of such a blog’s success would be “wet feet.”

Honest to God, let’s have a little more sophistication than that and say: “What I’m trying to do is get people engaged in my brand and I’m using blogging as one way of doing that.”

In other words, this most social of media still requires some objectives that can be measured in order to assess the effectiveness of the effort. I raise this in light of an item internal communication measurement guru Angela Sinikas posted to the new communicator’s social network, MyRagan and to IABC‘s members-only message board, MemberSpeak.

Angela was responding to some feedback she received to a series of articles she had written:

...the ethos across Sinickas’ work on communication in organisations is a little distasteful. I’m sure the slavish focus on the organization’s bottom-line concerns makes for effective consultancy, but it disrespects the humans who invest so much of their lives therein.

Not surprisingly, Angela took umbrage to the notion that measurement equals disrespect. Cross-posting to both MyRagan and MemberSpeak, Angela defended her approach to effective communication. I’m quoting the bulk of Angela’s response with her permission:

I have to say, this comment bothered me deeply, on several levels.

Disrespectful to humans?

Before starting my own consultancy in 2000, I worked for 26 years in large organizations, including a university, two corporations and two global consulting firms. I learned quickly that if the bottom line for an organization???even a non-profit one???isn???t healthy, people get laid off from their jobs. To me, that is the ultimate disrespect an organization can show to its humans ???- shutting off their income and ripping them away from a major source of self-worth and friendship with little or no warning.

Expecting employees to provide value for the pay they receive seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately, many employees don???t understand well enough how the day-to-day decisions they make and the actions they take on the job can either improve that bottom line or hurt it. That???s where measurably effective communication enters the picture. We can help employees understand the right things to do. When they do those things, not only does the organization benefit, but so do they. They are more likely to continue having jobs in the first place, and are more likely to experience personal success in terms of pay increases and promotions if they???re doing the right things. I see nothing disrespectful in measuring how well we can help that happen.

Distasteful ethos?

I see great value in having communicators measure the impact of communication on the success of employees and the company. I see it as a highly ethical, win-win situation. Nothing in what we communicate is done intentionally to harm employees. Using communication to measurably improve safety certainly helps the bottom line???but it also saves human lives. The success of various communication approaches to dealing with this issue must be measured.

I think that even the softer elements of working in an organization, for ???the humans who invest so much of their lives therein,??? need to be measured. For example, Gallup has found a correlation between a higher percentage of employees saying they have a best friend at work and the level of engaged employees. Other research has shown that more engaged employees means more productivity and less turnover???in short, a better bottom line. Because management and shareholders care only about the bottom line???no matter what they say in speeches or how much money they spend on corporate social responsibility???we need to demonstrate to them through research and measurement why paying attention to the human elements will help them get the financial results they crave.

What do you think? How much of what we communicators do should be connected to the bottom line?

Angela’s note has generated a lot of lively support for her pro-measurement position—along with some push-back—in both MemberSpeak and MyRagan, including this gem from Patrick Williams:

I side absolutely with everyone here (MyRagan) who says we must demonstrate, in numbers, based on valid, observable quantitative measurement, how the organization’s investment in our work contributes to the bottom line in increased productivity, cost savings, retention, increased sales, safety, product quality, and the like.

I’d add that we must also measure qualitatively, in terms of the employee’s work experience as it relates to engagement; that is, in carefully chosen questions and answers in interviews and fous groups, how our work helps employees understand the meaning of their work and thereby heightens the experience of work.

I side against the common-sensers. The profession is not based on common sense, but on learned disciplines of what works in communication, as an art and as a science.

(It is nice to see some genuine dialogue taking place in venues like MemberSpeak and MyRagan. MemberSpeak is restricted to IABC members, but MyRagan is free to join.)

So…is measurement of our communication efforts disrespectful to humans?