I wrote a long post on this topic, but I realised that it still wasn't anywhere near complete. There's essays to be written on the discussions going on. What I'll do instead is just link a few observations/concepts and maybe it'll trigger some interesting thoughts out there.
- Over on CommsOffensive325, Mike Klein notes that Ragan has some commentary on Mike's discussion with Liam Fitzpatrick about the future of IC.
- Reading the Ragan piece, they naturally come down in the middle, after all "more competence" (Liam) is like "more motherhood and apple pie" and "more transformational thinking" (Mike) is like, well, "more motherhood and apple pie" too.
They quote Liam explicitly talking about "the credibility of the profession," but this comes through even more clearly in further comments from Mike, Liam and others underneath the article. They are arguing about the form of "the profession." What, if you like, would a future "CIIC" (Chartered Institute of Internal Communications) be defined as being about?
Throw in the recent post by Ron Shewchuk about the lack of Masters level education programs in "employee comms", which reminds me that the majority of the things we all count as "IC competence" are skills that come out of PR, journalism, etc. I think there are few educational opportunities in IC because we've yet to create a truly distinctive notion of what it takes to be in IC and the truly distinctive skills that you won't learn in journalism or PR courses.
The Ragan writer (David Murray) notes that employee comms are more determined (in their opinion) by organisational structures than IC ideals.
However, it's at this point that it seems to me, Mike is maybe on to something.
Referencing my last post, I can see an argument that says in the long term, the technologies and practice of modern internal communications, as currently typified by social media, come into unavoidable conflict with the "structure of organisations." And, I don't think that "the structure" wins that battle. Structure is strongly static, but human nature is the irresistible force. And everyone knows I'm a structuralist at heart, so I don't say that lightly.
How does all this amount to a hill of beans for everyday practice? I can't deny the force of Liam's argument. Companies will want to communicate things with internal groups, that process is fairly well understood and will not disappear. Right now, if you want credibility in your organisation, your best bet is to invest in fulfilling this role with greater competence and success.
However, I think the number of people involved in a bunch of "traditional IC roles" is going to shrink and we are going to have to understand new roles that apply in more "community" situations. It also seems to me that this is the ground where you can plant seeds of a "distinctive profession" of IC.
Of course, whether IC should be a distinctive profession, or part of HR is a question to be considered.
Seth Godin's suggestion for rebranding HR as "Department of Talent" would appear to overlap with a lot of IC work. To be clear, I'm not advocating that IC should be part of HR, but I would be surprised to see it happen. There is a logic there. Likewise, there's a craft logic to the CIPR being the dominant association for IC people in the UK.
For myself, I think that there is room for IC as a strong, independent business function, but I think it will need to change if that is to happen. And that's a post for another day.
5 comments:
Thanks for the reference, Indy. What really has yet to come to the surface is the basis for the distinction for Liam's old school IC-is-about-competence world and the shift I seek.
If you buy the idea that the org chart defines how an organisation is led, managed, informed and engaged, then one of Liam's black belts will let you cut through the concrete blocks of resistance one metre deep.
But if you recognise that what is on the org chart is supplanted--or at the very least complemented--by social networks that can be easily understood with some very basic research tools, and that an effective communication approach needs to work both the hierarchy and the networks, then you need to weigh in on my side of this discussion, and start building the coalition to reshape our industry and profession.
That's the distinction... Am interested in your thoughts.
Hi Mike,
I'm not quite sure we're disagreeing with each other on that point. (hierarchy -v- networks).
We're running a Black Belt as I type, and both yesterday and today I've been talking about the power of networks and people's trust in 'someone like me', as Edelman's trust barometer survey puts it.
I think one of the interesting dilemmas for today's IC people is whether we take the 'traditional and safe' route, which at least appears as if it can be controlled. Or whether we look at where the real conversations are happening and see how we can join in. I have a keen interest in the Malcolm Gladwell/Seth Godin schools of thought about the power of networks and 'sneezers'. Are we really disagreeing on this one?
Sue
I'm largely in shock.. I have commenters!
Obviously the blogspot promise to email me when comments turned up wasn't carried through. Apologies to both mike and sue for not responding earlier.
Is there a genuine disagreement here, ask Sue? I'm not sure, I feel like he's touching on real and important questions but I must admit I'm kind of hoping Mike will explain it a little further one of these days and I'll actually understand the full impact of what he is saying.
In the meantime, I intend to make some rambling posts which will ask some questions of my own, hopefully at the end of this week.
Sue...
I think the extent to which we agree is exciting...
As to the core of a 'disagreement'--it's perhaps on the extent to which emphasis on understanding and influencing networks is a genuinely new element of internal comms, and the extent to which an emphasis on networks needs to be balanced against an emphasis on traditional, hierarchical channels.
You also mention control--this is an interesting undertow to the discussion.
Traditional internal comms systems give the appearance of control. But resistance continues to gather power in organisations despite it not having access to any formal or even visible internal communication systems. If it doesn't have access to formal systems, what systems does it have access to? And why wouldn't one want to access or influence those systems too?
OK, here's my philosophy on life, the universe and communication. What doesn't change (and what both Liam and I refer to as 'the basics') is the core model of 'where is the business trying to get to?' or 'what's the business problem?' and 'how can I use communication to help it get there/solve the problem?' And the basic skills around understanding the business (to be looking for the problem in the first place and not just blindly churning out channels), having good relationship-building skills to be able to have those converstions with leaders, and then the stuff around understanding the people you're talking with (audiences, stakeholders, whatever you want to call them - I've been beaten up in various quarters for using both terms!), being clear about messages, choosing the right tactics/approaches to address the business issue, and using research and measurement both to inform your approach and measure the results. The truth is that a lot of comms people don't get that basic model - even if sometimes they think they do - which is why we hammer it home so much.
What does change are the tools and techniques available to us that will help us solve the business problems. Some of the 'new stuff' comes from developments in technology (e.g. social media), some of it comes from new research or insights into what actually works (e.g. the power of networks, the trust in 'someone like me' -v- formal, corporate communication channels, learning maps, storytelling). Some of it comes from people constantly re-hashing and re-badging concepts to try and get it into our heads that this stuff is what really works (try as I might, I struggle to see how 'engagement' is different from 'involvement and empowerment' - but if it gets the same important debates on the table, I guess it's good anyway).
The best internal comms people, in my book, are constantly looking for 'what's the best way to help me solve this business problem?', which means we have to keep ourselves updated with what's in our toolkit.
As for the control point, I talked about the 'appearance' of control for exactly the reasons you describe. In between typing this, I've just started the chapter of the report I'm writing with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Do I think we should ditch formal channels? Absolutely not. They have a role to play. Do I think networks are hugely powerful ways of communicating that we don't currently understand enough about and ignore at our peril? You bet.
Post a Comment