David:

Case studies are ALWAYS frustrating, even in three-part articles that appear your Journal of Employee Communications Management. Why? Because they're too short!
Details! There's no life, no lessons to be learned, without details, lots of them. We already have enough helpful generalizations from popular writers of advice books to last through the next two milennia.
One day there will be a revulsion in America against the Experts, the know-it-alls who write books exploring and explaining every conceivable nook and cranny in business and Life. People will insist on hearing real life stories from practitioners who have never written a 300-page book on Motivation, and will be revolted by the inside lowdown on Motivating the Sullen Employee.
That revulsion will be the beginning of a Revolution, the consequences of which will reach as far as those of the Industrial Revolution.
In the meantime, why don't we have many more studies by academicians of internal communications? And I don't mean another statistical study of the role of hierarchical structures in determining message acceptability within the corporation.
I mean stories told by editors who tried to get things done, in the teeth of everybody else's rooted conviction that nothing new can be done. That alone is important, that alone is worth hearing and thinking about.
And we can't have too many details, David, in these case studies. I, too, have thought while reading the Ragan Report, "This case study is far too superficial and sketchy. I have a dozen questions about what I'm reading."
It's good to know I'm not the only one with very grave doubts about the usefulness of short studies and profiles. Maybe you should lead the way in JECM with a 20,000-word article similar to the profile you wrote on the CEO of U. S. Cellular. Devote the whole issue to it.

Bill

Okay, Bill. I'm up for it. Truly. It would be fascinating for all involved, up to and including the communicator I profile.

Now, communicommandos: Who's got a program they'd like me to print 20,000 words on, covering the thing from inception to completion in the most minute political detail, interviewing all the players, from executives you sold it to, HR partners you fought with, IT guys you negotiated with, plant manager who delivered your meeting-in-a-box, frontline workers you communicated to. Etcetera.

No phone numbers, please. I'll need to come down there. Maybe spend a month at the HQ, getting all the background, the cultural and political context for this program (and the social context of your company).

Ragan can't afford to put me up for a month, so if possible, I'd like to stay with you and commute with you to work every day. This will build trust between us. Besides, how can I fully understand your communication program if I don't know you and your kids and your husband--how you think, how you live, how you recreate?

I'm serious. I'll do this upon any invitation I get.

Meanwhile, I'm afraid I'm stuck with the 750-1,500 worders where I take the communicator's word for it.

Interesting commentary, David, and it's good that you brought it up. Part of the problem is the expectations of the audience for these case studies.

Audiences -- and I include myself because I've been there -- want quick and easy answers to their complex problems. And they want communication solutions in a nice little box tied up with a bow so that all they need to do is open it up, add water, and watch everything fall into place.

Unfortunately, that's not the real world of communication. One of the things I love about communication is that it's such a dynamic and inherently messy process. Anything with such a heavy human element is going to be ugly sometimes and it will rarely go off exactly as planned. That's where we communication professionals play an important role -- if we are skilled and prepared for it. We become negotiators, deal-makers, peace brokers, relationship managers, and (yes, here's that word you hate) strategists. Corporate communication requires a strategic mindset -- try to look beyond the buzz phrase here and see what I'm saying. We have to approach what we do with a clear view of the outcome our client wants, a mindset that does not waver from that goal (no matter how many distractions are thrown our way), an ability to know which tactics to employ in order to get there, and a willingness to be flexible and adaptable when necessary. Because it will be necessary.

This is especially true in the era of social media, where our clients no longer control the messages or the media.

I share your frustration. When I deliver seminars, sometimes I get complaints that "there was nothing new" or "you could have given us more tips" or "I wanted more case studies of best practices." Well, there really is nothing new, just creative applications of the same tried and true principles. And there are no checklists that will guarantee success. And even the best practices are fraught with mistakes and do-overs. That's the way it is.

Robert, I agree wholeheartedly.

Except, with social media, I think strategy must be looser.

Whereas with a regular communication campaign, you can say, "We want to change Behavior X" (and HOPE we manage to do it), I think if you're starting a blog or a podcast, the strategy has to be something like, "To exchange ideas on Topic X with Audience Y."

Make it much more targeted than that and your blog/podcast will turn people off. Don't you think?

I'm sick with envy because I freelance and can't have David Murry come and stay with us for a month--but I've sent this link to several friends in stellar organizations that just might be willing to show their warts in addition to their beautiful features. Seriously, you're offering some smart organization the chance of a lifetime here, David. It will be interesting to see what takers you get.

David, just two days ago I was presenting a seminar for experienced communicators and one of the themes of the day was the impact social media are having on our profession.

Up until two days ago, I always taught that there are three primary factors we can affect with communication: knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Now, I told the seminar, I'm adding a fourth because of new social media: the nature of relationships.

It's no longer enough to say we can influence what people know, what they think (or how they feel) and what they do. Acknowledging the fact that more powerful conversations are taking place in more ways than ever before, we must attempt to influence the nature of our clients' relationships with their audiences. Are those relationships open and productive? Are they tentative and distrustful? Are they hostile? Through engagement (yuck, hate that word, but it fits) and ongoing communication, can we influence the nature of those relationships?

Relationship management has been a significant role for PR/communication since Ivy Ledbetter Lee moved our profession beyond that of press agentry and publicity. It's just that now, in the era of new social media, relationship management takes on even greater prominence. And the cost of not managing relationships well is more apparent than ever.

Or how about the nature of community?

Sort of the same thing as relationships, but I like it better because it takes into account individual relationships but also the interconnectedness between different groups and roles within an organization.

Also, here's an interesting metaphor for the change: if traditional communication is like a concert, where someone is on stage communicating to an audience (and the audience is responding back), social media is more like throwing a beach ball into the crowd. You know there's going to be great interaction but you don't know where the ball is going to go next, and you can't control it after you've handed it off to the audience.

Jane, if somebody takes me up on this I'll freak. The closest thing we've ever done to it is we once had a reporter loosed on Amoco Oil Company (now BP) to ask employees of all stripes how they enjoyed the great employee newspaper the company put out. The editors were tremendous sports to do it, but you're right: They got a lot out of it--essentially, a free qualitative survey.

I'd love it if somebody let me loose similarly.

Ron and Robert, I like the way you guys are talking. This is what makes me enjoy social media: When it finds itself in the middle of a lively atmosphere, it's true COmmunication, rather than one feller talking and everybody else either listening or ignoring.

And, of course, if Sweetland is in the mix, it's always worthwhile!