Last Wednesday, I went down to a health care company in Texas to talk to160 of its senior-level executives, directors and managers. My job: to convince them of the power of strategic employee communication.
(I know, I know. I promised to post some notes from the meeting on Thursday morning. But immediately after my speech, I got waylaid by a bunch of crazy Texans, and they shanghaied me to the bar. Before I knew it, Wednesday night had become Thursday morning, I was already late for my flight, I owed my editor at Ragan two stories that were already a day late, and I had killed so many brain cells the night before that I couldn't figure out how to make the damn high-speed Internet access connection thingie in the hotel room work. I had a serious case of NTTB: No Time To Blog. Sorry.)
Anyway, back to the Texas meeting.
In the sober light of day on Sunday, I have to say the speech went pretty well. However, it was a little unnerving, because not everybody in the audience was into it.
See, I'm used to speaking to communicators, and they are almost always into what I'm saying. But in this audience of 160 non-communicators, not everyone was into it. In fact, there were exactly 37 people who had absolutely no interest in what I was saying.
How do I know? Because I'm tremendously insecure, and I crave audience reaction like a crack addict craves the pipe . . . and I know those 37 people just weren't paying attention. How could I tell? Because when you're a speaker, you know that certain lines are going to get a laugh. You know this because they have gotten a laugh the last 247 times you have said them, in a row. Without fail. Because they're funny.
So every time I would hit one of those lines, I would check the people I didn't think were paying attention . . . and sure enough, each time I got nothing. Not a smile, not a chuckle, not a lifting of a lip. So I know they weren't paying attention.
Either that, or they were paying attention, but they hated me and didn't believe a word I was saying. One white-haired woman with a lavender purse who sat in the sixth seat in the seventh aisle on the left-hand side of the room scowled at me throughout the entire presentation. I mean, she scowled. Non-stop. I found out later that she was in HR.
Either way, those 37 people didn't hear the message.
Now, for that kind of group, I guess 123 out of 160 is not a bad percentage. And, to be honest, what I really cared about was quality, not quantity. It wouldn't kill me if Mitch the Middle Manager wanted to use that time to plot out his fantasy football lineup for the weekend. I mean, I'd rather that Mitch paid attention to me, but I can't control the world. What really mattered to me was the corner office. I wanted to make sure I was connecting with the senior-level people in the crowd. Because those folks can put the hammer down on people like Mitch, and hold him accountable for communicating.
And I think I did connect with those senior-level people. No . . . check that. I know I connected with them. I can say that because at least a half a dozen of them came up to me after the speech (or at the cocktail party that night) to tell me they agreed with everything I was saying. I'm talking about people like the Chief Operating Officer, and others at her level.
They told me that they couldn't agree with me more: that the company needed to be more honest with employees; that the company needed to do a better job of making sure information—both good and bad—flowed throughout the organization; that the company needed to do a better job of treating employees like adults and trusting them to handle bad news; and that the company, by not taking advantage of strategic communication, was losing an opportunity to turn employees into ambassadors in their communities.
Now, you might be thinking they were just yanking my chain. But they weren't. How do I know? Because people at that level don't play those kinds of games. They don't have to kiss my sorry ass. If they weren't into what I was saying, they would have left the session; or not showed up at all; or ignored me afterwards; or told me I just wasted their time.
They wouldn't have made an effort to come up to me and spend 15 minutes talking about communication. Not when there were 50 other people in the room that they could be connecting with. No way.
Which all goes to prove a theory that I (and, I'm sure, others) have been saying for a long time: When information doesn't flow at a company, it's often (usually?) not the fault of the senior-level people in the organization. Those people are smart people. And when you're smart, you usually see the power of communication.
No, the information flow usually stops at the middle-manager level—those people who are trying so desperately hard to protect their pathetic little fiefdoms. Those people who think information is power, and who work hard to keep it from flowing past them to the lower levels of the organization.
I call them Bottleneckers. They are the people who act as bottlenecks and stop the flow of information. Those 37 people who tuned me out as soon as they saw the 'C' word—communication—on the agenda? Bottleneckers, every single one of them. Bottleneckers who need to be broken.
I ran my theory by one of the very senior-level people who stopped by to chat with me at the cocktail party (and asked me for a copy of my presentation!).
He agreed 100 percent. 'I'll tell you right now,' he said. 'We [meaning the executive level people] may not proactively think about communication as much as we should. But neither do we make any active effort to thwart it or stop it. I think managers further down the organization do make an effort to thwart it, because they are threatened by it.'
That is my theory. But I want to hear from you folks. Do you agree? Do you think the people at the top understand communication, and would be happy to do a better job of it, if only we could ever get to them and show them the way?
And do you have Bottleneckers at your company? People you just can't pry information out of, and who stop the flow of information every chance they get? Let me know . . . I'd love to get a discussion going on this.
Comments (9)
No doubt middle managers are the bottlenecks, but maybe the reason why is that they spend their poor, pathetic lives in fear. Among the flocks of risk-adverse middle-managers, communicating can be the scariest thing ever. Say the wrong thing to those below you -- get sued. Say the wrong thing to those above you -- get fired. So maybe the execs -- in addition to being smart -- can actually hear the communciation message because they are no longer afraid. (And, has anyone noticed that the other major group of bottleneckers are the "gatekeepers" around the top person?)
Posted by Becki Dobyns | November 16, 2004 12:58 PM
Posted on November 16, 2004 12:58
THIS is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Ya'll (remember, I spend a night in Texas) bring up excellent points. I love the idea of a blog cascading information down and around the bottleneckers . . . if you can get a senior executive to actually DO one. Anyone know of any that do? It would be a good story for one of the Ragan publications.
"They spend their poor, pathetic lives in fear." I couldn't have said it better myself. And I DO think that the more senior people have a tad more confidence, and thus are more open to communication. The problem is the higher up you go, the less time you have to think about it, it seems. That's why we need to get in their face.
Greg, you're right to an extent about middle managers not having the time. When I did a project with a major defense company, I talked to about 100 supervisors and managers in various focus groups. And they ALL kept telling me two things:
1. They wanted to communicate, but weren't getting consistent, concise messages from the senior level. And they didn't have time to sift through all the message they were getting and figure out which ones to share with employees in their FOUR MINUTE staff meeting they held once a month.
2. Even if they were getting consistent messages, they just had no time. They were concerned with the business of the business, not COMMUNICATING the business of the business.
3. If someone COULD get them clear, consistent messages on a regular basis, they WOULD find the time to communicate more often. But it would have to be short and sweet----and no bullshit.
To me, that's where we can add value, like Robert says above. If we can be the bridge from the execs to those front-line people, we could actually make a difference------while we're putting excellent vehicles out there carrying our strategic messages as well, of course.
Hey, Payne: You guys were truly magnificent. Tell "The Steves" I said hi. ("The Steves" were these two wonderfully crazy liberal Democrat designers. It's not easy to be a wonderfully crazy liberal Democrat designer deep in the heart of Texas, you know).
Steve
Posted by steve crescenzo | November 17, 2004 11:10 AM
Posted on November 17, 2004 11:10
DATE: 11/15/2004 12:72:4P PM
I think that the middle managers are so busy trying to keep the cogs moving in their departments that they don't feel they have time to invest in disseminating corporate messages. When something comes down the pike, they glance through it and put it aside because they have to go back to signing off on everyone's time sheets and vacation requests. But, yes, I see this problem all the time. Unfortunately, it's kind of embedded in the corporate culture and no one knows how to fix it.
Posted by Shari Spiewak | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 11/15/2004 18:35:9P PM
I see it often as a sort of paternalistic attitude - "my staff does not need to know about this, so forget it" - regardless of the staff's actuall interest. Of course, in my org., we also must content with execs who think that everything is vitally important to every employee. Neither of these approaches really work.
As far as dealing with bottleneckers, sometimes it helps (if you know who they are) to appeal to their sense of control and importance and give them the illusion of power: flattery can work wonders on these folks.
Posted by Chris Baiocchi | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 11/15/2004 33:52:2P PM
Interesting insight! Maybe middle-managers need the executive-level communication just as much as the entry-level employees do. It's all about "connecting the dots" and showing them how they relate to the bigger picture.
I remember when I was interviewing some IT vice presidents about an extensive project called "Common Systems." This project took them years to accomplish, so when I asked them what corporate strategy this supported, they were like, "Um, this was kind of a strategy unto itself." I helped them out by suggesting that it improved productivity which would grow earnings margin and profitability.
So, I guess my point is that communicators can educate about the company with published material as well as during smaller conversations. We may have a unique perspective on all of the facets of the company, similar to many execs, but without all that power.
Posted by Carmen Ramson-Herzing | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 11/16/2004 20:91:5A PM
I think bottleneckers are an excellent argument for having the senior-level types blog, at least internally. Let them simply go around those people and communicate directly to the entire organization. Of course, not everyone will read, but the connected/interested ones will, and they will spead the information via word-of-mouth to their colleagues, etc.
Posted by Elizabeth Albrycht | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 11/16/2004 63:62:4A PM
Middle managers absolutely are the bottleneckers. (There are exceptions, but I agree with your premise.) As for what we can do about it, the next generation of communicators will be arguing about that long after we're dust. However, I think it all boils down to communicators focusing on how to make communication as seamless and integrated into "the way things are done" as possible. When communication becomes an add-on "program," when communicators are perceived to be "party planners," when communication vehicles are viewed only as an "expense," this kind of attitude flourishes. We need to get real and become problem solvers rather than trying to build our own little feifdoms.
Posted by Robert J Holland | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 11/17/2004 23:75:0P PM
My organization has a couple of related issues.
1. It's not so much that the middle management folks don't want to share the info, it's more that they're so totally obsessed with making their numbers that they think they don't have time for anything that doesn't contribute to improving productivity. They don't realize that a better-informed employee is a more effective employee.
2. The top people recognize the value of communication and support us really well, but they sometimes get the willies when we want to publish too much detail about our results. I don't discount the possibility that a handful of our 20,000 employees might be inclined to fork over proprietary info to our competitors, but the reality is that anyone so inclined can jolly well accomplish that without our help.
Posted by Greg Marsh | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 11/17/2004 50:05:1P PM
Boy, we had a good time, didn't we? But, I do have to make some changes to your entry: I don't think it was just US crazy Texans that made it a night to remember...as I recall, you kept us going with your incredible humor and ability to whip out the credit card for more drinks (I'm sure you're paying for it now, literally!! Thanks Steve for doing such an awesome presentation...our folks are still talking about it, and how much fun we had. Unfortunately, my director can't seem to forget it as well and keeps saying, "And some of us had a really good time, right?" and eyes me from across the table. (It's ok, he's cool, but I wasn't THAT bad....)
I think your commment on the middle managers is right on....and true in many cases...but what to do? That is the next step......and of course, trying to figure out who you were talking about with the purple purse....good job, Steve and don't forget your pals in Texas!!!
Posted by A Payne in the Arse | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30