« Global Communication . . . Part One | Main | Rumsfeld = Churchill? Not bloody likely »

A reason to be cynical? Global Communication . . . Part Two

When I was in London last month, I got into an interesting exchange with a British communicator.

The topic was interactive management columns—those places on the intranet where employees can go to submit questions to senior leaders, who answer them and post the questions and answers where everybody can see them.

I was talking about these programs, and showing some good examples of how well they work, when a British woman spoke up.

“That would never work in England,” she said. “Here, employees are too cynical, and they would only use the forum to bitch and moan about everything they see wrong with the company.”

Now, I’ve heard that same fear voiced in the States, too. And I’ve heard horror stories from communicators who break their asses to set something like this up, and then get dozens of questions from employees complaining about stale croutons in the cafeteria salad bar.

But . . . if you run these forums right and keep the discussions focused on business-related topics, eventually people start to use the forum for its intended purpose: as a way to discuss high-level business topics with leaders, and as a way to float your ideas and comments past the layer of management sewage and straight to the top.

And by the way, it’s not that hard to do. You just never let the petty gripes and non-business complaints see the light of day. And you don’t even respond to the people who sent in the complaint. Eventually, fewer and fewer of the non-strategic questions come in, and the forum is established. It may take a couple of months, but it will usually happen.

Well, I said all of this to the British woman, but she was having none of it.

“We’re more cynical than Americans, plain and simple,” she said. “That kind of freewheeling interactivity would never work over here.”

And that got me to thinking: Could she be right? Now, I know the book on the Brits is that they are cynical. I know that, according to the common wisdom, most English people are two parts Basil Fawlty, one part Dorothy Parker, and one part hungover, crabby Winston Churchill.

They are sarcastic and snide, and can cut you quietly seven times before you even realize that you’re bleeding. But are they really more cynical than Americans?

I just find that hard to believe, based on three simple words: The Royal Family.

I mean, how cynical can you be, as a nation, if you are sheep-like enough to put up with The Royal Family?

Have you seen Buckingham Palace, or St. James Palace, or any of the other palaces where these mooches live? Have you seen their lifestyle? How cynical can a country be if they’re willing to put up with that . . . while at the same time you can’t get a pint of beer in a pub for less than eight bucks?

Or think of it this way: Can you imagine Americans putting up with The Royal Family?

To put it in an American perspective, let's take it into the business environment. Let’s pretend that you are applying for a job at a new company. During the initial interview, you ask about leadership at the organization, and you’re told this:

“Well, our CEO is CEO for life. We aren’t allowed to get rid of him. We don’t have a Board of Executives or anything like that. He’s here until he dies. And when he dies, his goofy kid is going to take over, and there’s nothing we can about that, either. But that’s okay, because other than draw a monster salary and live in a huge mansion and fly around the world in private jets, our CEO doesn’t actually do anything. So he can’t hurt us too bad.”

What would the average American worker say to that? But of course it gets worse, doesn’t it? “Oh, and by the way,” the interviewer continues, “you’ll probably hear about the CEO's relatives—sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles. Uh . . . they’re all on the payroll, too. Big time. They all make a hell of a lot more than you ever will in your entire life.

“But they don’t really do anything either, other than make a spectacle out of themselves in public once in a while, and occasionally have sex with each other. And some of them ride horses, I think. And we trot them out for formal functions, and hope they don’t embarrass us. Oh, and we pay for all their housing and clothes and expense accounts and world travel, too. For all of them. And we’re going to keep doing that forever.”

Can you even imagine? What would be the first question you would ask? Maybe . . . why? What purpose do they serve? Does it have to be this way? The first question I would ask would be: “How do we pay for these people? Doesn’t it wreck havoc on the bottom line?”

And of course they wouldn’t have an answer . . . but you would get one nonetheless, when you visited the corporate cafeteria for the first time, and noticed that a hamburger cost $24, and a bottle of water was $12.

I guess I just don’t buy the whole, “Brits are more cynical than Americans” chestnut. Maybe 30 years ago it was true. Maybe even 20 years ago it was true. But we’ve been Enronned. We’ve been WorldCommed. We had our own version of the Royal Family . . . only our Royalty was a bunch of fat white dudes in suits who thought they had a divine right to cheat employees, lie to investors, and sock away the company crown jewels for their own personal gain.

We let it happen once, but I don’t think we’ll let it happen again. Meanwhile, across the pond, Chuckie and Liz and Andy and Phil go tripping merrily along.

Then again . . . maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s because of the Royal Family that British workers are so cynical. Maybe the fact that the Royal Family exists, and they can’t do anything about it, has turned the English bitter.

And since they can’t voice their concerns to the Queen, they take it out on their employers. And maybe that’s what our communicator friend was getting at: If you set up an interactive forum on an English intranet, all that misplaced bile and bitterness will come pouring out.

It does make sense. I’m fairly sure that if I was breaking my ass on the job every day, and I could barely afford a shepherd's pie and a pint after work, while somebody called the Queen and her incest-ridden family sat on their fat asses in a palace that I was paying for . . . I'd probably show up to work too pissed off to engage in a dialogue with my senior leaders, too.

Still, I’d like to see some English companies try the tactic, just to see how it would turn out.

Comments (8)

Carmen:

Steve,
From the US, I contribute to a global print publication that is heavily influenced by my wonderful colleagues in the UK. (Truly charming people.) From this experience, I say that the US is far more cynical.

For example, articles from the Brits tend toward the glossy, shouting "WE ARE SO GREAT!!!" without specific examples or tangible facts to illustrate or explain.

That relates to the Royal Family, which is high on gloss and low on logic.

Steve C.:

Carmen:

I couldn't agree more . . . the Brits I met in London were incredibly charming, smart, on the ball, curious, and friendly. To a person, almost.

But cynical? Nah. Certainly not any more than us Yanks . . . and to my opinion, a lot less.

High on gloss and low on logic. I like that.

Steve C.

Tim H:

(England-born Canadian writes)No, Americans would never accept the royal family. Their loss. Sure, lots of British people think the monarchy's day is over - but far more value them for the continuity and tradition, and the luxury of a public figure that is not political and not motivated by profit. And if your beer was 8 bucks you were in the wrong pubs!

Steve, it's a matter of geography as much as history. The UK is a small country with this great pendulum of a capital city in the south east corner. Imagine having the entire population of the States within 500 miles of wise-cracking New York.

That's what makes us cynical - plus we have the pleasure of Lords on our Boards, merely because their great great great great grandmothers shagged Charles II.

Alison Quest:

well, I believe it was me "The British Lady" and I'm not quite sure I have been completely fairly represented - the power of the blog publisher - eh! But I do maintain my view - a national trait - Brits are more cynical than Yanks. We have class system, we have the royal family (just history - does it have a bearing on levels of cynicism...more reason to be more cynical when we anarchic, outmoded, once powerful now faded method of government??) we don't have a "new country" american dream ideal where it is possible for all to succeed. Launch a new idea in the states - much more likley to take off and get support and get people liking it and "loving it" - just much harder to achieve that here. And I think that stacks up in the corporate world too. I'm not pro-cynical actually - so long live America.

Alison Quest:

well, I believe it was me "The British Lady" and I'm not quite sure I have been completely fairly represented - the power of the blog publisher - eh! But I do maintain my view - a national trait - Brits are more cynical than Yanks. We have class system, we have the royal family (just history - does it have a bearing on levels of cynicism...more reason to be more cynical when we anarchic, outmoded, once powerful now faded method of government??) we don't have a "new country" american dream ideal where it is possible for all to succeed. Launch a new idea in the states - much more likley to take off and get support and get people liking it and "loving it" - just much harder to achieve that here. And I think that stacks up in the corporate world too. I'm not pro-cynical actually - so long live America.

Steve C.:

Hi, Alison!

See . . . this is the real nature of the new world. The blogger doesn't have any more power than the reader!!! We're all publishers. If I misrepresented you, sorry. But you have the means to come out here and blast me.

In the old days, I would have written this column in the Raqan Report (our print newsletter) and if I misrepresented you, you could have written a letter, and I could have chosen whether or not to publish it.

Now, you can come out here and publish your own letter. It's a whole new world, and in some ways, it's going to force writers to be more responsible and careful, I think.

But in reading your post, I can actually see more of the point. There still is, in the States, a healthy optimism, I think. I "you can be what you want to be if you're willing to work" attitude.

That has slipped of late, but it's still stronger than it is in England, obviously. So in that regard you are absolutely right.

Thanks for coming out here!

Steve C.

Who was this lady and where was she from?

I manage internal communications in a UK university and I agree with you - all it takes is the willingness to try and perseverence.

Ours works: Warwick Forums (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/forum/)

There are other examples on our intranet, but they're locked down so I'm afraid I can't share.

Where I would disagree with you though is that I think that there does need to be a way to complain about the petty irritations that affect people's daily lives as well - in our case the car parking, the café prices etc.

But just not the same place as the strategic stuff.

Post a comment

In order to reduce spam, please enter the letter "q" in the field below:

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 8, 2006 12:00 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Global Communication . . . Part One.

The next post in this blog is Rumsfeld = Churchill? Not bloody likely.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33