Internal Communication with Louise Sturgess

A reason to get out of bed...

I’ve just read an interesting article on FT.com about a report called Worthwhile Work. The report, by communications consultancy CHA, surveyed over 1,500 employees in the UK across a range of organisations. According to the FT, the report has uncovered ‘deep dissatisfaction with the sort of work that is currently on offer.’ The survey has found that around 40% of younger workers (people who are under 35) who work in the private sector are considering transferring to the public or charity sectors. Overall, one in three workers in the private sector is thinking about making this move. The FT also says that more than 60% of 18-25 year olds are looking for ‘more worthwhile work.’

I have a couple of friends who work in the recruitment business and I know that they would definitely agree with these findings. Candidates who are looking to move within the private sector are increasingly specifying that they want to work for ‘an ethical or responsible company’ and naming those that they definitely won’t consider.

Whilst they can’t fix everything, internal communicators certainly have a role to play in helping people to understand what it is the company does, what it’s aiming for and why they should bother getting out of bed in the morning – in other words, what their contribution is. As the article rightly points out though, helping people to understand what they should be contributing and how this makes a difference is predominantly down to line managers.

People generally like to know and feel that they’re making a positive difference, which means that companies without a more ‘altruistic’ mission just have to work harder at communicating why people should bother coming to work.

Making suggestions

I came across this article in the FT a couple of days ago about employee suggestion schemes. These were all the rage in the 80's but then seemed to die a death during the 90's. However, they are well and truly alive and kicking again as this article clearly demonstrates.

Suggestion schemes, if managed well, can have a variety of benefits for companies. They can give people a channel through which they can voice their ideas and help to involve them in the business. Both of these things have a positive impact on levels of engagement. Suggestion schemes can also help to develop and encourage a culture of idea generation, problem solving and improvement, something that most businesses are keen to encourage. Some companies don't just limit these schemes to their employees, but include customers as well. Dell has a great site called IDEASTORM that aims to gather ideas from its people as well as its customers and potential customers. The Dell site enables people to promote ideas or demote them, as well as discuss them with other Dell users and employees.

For some companies, the rate at which they can innovate or introduce new ideas is key to them maintaining a competitive position in the marketplace. However, as the FT article points out, not every good idea needs to involve developing a new product or doing something completely different. Many of the best ideas come from suggesting slight changes or updates to the existing way of doing things. The UK Identity and Passport Office (referenced in the article) implemented a suggestion in 2006 that involved changing one number on a form for another, a change that may help save thousands of pounds. Suggestion schemes can also play a role in employee reward and recognition. Some companies may choose to provide their people with monetary rewards for their ideas, but this is not always necessary. Sometimes it's just saying 'thank you' that can make a real difference.

So, if all this is sounding like a great idea, what do you need to guard against when setting up a suggestion scheme? Schemes can fail if there is no real commitment to them and not enough ways to collect ideas. When ideas are collected then they need to be analysed and dealt with appropriately and feedback given to people on how useful or not they have been. Make sure you have these basics in place and you'll reap the rewards.

How to say goodbye

I’ve been prompted to write this post by a sad event as one of my good friends is leaving Radley Yeldar. She’s been here for a number of years and now feels it’s time to move on and do something completely different. Whilst we’ll be sad to see her go it’s all very exciting for her. We’ll be having the customary leaving party, complete with present and card, and people will make sure she has a good send off.

But not all companies respond to people leaving in this way. Some organisations treat people who leave them as traitors, not to be spoken to, or spoken about, ever again. There is no leaving party, no celebration of the hard work they’ve put in during the time they’ve worked at the company and certainly no present or card. Whilst people leaving can be upsetting and unsettling, how you treat them on their departure says an awful lot about your corporate culture. Thanking people for their contribution and respecting the decision that they’ve made sends a clear message that people are valued and that their contribution is recognised. Ignoring the situation, badly communicating it or refusing to acknowledge the person going can leave everyone with a bad taste in his or her mouth. Then there’s what people say about the company after they’ve left. Treat them well and you’ll have an advocate for life. Treat them badly and you may find that it comes back to bite you….

Getting competitive over cappuccinos

Howard Schultz has recently been reinstated as the CEO of Starbucks following a year of extremely slow growth for the coffee giant. The FT reported this week that the share price for Starbucks had fallen by 50% last year as Wall Street became increasingly nervous that its growth was taking a turn for the worse. So, Schultz has returned to the helm to shake things up and beat off increasing competition.

One brand that’s giving Starbucks call for concern is McDonalds. On 7 January, the Wall Street Journal reported that the fast-food chain is planning to open it’s own    coffee bars in around 14,000 of it’s US outlets. Just like Starbucks, the coffee bars will have ‘baristas’ serving a variety of types of coffee, many very similar to the variations that Starbucks sells now.

But what is Schultz planning to do about it? Well, apart from closing underperforming US stores, growing stores abroad and focusing on improving the product, there will also be a significant focus on employee engagement. Some may say that the reason McDonalds has even been able to consider moving into Starbuck’s space in the first place is that the whole experience has become overly commoditised. Despite it’s efforts to the contrary, there is a feeling amongst many in the branding industry that Starbucks has lost its sense of authenticity. And who are the people who can communicate this on a daily basis? That’s right – the company’s employees.

In his book ‘Punching In’, Alex Frankel talks about his experiences as a trainee barista for Starbucks. The book talks about his less than perfect induction process, where he wasn’t given any time to read the training and induction manuals before actually starting work. And when serving the coffee, Frankel doesn’t report any feeling of ’romance and theatre’ that is supposedly a major component of the brand.

Whilst there’s no doubt that Starbucks has certainly got its work cut out over the coming months, I think its strategy to focus on employee engagement will definitely help it to make a comeback. The company knows only too well that how its baristas engage with its customers forms the most critical part of the overall brand experience and that these are the people who communicate and deliver the brand every single day. They are really the ones with the power to put the ‘magic’ back into coffee.

Getting emotional

Towers Perrin has just published a Global Workforce Study that looks at what drives attraction, retention and engagement amongst employees. The company surveyed nearly 90,000 employees across 18 countries, which makes the study the largest of its kind. A three-part model (think, feel, act) was used to determine and calculate engagement. Whilst I haven’t seen the full survey results, some of the headline findings make for interesting reading. According to the research, 21% of employees are ‘engaged’ (providing full discretionary effort) and 41% of people are ‘enrolled’ (partly engaged). 30% are ‘Disenchanted’ (partly disengaged), with the remaining 8% being ‘Disengaged’ (completely disconnected on both an emotional, rational and motivational front).

This shows that organisations still have a long way to go when it comes to employee engagement (is anyone out there surprised by that?) and I’ll be interested to learn more about the study in due course. One of the aspects I find interesting from these findings though is that it’s clear that organisations are still failing to connect emotionally with their people. The rational and motivational aspects of engagement seem easier to get grips with. So why is this ‘emotional connection’ so hard to achieve? Why do some organisations find it so hard to be ‘human’? Are managers and communicators so wrapped up in fine-tuning rationales, models and business cases that they forget to inject any humanity into proceedings? There is talk that emotional fulfilment at work will become increasingly important in the future, so this is certainly a challenge that organisations can’t ignore.

I certainly don’t have all the answers – it would be great to hear your thoughts.

Louise