[Com-mu'-ni-ca'-tion] So what's new?

(What Worked in the '90s Won't Work in the '00s)

You work for the number one company in your industry, a company whose products are so strong they place first through seventh, ninth, and tenth among the top sellers in the field.

The marketplace is now saturated with eager competitors, straining at the bit to overtake your leadership position. Sales are falling. Your company reorganized for strength last year, but the sale force was shattered by the restructuring.

Morale has plummeted to a depressing low. Senior and best-and-brightest middle-level managers are leaving the company for greener pastures. "What do they know that I don't?" is whispered in the hallways of headquarters.

The situation calls for swift action, buoyed by creative leaders and bolstered by contemporary communication techniques.

Unfortunately (and incredibly), your company enjoys none of those attributes. Management is slow to take action, leaders are scurrying for cover and your firms has succeeded for decades with no communication infrastructure at all. This company succeeds on entrepreneurialism, on reactive decision-making and on control by political pressure.

What would you do to fix this situation?

This company really exists - with more than 15,000 hard-working employees - and the situation described has not been embellished one iota. A lot of folks are working to fix the situation, but history and time are not on their side.

Impatience, especially with "the numbers," rules here, and no-nonsense strategies are the only ones that receive attention.

It's also obvious from my own company's research, the Watson Wyatt WorkUSA study, that this client is not unique. There must be many companies out there where workers would measure up statistically equal to, or worse than, our client firm.

WorkUSA reported in August 1997 that 83 percent of working Americans (9,144 took the survey) understand their company's goals and 87 percent understand their own responsibilities, but only 43 percent are given the skills and 38 percent the information needed to achieve those goals.

The study, our fifth similar survey since 1987, demonstrates shifts in worker attitudes, many now as a result of a bewildering fusillade of restructurings, downsizings, re-engineerings and cost-shiftings that has created a degree of skepticism unparalleled since the invention of the sundial.

When we surveyed employee beliefs in our client company, we found widespread cynicism of senior management, a paucity of effective job-related communication and a buttoned-up style of information delivery that matches communication practices of the 1970s better than practices of the 1990s.

Drafting the Communication Model

But this company needs a communication model for the 21st century, not the 1990s. Where should it begin?

Here in a nutshell is what we have recommended:

* Identification of the company's core values - those fundamental beliefs that do not change over time regardless of business conditions and marketplace realities. This forms the foundation for understanding how the firm operates and how it must change.

* Endorsement at the senior-most management level of a positioning statement for internal communication. The one we recommended was audience bias; yes a loaded term, but one that seems necessary to ensure that cliches such as "open and honest," "people-oriented" and "receiver-based" - all too soft to stir the inner juices of management - don't creep in to weaken what must be done.

* A significant process to assess the human capital value chain and how aligning people practices, including contemporary communication techniques, can create value for the company just as financial capital does. (Can you imagine the reactions of the CEO and CFO when we took the concept of human capital to the front row alongside tried-and-true concepts of financial capital?)

* The use of discovery/invention/delivery as a building block to make the human capital value chain a reality instead of a wall hanging. (This firm has the usual complement of mission and vision statements adorning the walls of conference rooms and lobbies.)

* A more structured communication plan that ensures action on promises. Included are models to improve horizontal communication, new processes for vertical communication in two directions, training in communication skills for managers and rank-and-file workers alike, and a full accountability/measurement system for managerial communication.

The jury is still out on whether or not this model will fly.

What's Not Included

Notice some practices we have not mentioned in this model:

* No mention is made of information-delivery vehicles such as newsletters or an intranet. In fact, the company magazine would be converted down the road from a news-and-recognition vehicle to an interpretive vehicle more oriented to business strategies and objectives. And an intranet is in the works in the spirit of "news now, interpretation to follow" that simply must replace the "dot the i's, cross the t's" style of mediated communication that has ruled our profession for decades.

* The model does not structure an executive visibility plan that takes senior-most management into the field to deal directly with the skeptics. Executives will become more visible, but establishing their credibility first and not tossing the responsibility ball solely in their lap is critical to ensure a model that endures beyond 1998.

* Only by inference (in the discovery/invention/delivery discussion) is opinion surveying or communication auditing developed as an ingredient in the communication mix. To be sure, baseline data and repeat research will be needed to nail down success of the processes the company chooses to introduce, but these executives were hardly the first to blanch visibly when facing the potential of raised expectations that include verbal attacks on them personally.

* The focus of the model is not on the first-line supervisor. We ought to explode that myth right here and now - that the "trusted first-line supervisor is the best conduit of communication" between employee and employer. Contemporary research shows this is absolutely untrue for many topics of communication and very unwise in many communication environments.

The communication model for the 21st century will embrace face-to-face communication that has all but been forgotten in the rush to employ technology for information delivery. The greatest fear of most workers today is that they cannot sift through the reams of data pushed at them (it's called "information overload," as you know) and cull out the information they really need to succeed on the job.

Walter Wriston, when he was CEO of Citicorp, said "no one can remember more than three things at a time." Jack Welch, CEO at GE and arguably one of the most successful executives in modern times, has put that lesson to work in building an industrial giant that is as fluid in its ability to achieve high levels of success today as it was bureaucratic and slow 20 years ago.

The communication model for the 21st century will eschew the "cascade system" as too slow and too prone to distortion to meet the information needs of the modern organization.

The communication model for the 21st century will concentrate less on messaging and more on relationships. The "clear messages equal clear communication" credo we professionals often endorse is as flawed as the cascade and the emphasis on communicating through the first-line supervisor in the organizational world of the 21st century. That's because a situation like the one entangling our client company cannot be solved by a cascade, clear messages and a delivery system that focuses on the supervisor for these reasons:

21st Century Model Stresses Relationships

* The CEO, at the brink of the cascade, is not trusted, and trust is the linchpin for successful communication.

* Clear messages are heard, but employees do not like them. And they don't like the messenger either. So communication is not clear.

* The first-line supervisor is just as disturbed by the existing situation as his or her employees. So why would communication focus on that level as a "best conduit?"

Our study defines four basic types of systems that must be present to ensure employee performance is aligned with business goals:

* Navigation systems that communicate where the organization is going and what employees need to do to help get it there. The study says only 32 percent of workers value the timeliness of management decisions, and 32 percent describe them as good decisions.

* Enabling systems that provide workers with resources to do their jobs and empowerment to perform at peak levels. Just 52 percent of workers say their employers provide training to do their jobs well, and 32 percent feel communication across workgroups or departments is good.

* Influencing systems that establish cultural climate and set behavior guidelines. Only 36 percent of workers surveyed report companies actively seek their opinions and suggestions, and only 30 percent feel they are treated as valued partners by their companies.

* Motivating systems, including reward and recognition elements that get employees charged up to perform. Recognition for job performance (34 percent), quality improvement (38 percent) and customer service (45 percent) are indicative of less than supportive work climates, and only 30 percent see a clear link between good performance and pay increases.

Finally, another look at that first-level supervisor: WorkUSA reports a discouraging 33 percent of workers feel their supervisors are good coaches, 48 percent praise them for fair treatment, 49 percent on valuing teamwork, 46 percent on clear communication of goals and assignments, 46 percent on getting resources needed by the work group, and 44 percent on helping solve job-related problems.

In our client firm, we believe these statistics would be even lower. It's not a pretty picture and particularly cloudy for a firm that's number one in its industry.

The effective internal communication model for the 21st century must provide more than infrastructure. It must also build high levels of trust to gain the performance necessary to keep the company on top.

Dave Freeland is practice leader for strategic/organizational communication with Watson Wyatt Worldwide, New York.