Building credibility in a time of change: how can the CEO and communication team ensure credible communication internally today?

Communication World and PR News hosted a panel discussion June 15 in Dallas, preceding IABC's annual international conference. We've hosted panels such as this on various topics for the past three years. By bringing together leading experts to discuss issues we believe are important to communicators, and the profession, we feel we get a pulse on areas that are of concern to communicators. This information will help PR News and Communication World plan editorial content throughout the year. It is a rare opportunity to gather this calibre of professionals into a room at one time, and record their candid discussions. We hope you will gain as much from this panel discussion as the editors. The report here distills some of the insights and debates that emerged in the two-hour session in Dallas.

THE PANELISTS:

Jerry Bryan, ABC, APR; vice president/director of corporate communication, Sverdrup Corp., St. Louis, Mo.

Roger D'Aprix, ABC; William M. Mercer Companies, Inc., Rochester, N.Y.

Tom Geddie, ABC; Tom Geddie Communication Planning & Evaluation, Dallas, Texas 

Stephanie Griffiths, consultant, Material Assistance, Kenmare, South Africa 

Mary Lewis, ABC, manager, corporate communication, EDS, Dallas

Paul Sanchez, APR, national practice director/communication, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, San Diego, Calif.

Sharon Voros, vice president/communication, Paul Ray Berndtson, Fort Worth, Texas 

The old contract - real or assumed - between organizations and employees that rewarded commitment and loyalty with job security, if not career advancement, is fading away.

At the same time, organizations need hard-working, committed and resourceful employees to succeed in a fast-changing, competitive marketplace.

This apparent "disconnect" has strained top management's credibility, or at least suggests that they may be out of touch with the concerns of many employees.

The New Contract Between Companies and Employees

The written or unwritten contract between employers and employees today appears under stress, with corporations' expectations for employee commitment seemingly at odds with companies' willingness to ask more of employees at the same time that layoffs or reengineerings raise fears about job security.

"'Family-style'" loyalty no longer is a tenable concept today," said Jerry Bryan, vice president of corporate communication at Sverdrup Corp., St. Louis. "That one's outmoded in the sense that there's an implied sacrificial giving on both sides of the table that's just not there."

The concepts around which communication with employees about their roles and expectations of them should be built, said Bryan, can be centered around "shared values, mutual interests and continuous learning."

Most people today also accept that the days of lifetime employment at one company or organization are over. A dramatic bit of evidence that this is so came from Sharon Voros, vice president of communication with worldwide executive recruiting firm Paul Ray Berndtson, Fort Worth, Texas. She cited research done by her company showing that "78 percent of the executives [surveyed] are at any point in time looking for, or have their eyes open for a new job. Sixty-nine percent of top executives - and we're talking about people one or two levels below the CEO - have sent their resumes to prospective employers over the last 12 months. Sixty-four percent went on a job interview."

Voros' findings were echoed by a survey of the Dallas chapter of IABC. According to Tom Geddie, ABC, of Tom Geddie Communication Planning and Evaluation, Dallas, a 1995 survey showed that 45 percent of members had changed jobs within the past two years. "I believe, at least to a degree, that there's a much greater loyalty to a profession than there is to an employer," he said.

Leaders: Be Visible, Set Expectations

In an unstable world in which employees' roles and continued employment prospects are in question, what communication advice can professional communicators give to their managements to establish and enhance their credibility? Panelists advised two approaches for management: making their leadership visible, and setting clear expectations.

A key ingredient of credible communication is management visibility, said Paul Sanchez, global communication practice director at consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide, San Diego. "Our firm has found in a lot of leadership that CEOs have just not had the opportunity, because of present business, to think about how they can be visible to make their leadership skills more apparent. And credibility has a direct relationship to visibility. When we've looked at organizations that have high communication profiles and good ratings in a number of dimensions around communication, we find that they found ways to make the leadership visible."

Credible communication by management begins with the expectations that management fosters in the organization with regard to communication and corporate performance goals and employee roles, believes Bryan. "I think it goes to the point of expectations. Is there a clear understanding or covenant agreement where management understands what is expected of them, and employees understand what is expected of them? If you don't know what the level of expectation might be, how do you know when credibility has been broken?" he asked.

Are Shareholders More Important Than Employees?

Two problems that can limit management's ability to communicate credibly with employees are an apparent overriding focus on shareholders and stratospheric pay packages received by some top executives.

The impression - real or perceived - that most publicly held companies focus on shareholder return over all other priorities has created a dilemma for management's communication with employees, several panelists agreed. "I think our leadership has things out of whack here," said Roger D'Aprix, a principal with William M. Mercer Companies, Rochester, N.Y. "They're so tuned in to shareholder value, that they're pursuing that at the expense of the other constituencies."

Panelists agreed that the issue of executive compensation is complex, and is more in the hands of boards of directors and compensation committees than in the CEOs'. Nonetheless said Voros, a few "highly publicized cases" of possibly excessive CEO pay have "created an overall cynicism among employees."

Communicators need to be able to provide communication, internally, about "the economic realities" that, on the one hand drive executive compensation while at the same time leading organizations to downsize, said Sanchez.

Two-Way Will Get More Important

Two-way communication, always critical for credible internal communication, will become ever more so in the 1990s' company. "In the '90s, if an organization is going to succeed, it can't do it without making strategy work through people. How is that going to happen unless there is two-way dialogue?" asked Sanchez.

Nonetheless, he says that research done by his company (Watson Wyatt) showed that many companies are failing to foster two-way communication between management and employees: "Eighty percent of employees say the organization is doing a better job of communicating downward; only three of 10 employees say the organization is doing a good job of promoting upward communication.

"All of the indicators of the best organizations point to the fact that when an organization succeeds you will find good communication; usually an ingredient of that is good upward communication," he added.

Employees today need communication that will allow them to have some influence over their jobs, and communication that recognizes their contributions, said D'Aprix. "Employees are looking for two things today," he said. "One, the ability to influence decisions, and two, some sort of appreciation." Unfortunately, many employee surveys show that employees feel they are not appreciated and "nobody acts on their suggestions."

To D'Aprix's final point, Mary Lewis, manager, corporate communication at EDS, Dallas, added that communication programs soliciting suggestions must be willing to consider suggestions, and communicate why they are, or are not, acted upon. "If you don't ever follow through on any of the things that employees say to you in this two-way communication, and then communicate that back out to the work force, it almost can become a deterrent rather than a help in the communication process."

Stephanie Griffiths of Material Assistance Communication in South Africa added, "Two-way communication can help establish credibility only if it is perceived to contain real valued information that is understandable and believable. Our workers today focus on their information rights rather than their information needs and filtering criteria are thus higher. Furthermore, trust of the sender or source becomes crucial in the process. Content, climate and worker expectations would thus play a role in how this information is received. Having said this though, without two-way communication, credibility becomes a forlorn hope, rather than a deliverable."

Involving Informal Leaders in Communication

In light of the influence of opinion leaders in organizations, they are an attractive audience for communicators seeking to deliver credible messages and actually change behaviors in organizations. While these individuals can be identified for general company topics, or by certain issues, any formal involvement in communication programs must be handled extremely carefully, panelists agreed.

"If you can find people to become interested in the subject, to become believers and then serve as apostles to the rest of the people, I think that's probably valid," said D'Aprix. "Short of that, I think it smacks of manipulation."

"Obviously, you can't use an employee as conduit without having their intellectual and emotional buy-in," said Voros. But, if these people can be involved - with their consent - in the development and dissemination of materials, "we've found it to be extremely successful."

Voros added that these individuals can be identified through formal "culture fit analyses" that assess their alignment with core beliefs and the overall corporate culture of organizations.

Geddie suggested that organizations might consider having employees identify who opinion leaders might be. "Sometimes management doesn't necessarily see the same people as being opinion leaders as other employees do," he said.

Such employees can be involved in this way without having a rigid communication plan, suggested Lewis of EDS.

She described a June 1996 initiative at her company that involved a select group of about 60 employees from around the world who participated in the first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange of the company, just spun off by General Motors. "They got to experience the excitement that our executives experienced on that," she said. "They have now gone back out into their work place, and from what I hear, they are the best ambassadors and communicators for where we're going and what the vision is of the company right now."

Griffiths added, "Change in South Africa implies a radical 360 degree shift, rather than an incremental adaptation. Organizations need to apply the principles of our national reconstruction and development program to company systems, practices and procedures - under the watchful eye of our government and trade unions. Key elements of our transitional programs include line and senior management reshuffles, a high emphasis on employee development and welfare, and a move in decision making from the privileged few to the collective many."

Communicating Credibly about Layoffs, Reengineering

Possibly the most difficult task for communicators, tactically as well as emotionally, is getting out information about reengineering or restructuring - especially when they include layoffs.

On this sensitive and potentially explosive topic, the credibility that an organization and its communicators have built up over the years is their best asset in the early going. "Without credit in the credibility bank, they're not going to be believed," said Geddie.

For both internal and external audiences, layoffs must be communicated in the context of the market or other external events that are driving the change. "With the media, make sure they understand your business and the company's business strategy," said Voros. "It's critical that the strategy behind it is communicated."

Internally and externally, explaining change in terms of market forces "is probably the most fundamental principle for communicating in a turbulent time," said D'Aprix.

Internally, news of layoffs should not come as a complete surprise, said Bryan. "Many executives have a sign on their desks that says, 'no surprises.' Why should employees have surprises?"

At the same time, communicating about layoffs requires a precise plan that is built around legal, contractual and competitive constraints, pointed out Watson Wyatt's Sanchez. Communication plans are built around "a series of activities that are driven by a lot of external factors - everything from the Warren Act, which requires certain U.S. governmental disclosures in a certain sequence - to the appropriate dispatching of sales contracts, so that both suppliers and buyers are not left hanging."

In these scenarios, employees may not be the first to be advised, he said, although they must be advised in a "humane way," and promptly - certainly before they hear from other sources.

Griffiths adds, "In my opinion, the technique of explaining layoffs is simple. Be honest and do not emote. State the business case for layoffs and do not be drawn into the value issues."

Credibility of Communicators

Panelists also addressed the question of the credibility that corporate communicators have with the employees with whom they are communicating.

Does the role of being the spokesperson or messenger for management have negative implications for communicators?

Not at all, said D'Aprix. "That's a perception that doesn't bother me. That's really what we're all about." Speaking of some communicators who view themselves as "internal journalists," he said it places communicators in a reactive mode, rather than the role of strategist and advisor to management.

"Our employees expect us to be the voice of management," said Lewis. "They get a lot of local information at their own level. They look for us to let them know what their management is saying, and to get those messages to balance with what they're hearing at the local levels."

Corporate communicators are in the best position to make sure that organizations "speak with one voice," said Bryan. "Everyone in our field agrees that an organization must speak with one clear voice. That's a mantra, almost. In that regard, is not the communication executive the executive in charge of voice?"

What is the Future Role for Communicators?

In a flattened organization, with "democratized" communication such as E-mail, communicators' roles change from delivery of information to an overriding concern about the "clarity and meaning," said D'Aprix.

Communicators tying their priorities more closely to organizational objectives may find that they are responsible for fewer communication initiatives as corporations focus only on those that can deliver real impact. "I'm anticipating a dramatic decrease in the number of deliverables in the communication field out of our company," said Bryan. "Fewer newsletters, fewer videos, fewer booklets and brochures." At the same time, he expects to see more communication, and clarity, overall, as individuals and groups spend more time communicating.

Communicators who can foster clarity and meaning will have the opportunity to reach the highest level of communication: "being the facilitator of change," said Sanchez.

Major corporations are looking for this type of communicator in their position searches today, said Voros. "Companies are beginning to realize - many of them have realized - the role of communication in accomplishing strategy." She said she is seeing more job searches for top posts that seek a person not only with communication skills and background, but also management experience - sometimes even line management - that demonstrates an ability to develop strategy and policy. "Finding those people, let me tell you, is not easy," she said.

Added Bryan from his corporate perspective, "I see absolutely no shortage of opportunity these days for communicators who will come not only to what we've always called the strategic level...but above that to the policy level. In other words, not just to communicate, but to communicate to what point."

"I believe the individual would need to be a generalist rather than a specialist and have a sound grasp of organizational behavior and development techniques, as well as being a very good strategic communicator. The senior organizational communicator is a significant tool in the organizational tool kit; internally his or her efforts can optimize both climate and culture in the work place. Furthermore, this contribution affects external relationships in terms of customer, community and media focus. This practitioner should be able to function as an internal consultant to the organization in terms of process and have diagnostic, planning and evaluation skills in addition to project management or implementation capabilities," commented Griffiths.

Tom Moore is editor of PR News, published by Phillips Business Information, Inc., Potomac, Md.