Effective internal communication starts at the top: help executives understand the need for clear, concise communication.

Executive communication: why bother?

Senior executives, especially the CEO, provide leadership to align the organization with its vision. They set the direction, and their behavior determines the tone and culture--how the vision will be achieved.

But employees are often not impressed. In countless organizations, employees say that their senior executives are not visible (which employees interpret to mean that they don't care), they give few clues as to the future direction of the company, they are not open and honest, they don't involve and consult those affected by change, they fail to recognize achievement, and sometimes they even punish those who raise issues. Certainly this is not the case in all organizations, but sadly it is true of many.

Research reveals that improving the communication of senior executives, especially the CEO, may be the most cost-effective way to improve employees' satisfaction with communication in their organizations.

"Finding the Right Direction," in the November-December 2004 issue of CW, described how research conducted in Australia found that effective senior executive communication is generally one of the highest correlates of satisfaction with internal communication (typically around 0.7 out of 1.0).

However, on average, only 38 percent of Australian employees are satisfied with communication with their senior executives, and only 35 percent with communication with their CEOs. About two-thirds of employees are not prepared to say they are satisfied.

Not a pretty picture. Little wonder that many executives complain that their workforce is not "engaged." The high correlation between ineffective communication by senior executives and low levels of employee satisfaction is likely to be the case in other countries as well.

What's more, a study conducted for the Allen Consulting Group in 2003 to identify the key drivers of effective change management found a strong statistical relationship between CEO and divisional executive communication and "organizational satisfaction and culture." This correlates strongly with employees' perceptions that "major changes appear well planned" and "implementation of changes is well handled," as described in CW. CEO and divisional executive communication was found to be far more likely to influence employees' perceptions that change was well planned and well implemented than, say, immediate manager or team communication.

Communication audit results from other organizations reveal some very shabby scores:

* 10 percent of employees agreed that executives were aware of their concerns.

* 15 percent agreed that the head office communicated effectively.

* 19 percent agreed that senior executives were visible.

* 19 percent agreed that executives sought their views and listened.

* 21 percent agreed that they were informed of plans and directions.

* 23 percent agreed that executives communicated well.

To put these audit findings into perspective, our research found that, on average, 61 percent of employees are satisfied with communication with their immediate manager, and 63 percent understand the expectations of them in their job roles.

It's not as if employees' demands on senior executives are that taxing. Research of what topics employees wish to hear about from their CEO reveals a limited range of such "big picture" topics as:

* The future of the organization.

* Overall corporate strategy.

* Top-line financial results.

* Major changes (e.g., redundancies).

* Feedback from the board of directors (or, in the public sector, government).

* Major stakeholder issues.

* Responses to media attention.

Employees also understand that the CEO and other executives can't visit often. For example, pilots in a 17,000-employee airline said they didn't need to hear from the popular CEO personally about the future of the business (which was precarious at the time) because "he's too busy." But they did expect to be kept fully informed by the chief pilot (the senior executive responsible for them).

Curiously, big road shows or town hall meetings don't appear to be the answer, although they feature the CEO and/or other executives "live." Typically, 50 to 60 percent of employees in Australia are satisfied with them, but these events correlate only moderately with their overall satisfaction with communication.

Research suggests that the "tools" we use (road shows, intranet, e-mail, video streaming, newsletters and the like) can be used to support face-to-face communication with executives. Our media efforts should develop relationships, not simply convey information. Remember, communication is about the creation of meaning and understanding, not simply moving information around.

It's about authenticity 

"Do you think the CEO is gesturing correctly?" asked the vice president of communications of a multinational manufacturing company, at a CEO rehearsal. I looked at him incredulously and replied, "This isn't about performance. It's about authenticity, credibility and clarity. It's whether the organization's various constituents are able to understand, believe and relate to what the CEO is telling them. Gesturing should be natural. If it's prompted by a script or some other instruction, it's not." The vice president shrugged; his boss looked relieved.

Too many professional communicators seem to believe that business communication is more about presentation--the event, stagecraft, choreography, props and other paraphernalia--than about straightforward, genuine human interaction. Effective communication is how we all successfully connect with and engage others every day, taking them on our personal journey of ideas. But they only come along if they trust us, if they feel we respect them and if our journey is meaningful to them. So communication is about feelings, not just facts. It's no different in organizations.

Many of those same words appear in organizational mission statements. Most are "communication" words--for example, we, trust, commitment, win/win, openness, sharing, recognition, respect, people, stakeholders, engagement. Executives certainly recognize the importance of communication--in theory. In practice, however, they fail too often.

Perhaps this is hardly surprising, given that most senior executives achieve their positions as a result of their success as managers and operators, not as leaders and communicators. They're evaluated more on business performance than on personal behavior. So the focus is inevitably on tasks before people. Yet there's a clear link between outstanding organizational performance and outstanding culture.

Seizing opportunities

First and foremost, communicators must be exemplars. We too must walk the talk as communication managers and as leaders. While our content, systems and tactics may be well regarded by our executive colleagues, we can't neglect our personal communication skills. We must seize every opportunity to engage spontaneously and meaningfully in our own affable style with others around the workplace. We must resolve to defeat the disinterest, even cynicism, so prevalent within many organizations. We'll achieve this by not just what we say but how we say it; by listening actively and showing we care; by picking up on feedback and ensuring it's acknowledged in future communication by the appropriate executives; and, most important, by revealing our own hopes, feelings and imperfections, demonstrating that we too are human, sincere and vulnerable.

Second, communicators must be advocates. To be successful, we must earn the confidence and respect of our executives by proving our worth. Given that they are primarily focused on process and outcome, this requires synchronizing our communication strategy with the organization's business strategy and our activities with the organization's operations. We need to remind executives of the correlation between winning cultures and winning performances. Every executive meeting should end with clarity about what's to be communicated, to whom, by whom, when and how. Communication should be kept short and simple, whatever the medium.

Assure executives that repetition is a good thing, however familiar or even bored they themselves may be with the subject matter. Executives need to talk regularly to employees about the organization's purpose, activities, goals, points of difference, customers, competitors, and how their departments and their own personal efforts contribute. If employees aren't clear about these things, we and our executive colleagues have work to do.

Third, communicators must be coaches, working closely with executives, not in isolation. Remind them that they're leaders and role models--that effective communication is a core leadership quality and a two-way process that is about informing as well as influencing others. We should demonstrate that we want to help by giving executives the confidence, motivation and tools to be able to communicate well. Have the courage to keep them up to the mark. If we're reluctant or unable to do so, we should bring in outside experts. Search for opportunities, formal and informal. Face-to-face communication works best, as do smaller events.

We need to explain to our colleagues that in communication, like most things in life, what goes around comes around. So executives have to recognize that if they want to be listened to, trusted and respected, they have to reciprocate.

Measuring results

Clearly, no single activity or event will achieve this. As with any worthwhile journey, it takes time, persistence and resolve. A dose of humility helps too.

Results are the measure of organizational success, and each organization, whatever its nature or purpose, is a people organization. However brilliant the idea, product or strategy, executives can't achieve their organization's goals on their own. To succeed, they must strike a balance between tasks and people, and so bring their employees on the journey. But employees will only come along if they're clear about where they're headed and why, and if they trust and feel appreciated by those taking them there.

As I put it to a CEO recently, "This company's success depends on the quality of its daily conversations." And communicators must take the lead in enabling these conversations.

Perhaps it's time to review those media training budgets (how many in your organization really have to, or indeed should, speak with the media, anyway?) and to allocate more time and resources to developing communication skills such as engagement, conversation, listening, negotiation, collaboration, conflict management, facilitation, emotional intelligence and, yes, presentation at all levels.

In short, there is much evidence that we can get a greater "bang for our buck" by putting an effort into improving executive communication. And there is much that we can do.

CEOs seem to be listening

A recent survey of 500 PR practitioners conducted by IABC and PR News provides some hope for the future of executive communication. While research may well show that employees in many organizations think communication with their senior executives can improve, most heads of corporate communication think their CEOs at least have the right attitude. Fully 80 percent of PR heads believe their CEO "understands the importance of communication, not just when there is an issue or crisis." However, one in 10 do not.

Moreover, 70 percent say their CEOs "see PR as an investment in the future, not just a cost." And two-thirds say the CEO "usually accepts my recommendations." But again, one in 10 say their CEO does not.

Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed said their CEOs "willingly make an effort (that is, put in time) to maintain good relations with employees." This is ahead of their efforts to maintain good relations with stockholders (64 percent), analysts (50 percent) and the media (64 percent), but behind customers and clients (83 percent) and business or alliance partners (84 percent). Still, a significant 23 percent of CEOs have yet to be convinced of the symbolic nature of their role as far as employees are concerned.

On a personal level, three-quarters of PR practitioners think their CEO "would say I understand the business," although only half "ask my opinion about the PR implications of future directions of the business." This may be because only 40 percent of respondents reported that the PR function reports directly to the CEO, and only 57 percent said they attend meetings of the executive team at least monthly.

The write-in comments to the survey revealed that at least a few CEOs don't yet recognize the importance of executive communication with employees. The respondents noted that:

* "The CEO doesn't understand the strategic importance of employee communications as it relates to ROI for the business."

* "The CEO puts very little weight on PR. Considers it a cost."

* "Demoted it [the function]. He does not understand its value to the big picture and is focused on cost savings at present."

* "I do not meet with the CEO unless I'm preparing him for a media interview."

A comparison of the value that CEOs place on functions within a company showed that 65 percent of the respondents felt that their CEO valued corporate affairs/PR at least as much as advertising; 41 percent felt the CEO valued PR at least as much as sales; 57 percent, as much as marketing; 39 percent, as much as legal; and 50 percent, as much as human resources.

--R.G. & L.R.

In this article, Rodney Gray, employee communication research specialist, argues the case for improving senior executive communication in organizations. Larry Robertson, communication advisor to senior executives, outlines what communicators can do to support CEO and senior executive communication.

Rodney Gray is with Employee Communication & Surveys in Sydney, Australia, and has worked with the IABC Research Foundation. He can be reached at [e-mail].

Larry Robertson is principal of Robertson Burns, based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at [e-mail].