Re: WORST CASE SOME ONE!!!
Traditionally a poor cousin of other functional areas, communicating with employees has, over the past decade, crystallised into an entire support function in its own right – International Communications. Why this growth?
the embarrassment that stems from empowerment: according to a MORI survey, one in six consumers are put off making a purchase by the way they are treated by staff; so employers are seeking to control this ‘loose cannon’ factor
growing reliance on virtual teams: the increasingly dispersed workforce that results from technological advances and structural change (e.g. outsourcing) calls for more co-ordinated communication
the rise of ‘stakeholder strategy’: employers now acknowledge the influence their individual stakeholder groups – customers, investors, employees, community – can have on each other and, as a result, are beginning to develop a more cohesive communication strategy to acknowledge it
link to bottom line: more and more research is now claiming correlations between the ‘feel good’ factor that results from effective internal communication and a company’s financial health – research: effective communication leads to increased employee loyalty leads to improved retention, productivity leads to an improved bottom line
Human Capital Index
Watson Wyatt: Human Capital Index (HCI) shows a relationship between the effectiveness of a company’s human capital and the creation of high shareholder returns. A number of communications practices are linked to human capital effectiveness:
- 51% of high-performing organisations have formal internal communications strategies
- 65% of high-performing organisations concentrate their comms programmes on educating employees about the organisation’s values and culture
- 1995 – 1999, firms that had communication skills as a promotion criterion had a 24% greater shareholder return
The ‘Communications’ function
Though convinced of the potential gains of a more cohesive approach to employee communication, the jury’s still out on the precise form this function should take.
Where’s the value-added? recent research – the communication function, in and out itself, does not add value to a business; how it does add value is by influencing:
clarity of business information
quality of interfaces
effectiveness of communications systems
communication behaviour of management
should it be centralised? can cut duplication and improve efficiency of info flow, but could turn into a control centre, and lapse back into one-way communication, leaving departments feeling one step removed from their audience
run by HR or PR? Biggest bone of contention – is it Internal Communication or Internal Marketing Internal marketing implies ‘sell’ rather than ‘tell’, is run by PR pros, expert in comms techniques, who may be seen to ‘spin’ stories to internal ‘customers’; if run by HR, implies “tell” over “sell”, and information over persuasion
