"There is a significant amount of trust that goes along with this agreement," said [the COO]. "Airlines enter into 10-year agreements with airports where they believe the cost structure, the capital approval processes, and the management of the airport all work together. We truly value our relationship with the airlines, and our openness, transparency and mutual respect has led us to this point."Instantly the air goes whooshing from the ruptured tread of your morale. It occurs to you, though you can't put your finger on why, that this lone win may mean little in the context of your organization's immense challenges. What just happened?
"No more bogus quotes!"
So you're reading a news-style internal article about a business win and you're feeling encouraged (maybe even engaged!) until you hit something like this pothole of a quote:
Who do you serve? (a trick question)
It sounds like one of those hackneyed job-interview questions (let me know if you've encountered it in an actual interview), but it's a crucial part of optimizing governance so you can apply The Good Stuff in internal communications: Who should you primarily serve — your bosses and similar stakeholders, or your audience?
It's a trick question and a false dichotomy, suitable only for testing your courage. You can simplify the equation this way: Are you more likely to make a lasting, beneficial difference by serving your bosses superficially — by taking orders and granting wishes like some communications genie — or by serving them authentically?
It's a trick question and a false dichotomy, suitable only for testing your courage. You can simplify the equation this way: Are you more likely to make a lasting, beneficial difference by serving your bosses superficially — by taking orders and granting wishes like some communications genie — or by serving them authentically?
Deadly epidemic? First check the gut
In this space I'm gradually documenting "the good stuff," a way of working to foster dramatic increases in a closed or limited community's engagement with online messages. But fair warning: It also carries risks.
For example, one of its four broad components is nurture participation. A key means is through online discussion visible to all, similar to public-facing social media. But even at this late date, high-level folks in some organizations might still feel vulnerable when faced with such transparency. They might feel it's an unacceptable risk compared to quarantining employee feedback in an easily ignored "feedback@" email account.
Yet online discussion is only a more obvious example. The good stuff is fairly crawling with obligations to illuminate, not conceal. Therefore, the first step is a gut check. Will your organization's practiced (as opposed to professed) core values tolerate openness, especially on hot-button topics?
If not, pursuing the good stuff may turn out to be a career-limiting move. To mitigate your risk, it might be crucial to find a high-up sponsor for your efforts — to help you optimize governance (another of the four components) toward openness and illumination. Unless you are the high-level sponsor — and in that case, godspeed.
Regardless, think twice if you're tempted to apply the good stuff selectively or part-way, leaving tolerance for concealment or deception. Like walking around partly dressed, it's a transgression that tends to draw attention to itself. That's true for at least your more perceptive observers and high performers — the ones your organization most needs to engage, not alienate.
Haiv News, my working demo, chronicles employee news at Haiv LLC, a large organization that relies on international air travel. The Ebola crisis has some of The Haiv's frequent travelers fearing for their health. It's time for the company's official voice to weigh in.
If Haivers don't fly, business slows (in theory, at least) and revenue is lost. It's awfully tempting for The Haiv to conceal by downplaying the health risk with standard-issue reframing ("statistically, you have a far greater chance of meeting harm on the car ride to or from the airport," etc.). Besides, with Ebola news constantly emerging, it's difficult to write something more specific.
Yet that's kind of the point. It's hard to say when the extent of the threat is truly known, so any attempt to reframe it would be speculative at best. But at least one thing is for certain: When the public-facing news cycle grows frenzied and even more sensationalized than usual, that's exactly when a place like The Haiv needs to step up and illuminate — to help its employees feel supported and informed in making their own sound choices.
To see how The Haiv handled it, click its logo over in the right-hand column.
For example, one of its four broad components is nurture participation. A key means is through online discussion visible to all, similar to public-facing social media. But even at this late date, high-level folks in some organizations might still feel vulnerable when faced with such transparency. They might feel it's an unacceptable risk compared to quarantining employee feedback in an easily ignored "feedback@" email account.
Yet online discussion is only a more obvious example. The good stuff is fairly crawling with obligations to illuminate, not conceal. Therefore, the first step is a gut check. Will your organization's practiced (as opposed to professed) core values tolerate openness, especially on hot-button topics?
If not, pursuing the good stuff may turn out to be a career-limiting move. To mitigate your risk, it might be crucial to find a high-up sponsor for your efforts — to help you optimize governance (another of the four components) toward openness and illumination. Unless you are the high-level sponsor — and in that case, godspeed.
Regardless, think twice if you're tempted to apply the good stuff selectively or part-way, leaving tolerance for concealment or deception. Like walking around partly dressed, it's a transgression that tends to draw attention to itself. That's true for at least your more perceptive observers and high performers — the ones your organization most needs to engage, not alienate.
From current events: a somber "for instance"
Haiv News, my working demo, chronicles employee news at Haiv LLC, a large organization that relies on international air travel. The Ebola crisis has some of The Haiv's frequent travelers fearing for their health. It's time for the company's official voice to weigh in.
If Haivers don't fly, business slows (in theory, at least) and revenue is lost. It's awfully tempting for The Haiv to conceal by downplaying the health risk with standard-issue reframing ("statistically, you have a far greater chance of meeting harm on the car ride to or from the airport," etc.). Besides, with Ebola news constantly emerging, it's difficult to write something more specific.
Yet that's kind of the point. It's hard to say when the extent of the threat is truly known, so any attempt to reframe it would be speculative at best. But at least one thing is for certain: When the public-facing news cycle grows frenzied and even more sensationalized than usual, that's exactly when a place like The Haiv needs to step up and illuminate — to help its employees feel supported and informed in making their own sound choices.
To see how The Haiv handled it, click its logo over in the right-hand column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)