Number 1:

In response to the question “What challenges are you facing, or would you face, in implementing a culture of communication?” was: “Past experience of damaged relationships between management and front line employees”.

Unfortunately I would have to say in my experience this is not uncommon. It is so easy to make mistakes or to speed through a process without thinking through its consequences from different perspectives.  It would seem that the path to damaging relationships is an easy one and it is a very narrow path to doing things “right”. Many times management just don’t have good past examples to follow, haven’t received training to understand the impact of poor communication, or appear to be driven only by what they are held accountable for – the numbers.  They might feel they don’t have the time to take the time – but in the long run it ends up costing them and the company time and lost productivity.  Often leadership thinks that the shortest distance between point A (our work) and B (company profit) is a straight line.  They forget the lesson that road crews learn the first day on the job – to follow the contour of the environment means faster and more successful completion (and a happier crew).  Only occasionally, after counting the cost, do they bore through a mountain to get to the other side. 

Among the hundreds of ways something can go wrong:  Leadership may have changed the way they thought and their decisions; kept too much information to themselves about what was to come or what/why something happened; might have made some hard decisions and not followed them with compassion and thoroughness of implementation, etc.

The question posed here is what to do about it once it happens – or worse, what to do if in fact it has become a pattern and what employees have come to expect from leadership. If this has happened to your organization to a large or hopefully minor degree, I think that it is best to think about taking the following 3 steps.

1)      Do your homework! Leadership that has damaged relationships in the past are likely not to be aware of the problem or impact of having done so.  HR needs to do their homework and move this from a touchy-feely topic to a business issue by answering and asking some very important questions.  What has happened, what was the impact on employees, what was the resulting impact on the business?  Putting the ‘cost’ of past damaged relationships into terms leadership cares most about is a critical first place to start.

2)      Show the impact on their goal(s). Presuming that HR themselves have developed a ‘trust’ relationship with leadership, explain the above with the leadership person that is most likely to hear, receive, and understand; and who is able to help you help them.  It is important that they see the consequences of what has happened which is most likely the impact on the level of “engagement” of the employees.  Refer to the following for statistics that confirm the cost of ‘dis-engaged’ employees. http://blog.allyis.com/lwhra Helping leadership see this may in fact be a prolonged process – but it is a worthy and necessary step to take.

3)      Develop a response. Once he/she/they acknowledge the error (or shall we say that there was “a better way” so as to not test a leader’s ego) and you have explained the consequence it had on employees – it is time to work with them to develop a response.  It is of course best if HR already has something in mind as a starting point.  Sometimes this could be as significant as public acknowledgement to the group of people that were impacted; covering what happened, the short fall of action taken by leadership, and the specific action that will take place to correct the situation.  (Note that I said ‘people’ instead of ‘employees’ because that is the healthiest perspective to take in developing a response). Often times there is nothing that can be done to correct it other than the admission of a new learning that took place, OR possibly a promise with conviction that there will be a change in leadership’s approach to similar situations in the future.

As a footnote to the discussion above – you might suggest that you/HR be involved early on in communications or in situations where trust of the employees may be at risk. 

Number 2:

In response to the question “What challenges are you facing, or would you face, in implementing a culture of communication?” was: “Support from senior management and openness to improve”.

I interpret this to mean that senior management does not see that a culture of communication is valuable enough to invest in or improve.  The second half of the statement seems to imply that either the senior management themselves are not open to improving or that they are not open to improving the culture.  Regardless of which of these interpretations are accurate, I think our suggestion to this situation is not unlike the above.

1)      HR needs to do their homework.  Determine to get greater understanding of senior management’s ‘resistance’ to improve: Why isn’t senior management open in the ways they should be?  What has happened in the past?  What experience have they had that is relevant?  Also seek to understand the ‘opportunity for change’: Where has there been support in feeding the ‘culture of communication’ and what was the (hopefully favorable) result?  Who led that effort?  Who does senior management look up to and respect in the industry and what do they say about the subject? (You may want to use those individual’s books, articles, or quotes).

2)      Show the impact on their goal(s). Show what impact avoiding the ‘negative’ results and reaching a ‘positive’ outcome might have on their goals.  (Similar to step 2 above).

3)      Develop a response/action.  Develop an action plan along with your senior manager(s) with measures that will prove how worthwhile it was (the ROI).   

Number 3:

 In response to the question “What challenges are you facing, or would you face, in implementing a culture of communication?” was: “establishing trust with individuals who are wondering what new skill you have learned at a conference”. 

I am hopeful that this is said tongue in cheek.  However, if it is not, it seems to imply to me that those that in authority over HR at a minimum don’t believe the value of conferences, maybe don’t believe the value of external learning, or worse case, don’t trust HR.  The latter being a very difficult situation but also a worthy mission. Incredible challenges make for incredible successes.  Often times though, the success is just a collection of minor ‘wins’ or accomplishments.  Don’t lose perspective – don’t lose hope! Stay the course. 

My hope is that this individual walked away from the symposium with one thing that they can implement which will truly impact their company.  Building trust takes time and intentional actions.  The best way to build trust is to spend as much time as possible with leadership, sharing ideas, perspectives, possibilities, issues, goals, etc.  Find one topic that will impact the company greatly and keep ‘singing the tune’ (like employee engagement) every chance you get.  Become an expert so that you have a suggestion and rationale for every question and every situation that comes up.  Balance this tenacity with humility, patience, perseverance, and relationships with leadership – and sprinkle with new learnings in the HR world.  

I believe that each one of us is in our position and company not by accident and for a specific purpose.  If it isn’t you doing HR there, someone else would be.  Meaning that your role is to move the needle on the acceptance of HR as a business partner, an integral part of the ‘decision makers’, and to prove the role is worth investing in.  Not unlike the responses to the above two tweets, one thing that might be helpful is to prove the ROI for your training by showing your impact on what is likely your manager’s goal(s); the 3 “Cs”: Creation of Revenue, Control of Costs, and Conservation of Capital. Refer to the statistics at http://blog.allyis.com/lwhra for help understanding and sharing the very real connection between employee engagement, company goals, and the value of the HR role.

 - Mark Borys, Director of HR at Allyis

Table: Business Goal Related Engagement StatisticsScreenshots

Yarbrough and Borys will present an educational session on the topic “Engaging Each Other: The Power of Cultivating a Culture of Communication”.

Employees are experts.  They have answers to questions their colleagues and clients have.  But communication in organizations is often stifled by a company’s culture, its technology or lack thereof, and individual employees who withhold valuable knowledge for fear of no longer being viewed as valuable.

Often times, the only feedback HR and executive leadership receives from employees is from performance reviews, broad surveys around topics such as benefits or when an employee resigns.  What if companies created a culture of communication that was regular, multi-directional, dynamic and accessible to all employees whether they are tethered to their desk and computer all day or out in the field? What if the playing field was leveled for all employees, managers and executive leadership by providing a platform for frequent, on-demand, open-ended communication?

Attendees will learn how HR leaders can drive a culture shift around communications in their organization.  They will learn how to cultivate a deeper level of communication among all employees and the impact of what happens within organizations around recruiting and retention when this kind of communication is fostered.

The session is approved for one general recertification credit by HR Certification institute (HRCI).

Event Details

What: Lake Washington Human Resource Association 2012 Symposium
When: February 9 – 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Where: Meydenbauer Convention Center – 11100 NE 6^th St. –  Bellevue, WA
Cost:  $249 for members – $299 for non-members – $104 for students
Register:  http://www.lwhra.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=78

To find out more about the conference and/or to register, please visit:  LWHRA

About Ethan Yarbrough
Ethan is co-founder and chairman of the board of Kirkland, Washington based Allyis. Ethan provides strategic oversight to the firm and is dedicated to helping enterprises effectively leverage technology to positively impact employee engagement, satisfaction and productivity.  Ethan holds an M.A. in English Literature from Western Washington University.

About Mark Borys
Mark Borys is the director of human resources at Kirkland, Washington-based Allyis. A compensation expert, Mark provides leadership in implementing HR strategy, programs and processes that reflect Allyis’ unique culture, overall business objectives and industry best standards and practices. With more than 25 years of HR experience, Mark has worked in every field of HR for companies including HP, Digital Systems International, Attachmate, and Siemens IT Solutions.

Mark holds a master’s degree in business administration in HR management from Seattle University and a bachelor’s degree in business administration from University of Washington. Mark has held a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) certification since 2002.

About Allyis
Allyis provides technology consulting and services that help businesses improve performance and meet their unique objectives. Whether designing and developing an employee intranet, helping you increase the reach and impact of your digital marketing campaigns, or providing the talent you need for your projects, Allyis leverages people and technology to help you achieve your unique business goals.

Promoting Jason Herman to CEO is one of many examples of our practice of promoting from within the company whenever possible. Promoting from within creates opportunities as well as continuity and is a key to employee satisfaction and client retention. As illustrated in this recent quote, Jason is committed to both: “The bottom line for me is that our business runs on client experience and employee experience, so I am passionate about achieving excellence in those areas.”

Want to get to know Jason better and read what he’s thinking about? Read his blog and check out his profile.

I would like to thank Richard Law, former CEO and Allyis’s Chairman of the Board, as well as Ethan Yarbrough, former President, and now Vice-Chairman of the Board, for founding a company that’s created opportunity for so many of us to grow in our careers and to contribute to a culture that puts employees and clients front and center. I’m glad they’re not going far and that they’ve appointed a successor who shares their values and will model them with the same commitment and passion that Allyis was founded on.

Here it is:

A solution is “a mutually shared answer to a recognized problem, and the answer provides measurable improvement” (4).

Especially since we are so saturated by the overuse of the term “solution” in the marketing of everything from fast food to software, this definition is satisfying for its specificity. But there is a lot packed into it that I think can help all of us be more intentional and effective problem-solvers. In short, I think the problem-solving process (hence the consulting process) is laid out pretty succinctly in this definition. Let’s unpack it:

1.       “Recognized problem”: This may seem obvious, but so often we begin work on tasks, programs, projects, initiatives without clearly identifying and articulating the problem we are trying to solve. If we can’t clearly identify the problem that is being addressed by the tasks and projects that are taking up our time, we need to take a step back and attempt to do so. And it’s not enough for us to know—we have to make sure that the people whom we expect to impact with the solution (end-users, customers, stakeholders) and the people we are enlisting to help us create the answer (project teams, dependent teams) also have a clear understanding of the problem.

2.       “Mutually shared answer”: You can’t propose a good answer without first articulating the problem, but it’s not enough to just identify the problem and then start marching toward a solution. First, you’ve got to propose an answer and get agreement. The best solution in the world is of no value if the person whose problem it is attempting to solve doesn’t believe that it in fact solves their problem. Before we start working on solutions, we need to propose an answer and get agreement from the people whose problem we are attempting to solve that the solution we are working toward in fact solves their problem.

3.       “Measurable improvement”: This one should be second-nature to us in this day of KPIs, scorecards, dashboards and the like. We know that when we set a goal or undertake a program or initiative we need to define the metrics for success. But are we actually measuring them? More to the point, are we looking at them with a genuine openness to whether or not our “solution” is actually solving the problem we set out to solve? Metrics can be used in the interest of self-preservation or in the interest of learning from our successes and failures. In fact, I think they are probably most beneficial when they show us where we’re off track, so we can respond and course-correct.

So, there it is. Nothing new in this approach to problem-solving. Nothing revolutionary, just a simple, nuts-and-bolts approach that we can apply to our work on projects, tasks, and programs to keep us honest and make sure that we are actually solving real problems. Now ask yourself, am I delivering solutions? And if you are hiring vendors or consultants, are you getting tasks, deliverables, and programs—or are you getting solutions?