|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Communications on the Rebound
"Been there, done that" seems to be the mind-set of most organizations when planning communication efforts with employees. Though companies increased communications with employees about pay, benefits and business performance because of the changes brought on by the recession, few are planning to increase such communications -- or put them into a broader, more forward-looking context -- as they prepare for an eventual rebound, a Watson Wyatt Worldwide study finds. In fact, according to Watson Wyatt 2009/2010 Communication ROI, many companies are planning to scale down their recession/recovery-oriented communications. Over the next 12 months, the study finds, only about 28 percent of companies plan to increase communications about business performance, 27 percent about benefits and 19 percent about pay. And this, says John Finney, senior communication consultant for Washington-based Watson Wyatt, is misguided at best; harmful at worst. "This is the perfect time for employers to seize the opportunity and communicate the big picture, the whole employment deal," says Finney, "not just the negative takeaways -- the cuts in pay, benefits and personnel." To quote the study, now is "an excellent time for employers ... to clearly outline what individual employees and the company can be expected to contribute as we transition to a new, leaner way of doing business." Educating and preparing workers for possible change -- and continuing to explain ongoing changes beyond just what is being cut -- "can allay fears, address confusion and keep workers focused on what's most important: remaining productive on the job," Finney says. Letting them flounder in a sea of bad news -- or no news -- about past, present and future changes without "communicating what's staying the same, what the employee can expect from the company, what the company can expect from the employee" and how his or her performance can contribute to the company's future health and new direction can send high-performers job-hunting before the recovery is even here, he says. "If those high-performers don't know which benefits will be staying the same down the road, they might be more receptive to an outside job offer that includes a slightly higher salary but even less in terms of benefits, compared to what they're getting now and will continue getting," he says. "That would be a detriment to the company and to the employee. Communicating is a key way to show workers you're remaining competitive with other companies in the same industry, even in hard times. "This is very personal information for employees," Finney says. "It's very important for them to understand where they stand overall, in the short term and the long term, and employers don't seem to be getting that." The study -- which surveyed 328 employers from North America, Europe, the Middle East and Australia between April and June of 2009 -- also finds leaders at different levels of their organizations indicating different goals for their communication efforts. Nearly half (49 percent) of senior leaders, for example, are most apt to communicate to ease employee stress, while that same number of corporate communication professionals and line managers are most likely to focus on improving employee engagement. Communications from HR are primarily designed to manage change, according to 38 percent of those surveyed. That finding, says Merrie Spaeth, president of Dallas-based Spaeth Communications Inc., is particularly alarming, pointing to what she calls HR's inability to sever itself from the old-school rules of communication. "Too many HR departments, even in the large companies," she says, "are still focused on what they want to say or what they think people need to know, without understanding what people actually hear, believe and remember. "Right now, especially," Spaeth says, "HR professionals are so caught up in reorganizations and have such a mass of material to communicate about benefits, they get locked into the old way of delivering the message; they're still trying to push communications out" without thinking long-term or considering the engagement factor. HR is not the only silent authority, though, when it comes to delivering meaningful messages about business and personal finances in this economy, says Spaeth. She cites earlier research from New York-based Weber Shandwick showing that nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of 514 employed Americans polled felt their company's leadership should be communicating more about current economic problems and about half (54 percent) had not heard from company leaders at all on the impact of the financial crisis on their company. "At a time when [employees] are concerned about their personal finances, their jobs and the overall economy," said Harris Diamond, CEO of Weber Shandwick, when the study was released in October 2008, they're "looking for credible, candid information, and right now, too few business leaders are filling the information void that exists." In Spaeth's view, it's up to HR to take up that charge. Because the "world of business has changed, and because communication in HR is a more valued commodity than it used to be ... there are areas where HR could be doing much, much, much more," she says, "and if HR doesn't take the leadership role on this, who will?"
August 25, 2009 Copyright 2009© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||