E-MAIL Versus Communications

It lurks, waiting for the unsuspecting communicator.  Its disguise, the quick and easy transition of words or documents from one place to another. Yet it has an insidious power that can transform grown men into small-minded bullies or professional women into petty tyrants. Yes, I’m talking about e-mail.  If we’re totally honest with ourselves, we would see email for what it really is, a supervillain.  I’ve seen the horror it can do.

I’ve run down a hallway shouting to colleagues to, “STOP SENDING E-MAILS” when a chain of emails with some of our stakeholders across the country escalated into war. It’s not that I don’t enjoy a good joke and really, email fights are always funny in retrospect. It is just that when you make your living building relationships, you don’t have much humour about watching years of cultivation, goodwill and hard work go up in flames because of a few poorly worded emails. It’s not just your external stakeholders who can be affected by it either. Internal emails are probably among the most prolific contributors to poor morale.

A poorly worded or too widely sent email can spiral a team into chaos. I’ve coached managers on what to say to chronic email abusers and I’ve had to soothe frustrated team members when someone showed disrespect to them in an email. There is also the abusive reply all function. Imagine the chain of events that unfolds when thousands of people receive a shrill email questioning management on a decision that impacted the whole organization. I still wake up screaming.

Or there is the unjustified anger that follows when someone sends an email with directions and subsequently does not get the behaviour they want. If I hear one more time, “But I sent them an email!” I may get dangerous. For the record:

  • Sending does not mean people received it.
  • Receiving it doesn’t mean they read it.
  • Reading it doesn’t mean they understood it.

There are protocols associated with email use that is a Google search away, so I won’t belabour the point here, but keep these lessons in mind.

Lessons Learned

  • Read it out loud, if it sounds obnoxious, it is. Don’t send it.
  • A smiley face after being obnoxious doesn’t make the email less obnoxious.
  • How many people really need to see your message? Do the math and don’t add anyone else.
  • If you’re getting angry, stop emailing, pick up the phone or walk down the hall.
  • If it’s urgent, important or a risk issue, don’t email, pick up the phone or walk down the hall.
  • E-mail is a temporary short-cut for sharing information, not a substitute for good communications or good relationship management.

Have any e-mail nightmares to share? Do you LOVE email or are you a careful user?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share

Do We Remember How To Be Loyal?

COMMSTORM

The call of the next big adventure can be almost irresistible. As our world shrinks it becomes increasingly easy to see ourselves in different settings. Even if we choose not to wander far from the land we grew up in, we can still tackle a wide array of changes that our parents might not have contemplated.  Or maybe that’s just me. My family has spread out across the globe, all leaving that small warm island in the Caribbean to see what adventures they can find in colder climates. At this point, going to Barbados is the adventure because home is now Canada, The United States, The United kingdom etc..

I was looking at a breakdown of staff time within my organization. Those people who had spent twenty-five or more years in the organization right down to those who had just signed on. The 20 plus category fascinated me. Most people don’t join an organization these days with the expectation that they will still be there on their retirement. I wondered why? Was it the siren call of adventure? Is curiosity so profound that we simply can’t resist the allure of the next thing or is it more that we have no reason to stay? 

Loyalty is a concept that I most commonly associate with small plastic cards and the collection of points. I’m not shallow. How often do we hear about loyalty in any other context?  I don’t think I am being disloyal when I try a new shampoo or when I shop in a new store, yet they frequently offer me loyalty points or bonuses if I stick with them. When was the last time employers did that on a regular basis?  Generally you get a signing bonus, not a staying bonus. In effect, we have moved to a process of rewarding employees for leaving.

I realize that there are sophisticated organizations that spend time and energy on retention. Those organizations that have done the number crunching and realize it is cheaper to keep an employee than it is to replace one, but there are not many of them. Most employers are content if they can get three years from an employee and plan accordingly.  My question is, why? Why does that make more sense then looking for ways to keep employees in the fold? Have we all simply assumed that that’s the way people prefer things? That the next adventure is so appealing that there is little we can do to resist it’s allure.

I’ll admit, I like change. It’s fun to start something new and to explore new ground.  It’s good to switch things up a little, but I also like stability. I have been married for 18 years without feeling the need to switch things up. I expect to be married for at least 18 more years. An interesting thing about that, my husband has a small shop in a challenging  sector and yet he has  employees who have been with him about as long as we’ve been married. Could it be that he understands something about loyalty?

Loyalty isn’t about points collected. I’m not going to buy the same crappy brand of anything just to get points. If the product doesn’t do the job, then I’m not going to stick with it. I stick with a brand because I expect it to perform as promised. I expect consistency. My favorite shampoo is not going to smell like oranges today and coconut tomorrow. It will perform to my expectations and in return I will continue to buy it.  As other products come out from that brand I’ll be more inclined to try them because the brand has earned my trust. Seems reasonable.

If our expectations are that high for a shampoo or a toothpaste, what should they be for a job? If a job doesn’t give back as much as it takes, if an employer doesn’t do the work required to make an employee want get up and go to work in the morning, then would they keep going? What about the employee? If the employer is consistent, if they deliver on their promise, shouldn’t the employee remain dedicated? Loyalty is built over time.  It comes from trust and expectations met.  Do we have shorter times in our jobs today because we have forgotten what it means to be loyal or do we simply no longer apply that thinking to work?

What do you think? Do employees need to be more loyal to employers?  Do employers need to work harder at keeping employees engaged? Is loyalty associated with work an old fashioned idea?

Photo Credit: “Girl and Dog” by Vlado from Free Digital Photos.net

Share

Random Acts Of Branding

 Random Acts of Branding

What happens if everyone in an organization decides to engage in branding activities without first engaging in an internal conversation? This question prompted an extended conversation with my friend Janet MacLeod, who like me, is a communications professional. This post is the consequence of that discussion and so our joint offering.

So what happens when an organization starts to perform random acts of branding? A commercial in one area, a public relations program somewhere else.  Essentially, a variety of initiatives delivered over time that are unrelated but intended to improve profile or set a tone for services? Even if the initiatives aren’t identical, they would at least get attention right? Raise the profile of the organization and if luck is with the organization, it might even result in a viral moment.  It’s possible that many of those individuals will have a brilliant idea…right.  Who are we kidding? First of all, there aren’t that many geniuses and second, if you have different people doing their own “thing” with a brand, then that probably means that they have no communications experience.  Even a mediocre communicator understands the benefit of being consistent.  A good communicator would say that inconsistencies in branding eventually result in diminishing the brand and yet so many organizations allow their brand to be shuttled about with little regard. Despite what you might think, it isn’t just the little organizations who do this either. Unless you are an organization that sells products like soda or toilet paper, items that live and die based on brand, you may not fully understand the strength and impact of brand.

Too often the description of a corporate brand can sound like little more than jargon to employees. And really, it’s often treated as a descriptive phrase that illustrates what corporate leaders would like employees, clients or customers to think and feel about a company. The thing is, brand is a pretty loaded word. It represents a concept that seems to mean a multitude of things to people and can also mean next to nothing. Brand is color, it’s a logo, it’s a font, it’s how you are perceived, how you deliver service and how your products perform.  It’s the feeling the public gets when your name is mentioned. It’s the choices that people make to use or not use your offering.

Brand is the unique features that distinguish one organization from another – it may be the words used, the procedures you follow and most likely it is a combination of all these things.  Brand becomes the things people see, hear, feel, and touch so that a perception or idea develops about what can (and should) be expected of the organization. The authentic feelings and emotions that are triggered by brand – whether factual or not – become the reality. In effect, the brand is the organization.

Since internal activities drive the brand exhibited and understood outwardly, it is concerning (to say the least) when those activities lack cohesion. Unfortunately, even with the best intentions, companies sometimes “run with scissors” and become susceptible to brand breakdown. Change is often the trigger. Whether it comes as a result of shifts in culture, technology, finances, staff turn- over or simply poor strategy, changes that are poorly executed or poorly communicated, can lead to dysfunction and can put a huge dent in what had been a perfectly fine brand.

A living example is BlackBerry. It used to be RIM or Research in Motion. It was Canada’s technology darling. People loved it, trusted it, and expected good things from it. Then it changed. It went into the consumer marketplace (and grew itself accordingly). But soon it went from being the industry leader, to being perceived as the industry follower. In truth, it was still making reliable, secure devices, but because it didn’t do what the iPhone did, it was perceived as being a poorer product. BlackBerry lost momentum. Investors stopped coming, people stopped buying the product. Layoffs ensued.

So although the quality of the actual product had not altered the perception of the product had to the point that the brand was seen as waning.  The changes that impacted BlackBerry happened in the market, yet organizations often inflict negative shifts in perception on themselves by ignoring or poorly attending to their brand. Brand is a powerful device. It needs care and attention and there should be nothing random about it.

What do you think about branding?  Do you have favorite products you buy because of their brand?  Do you have a favorite beer, pop or paper towel? Do you know what your own brand is? 

Share