Archive for the ‘Communication’ Category
Communicating Corporate Responsibility
Since public trust in the private sector has hit historic lows, demonstrating corporate responsibility has become even more important for today’s corporate leaders. Effective corporate responsibility – meeting (or exceeding) stakeholder expectations for financial, social and environmental performance -restores trust and credibility. Unfortunately, when companies attempt to talk about corporate responsibility, they often do more harm than good, causing even more damage to the company’s reputation. Common pitfalls are communicating instead of improving performance; ignoring reasonable critics; and reporting only what is required.
How can companies talk about corporate responsibility without shooting themselves in the foot? In my experience, companies that communicate corporate responsibility effectively follow seven rules.
1) Demonstrate, don’t assert.
Resist the temptation to demonstrate corporate responsibility via press release. Whenever a company talks about corporate responsibility, communication should follow action. Many skeptical audiences assume that corporate statements, if not misleading, will be self-serving and provide only a limited perspective. Assertions of corporate responsibility without the appropriate due diligence, policies, and actions backing them up will quickly prompt critics to highlight inconsistencies between word and deed. Just last week at the annual Business for Social Responsibility Conference, eBay CEO John Donahoe put it this way, “You can’t tackle your reputation until you tackle your actions.”
2) Get the facts.
Responsibility begins with accurate information. Without a clear understanding of conditions on the ground, companies cannot improve corporate responsibility performance. Accurate information, collected through due diligence tools like human rights impact assessments, not only informs smart business decisions, it minimizes the risks of communicating. Companies that provide policymakers with reliable information can reduce pressure for regulation. Companies that audit their operations can reduce the risk of legal liability. Accurate information is just as important for advocates who seek to improve corporate performance. A common set of facts provides a basis for engagement and collaboration among stakeholders.
3) Engage critics.
Most companies are exceedingly cautious and reluctant to engage critics. While a company may not agree with or ultimately adopt the recommendations of a critic, engaging critical external stakeholders in honest dialogue can earn credibility and demonstrate a corporate commitment to addressing the issues at stake. After Amnesty International released a 2003 report criticizing the human rights impact of a BP pipeline project, BP engaged Amnesty in dialogue, and sought to address the concerns by incorporating international human rights standards in the legal agreements governing the project. Engaging its main critic and taking stakeholder concerns seriously earned the company credibility. Engaging reasonable critics can also provide a company with valuable information and expertise, and set the stage for collaboration or partnership.
4) Be transparent.
Demands for greater corporate transparency are common in the wake of the financial crisis. Transparency has always been a hallmark of effective corporate responsibility. Communicating accurate information that is complete, relevant and measurable allows stakeholders to make their own assessments of corporate performance. As a rule of thumb, more information is better than less. High levels of transparency earn credibility with stakeholders and critics, create incentives for continuous improvement, and encourage the adoption of best practices. While companies that embrace full disclosure risk criticism, choosing to report as little as possible is a short-sighted strategy. For years, apparel companies resisted calls by advocates for full disclosure of factory locations. Despite its experience as a target of criticism, in 2005, Nike reversed the company’s longstanding position. By unilaterally disclosing all of its contract factory locations, Nike earned credibility while leveling the playing field among apparel brands and competitors. Nike’s principal rival, Adidas, ultimately disclosed its factory locations three years later. Companies must overcome cultural biases against public disclosure and seek levels of transparency sufficient to establish facts, demonstrate performance and earn credibility among stakeholders.
5) Define the company’s “sphere of influence.”
No company can, or should, assume responsibility for all the issues of concern to its stakeholders. Companies fall into the trap of accepting too much responsibility when other entities – governments, for example – must act to achieve lasting improvements. Conversely, companies that define their influence and responsibilities too narrowly risk a stakeholder backlash. A clear definition of a company’s sphere of influence, consistent with a company’s business, can go a long way toward meeting the expectations of stakeholders. The multi-stakeholder Global Network Initiative, for example, calls on its member companies to “prioritize circumstances where it has the greatest influence and/or where the risk to freedom of expression and privacy is at its greatest.” Leading companies evaluate and prioritize the corporate responsibility issues they face and allocate resources accordingly.
6) Earn credibility.
Third parties are the most powerful corporate responsibility communicators. The opinions of credible experts and independent stakeholders almost always carry greater weight than corporate assertions, especially in an atmosphere of mistrust of corporate motives. Independent monitoring was one of the first expectations of stakeholders when companies began to adopt voluntary codes of conduct. A single statement of support from a respected former critic can do more for a company’s reputation than years of corporate communication. But you have to earn that credibility. Ways companies have earned credibility include adopting widely accepted external standards, partnering with stakeholders, and acknowledging problems. The best corporate responsibility reports, for example, are notable for the candor with which they acknowledge failures and address performance obstacles.
7) Connect corporate responsibility to business strategy.
Stakeholders who value information on social and environmental performance look for evidence that a company’s corporate responsibility initiatives reflect an ongoing organizational commitment rather than an ad hoc response to an isolated issue. Are corporate responsibility efforts integrated, well-understood and rewarded at all levels of an organization, from the boardroom to the factory floor? Is every corporate function able to make the business case for corporate responsibility? The most effective communications demonstrate how a company’s corporate responsibility efforts advance key business objectives.
By adopting these best practices for communicating corporate responsibility, corporate leaders can avoid common pitfalls and focus on improving financial, social and environmental performance.
Humility Update: Humility is Strength. Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
The Paradox of American Power
Between the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the foreign policy establishment focused on the difference between “soft power” and “hard power.”
The concepts were elaborated in a 2002 book by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., then dean and now University Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Nye is consistently ranked one of the most influential US scholars on foreign policy.
His book, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone, was remarkably prescient. (more…)
Worth Reading: “Strategic Communication: Getting Back to Basics” by Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Force Quarterly
Taking Strategic Communication Seriously
The United States government is finally taking strategic communication seriously.
This week President Obama used all the instruments of diplomacy to advance the US foreign policy agenda, including getting Russia, France, and Britain to stand with the US against continued nuclear development by Iran.
President Obama’s wins at the UN and in the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh this week are just the latest indication of a more mature and intentional foreign policy that aims at influencing world leaders and the world community in ways that increase the security of the United States.
An important element of this new approach is a renewed emphasis on effective public diplomacy.
Effective Public Diplomacy =
Influencing, not Bullying
Last year I wrote a post about US public diplomacy, and how much of it missed the mark.
I noted that effective communication isn’t about pushing messages to audiences, but rather about provoking a desired reaction from those audiences.
I also quoted Dr. Amy Zalman, who wrote an East-West Institute concept paper, Countering Violent Extremism, that included this observation:
“Good communicators reveal, in speech and action, that they understand the motivations and aspirations of their audiences—and it is via this understanding that they gain their sympathies.”
Dr. Zalman then reviewed US public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world, and concluded:
“A review of U.S. official rhetoric shows an all too persistent absence of this understanding, an oversight which in turn can fan rather than dampen extremist sentiment.”
Bias and Social Media
Do you ever have one of those “A-ha!” moments when you find some piece of information that’s the missing piece of the puzzle to some problem you’ve been stewing over?
In mid-June I attended the 2009 New Media Academic Summit in Washington, D.C. It’s a conference for academics (from the U.S. and internationally) that’s been put on by Edelman for the last three years. (I was attending in my new role as an adjunct instructor in the M.S. in Public Relations and Corporate Communications program at NYU.)
One of the sessions was on employees and social media, “Employee Engagement: Encouraging New Conversations,” with speakers from McDonald’s, GE and Alcoa. (Full webcast of the session here.) In listening to Jason Greenspan from McDonald’s, I was stumped about how the average McDonald’s crew employee could interact with the company’s social media initiatives. I asked in a tweet, “How do McDonald’s employees interact with their internal social media if not in front of computer – expected on personal time? #nmas09″
Dawn Gilpin, an Assistant Professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication at Arizona State University, responded: “@laurelhart Your question touches on the rarely discussed hierarchy issue wrt internal social media use: white collar only. #nmas09″
(The hashtag for the conference was #nmas09. More info at its entry on wthashtag.com.)
We didn’t get a chance to talk about this issue during the employee section, but I’ve been concerned about issues of bias or potential bias in social media, and have been struggling with how to frame what seem to be some problematic issues.
Today, on a somewhat unrelated topic, I was reading Ethan Zuckerman’s blog post, “Activist Media and Selective Amplifiers,” and in talking about the information coming from Iran in the wake of the Iran election, he said, “We face at least three filters in the voices we hear – access, language and bias.”
The magical three.
“Access” was the filter I found most hard to understand in the McDonald’s example. Most of us have been in a McDonald’s store at some point in our lives. How would an average crew member have access – both in terms of time and technology? Is there a real or implied expectation that employees access these tools outside of normal working hours?
“Bias” is the filter that Dawn pointed out. How do we make sure that internal social media initiatives aren’t biased against blue collar workers – or anyone else for that matter – who might not be in front of a computer all day?
And “language” may be another or additional impediment for many employees.
These are questions that I’d wished we’d had time to explore, and in the case of McDonald’s, there may be very simple answers, too. But it’s something that as communicators we should be very aware of as more institutions adopt social media initiatives, and thinking of these issues in Ethan’s terms of “access, language and bias” could provide a helpful framework, both for internal and external communications.
What else might be still missing from this puzzle?
Rebuilding Trust
Worth Reading: Harvard Business Review, June, 2009, special section: Rebuilding Trust
I’ve been teaching ethics in graduate business and communication programs at New York University for more than 20 years, and every semester we lament the decline of trust.
But this year seems to be worse than most. Trust in US corporations is at an all-time low, 38 percent, according to the 2009 Edelman Trust Barometer. And most other measures of trust in institutions also point to continuing declines.
The June issue of Harvard Business Review takes on the issue of trust with a 25-page special report, Rebuilding Trust. It’s worth reading. The package includes a forceful critique of business school curricula, a 100-year timeline of highlights and lowlights in the public’s trust of business, and a counter-intuitive piece on how despite recent events people may still be trusting too much.
But the real payoff is the first piece in the package, by James O’Toole and Warren Bennis. O’Toole is the Daniels Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business, and Bennis is University Professor at the University of Southern California. The two are co-authors (with Daniel Goleman and Patricia Ward Biederman) of Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor (Jossey-Bass, 2008).
The special report opens with O’Toole’s and Bennis’ conclusion:
“We won’t be able to rebuild trust in institutions until leaders learn how to communicate honestly — and create organizations where that’s the norm.”
Apology Update: Compare and Contrast
A public apology is a good way to express remorse and offer reconciliation to an affected party. But the very act of apologizing can be daunting.
If delivered effectively, an apology can mend relationships and restore trust between two or more parties.
If delivered effectively, an apology can help maintain company’s competitive advantage, reduce litigation costs and minimize business disruptions.
If delivered effectively, an apology can create a perception of genuine regret on behalf of the offender and mend his or her reputation.
But here is a question:
Can an effective delivery distract the audience from an insufficient apology?
And,
Can a weak delivery diminish a powerful message of a genuine apology?
I invite you to look at three recent apologies and share your opinion about the effectiveness of each apology is in terms of its message and its presentation.
On Apology
Photo by KiraKalina
“Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future. ” Paul Boese
A significant increase in public apologies over the past months could be seen as a positive trend.
We saw the most senior leader of this country apologizing to the American public: “I screwed up.” We watched two prominent athletes A-Rod and Michael Phelps issue painful apologies to their fans.
We saw four bosses of British banks saying sorry to the Treasury Select Committee, and watched Japan’s Finance Minister announce his resignation along with a formal mea culpa.
And finally, in the last couple of weeks we heard the words of regret from Rupert Murdoch and Bishop Richard Williamson.
And yet many of these highly visible apologies failed to earn public forgiveness. Some were criticized for being too shallow and insincere, others could be hardly recognized as apologies at all.
So, what does it take to make an effective apology that comes across as true and genuine? And what are some examples of ineffective apologies that failed to resolve conflicts or earn forgiveness?
(more…)
My Year in Review Comes Down to One
Into the fog by raindog
This time of year is ripe for reflection about the year past and prognostication about the year to come. Best-of lists, predictions for the new year, goals – many good & inspiring thoughts and ideas, but they’re so numerous it can become hard to digest even one more.
But I hope you will take just a little time to digest this one.
As I thought about the year past, all of the power of social media came down to one thing.
It wasn’t new in 2008, but it was new to me.
The most truly powerful communication and social media tool I used last year was CaringBridge. It’s a free, non-profit service for individuals or families during times of illness or treatment. It allows you to create a personalized website (either public or private) with a journal/blog-like feature, a section for photographs, a welcome or background page, and a guestbook for people to sign and leave messages.
It’s a service I hope most of you will never need, but it’s important, and it’s important to know it exists should you, or anyone you know, find yourself in need.
I was referred to this service during a time of intense family crisis last spring. During family crises, just like business crises, it can become difficult and burdensome to communicate. Have we communicated with everyone we need to? Have we forgotten anyone? Does everyone have the same information or the information they need? These questions are pretty universal, during any crisis. But all the updates, all the repetition – it can be crushing during a personal crisis.
CaringBridge was a lifeline for my family. The founder of CaringBridge describes it as a kind of “compassion technology,” combining “the human elements of care and concern with the Internet’s ability to connect people.” The private site we created gave us one central place to keep far-flung family and friends informed, and we drew strength from the messages of support from around the world.
Often with social media, we focus on what the tool or service is, versus what it does.
This is a powerful example of the doing. And something I will try to take with me into the new year.
Journalism Isn’t Dying, but It Will Never Be The Same Again – It Will Be Better
First In a Series: The State of Journalism Today
I’ve had a lover’s quarrel with journalism most of my adult life.
As in any lover’s quarrel, I get pretty heated when journalism lets me down. But only because the love burns deep within me.
I so want journalism to thrive; to prosper; to fulfill its stated mission, and to deliver the value it promises. But too often, and seemingly with increasing frequency, journalism fails to live up to its stated ideals.
I’ve made a pretty good living helping people navigate the vagaries of journalism – protecting them from its excesses, helping them capture the best of journalism to mutual advantage when they can. In the process I’ve gotten to know a lot of journalists and to care deeply about their craft. And to lament the deteriorating state of the business.
Today I begin a multi-part look at the state of journalism, its role in our democracy, and the challenges it faces.
My first post is about the future.
The Conventional Wisdom is Wrong
The conventional wisdom is that journalism is dying.
I think the conventional wisdom is wrong.
Journalism isn’t dying, but it is in the throes of a revolution that will transform it – for the better. (more…)
Emotions are Stubborn Things, Part 1
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
– John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770
By now, as we face the final run-up to the November election, most of us have heard more than enough about the presidential horserace. Lately, though, I can’t get a certain politically embedded mantra out of my head. So, with that as my mental soundtrack, I’ll share a few thoughts on politics and communication.
“Facts are stubborn things.” Have you heard this one?
It’s one “sticky” phrase. At least three presidents, including John Adams (see above), and one former presidential candidate (who will remain nameless) have warned us about the redeeming intransigence of facts, and legions of pundits and citizen bloggers have chimed in for the chorus during the current election cycle. Google “facts are stubborn things,” and you’ll get 71,800+ results, most of which landed in cyberspace in the last two years.
So, here’s my question: Are facts the only stubborn things?