Five things that the C-Suite wants: insights from "Views from the Top"
Mike Klein FIIC, FCSCE, SCMP
Communication Strategist and Consultant; Founder, #WeLeadComms
C-suite resistance is one of the things internal communicators claim is standing in the way of creative and effective internal communication (IC). So while many are scared of delivering what C-suite decision-makers don’t want, Happeo asked me to interview a group of C-suiters to find out what they do want.
The results are pretty convincing - these C-suiters not only value internal communication, they want and need internal communicators to step up to deliver on IC’s potential to catalyze organizations and accelerate business performance.
From my perspective, the C-suite participants, including four current chief executives, two CFOs, three HR chiefs and a former Chief Compliance Officer, are very clear about what IC can actually and potentially deliver.
To be sure, the participants are unusual in that they were willing to participate in internal communication research, and I make no claim they are a representative bunch. But in my view, the insights they share stand on their own merits. The latest Happeo report, based on these interviews, indicates:
1) Cut the noise - by eliciting, confirming and publicizing priorities.
All Report participants cited “noise” as a crucial problem with internal communication. But they don’t see organizational noise as an uncoordinated cacophony of random messages from increasingly desperate senders.
Instead, as Netherlands-based CFO Joao Almeida says, “Lack of prioritization is confusing the organization.”
Not only can internal communicators report, circulate and reinforce priorities, they can use their communication skills to better articulate them. IC leaders can also work directly with business leaders to clarify priorities and even suggest more effective positioning and integration of specific initiatives. .
2) Build the “ARC” - not just celebrate success
For Philippines-based Senior VP HR Cheryll Agsaoay, effective internal communication means “Authenticity, Relevance and Conviction.” London-based Chief Executive Marc Barone adds “it needs to be multi-tiered, and not just celebrate success.”
From some perspectives, this means a focus on the personal and human side of communication, but substance also plays a key role as well. “Emphasize what’s important, not just what’s available,” said former HR Chief Darren Boarnet.
3) Bring your chair, we’ll make space at the table
Several C-suite participants mentioned that they don’t simply want IC to communicate business strategy, but that they want internal communicators to be proactive about entering and participating in strategic discussions.
CFO Kenny Murdoch is of the view that “we need to ask how comms could be involved in the formation of strategy.”
Joao Almeida puts the onus on the communicators themselves. “IC professionals need to stop operating at too low of a level, being too low-profile, not taking opportunities to lead where there are opportunities to do so.”
Marc Barone, on the other hand, makes a point of saying “IC is actively involved in most decisions. I don’t see IC as a function, I see it as part of my management team.”
4) Be our next great differentiator
Not only were participants bullish on the future of IC in their organizations generally, some see it as a potential way for smart companies to differentiate themselves from competitors.
Darren Boarnet says it succinctly. “High-quality, purpose-led internal communication, combined with business goals, could become a true business differentiator.”
Participants see a number of ways to drive differentiation.
London Business School Dean Francois Ortalo-Magne, who also participated in the research, said, “We need to provide the right guidance, mindsets and frameworks for people to act on their own initiative in our context.”
Focusing both on mentality and technology, former HR VP-turned-consultant Philippa Penfold said “we need to give employees the tools to cut white noise and to facilitate positive employee-to-business and employee-to-employee communication.” She also added that “the world does not work on the basis of command and control and on org charts - we need to leverage the internal social network.”
In a world where such approaches are still quite uncommon, these C-suite decision makers see them not only as the right thing to do, but as genuine opportunities to drive didifferentiation.
5) Measure potency, not pennies
The C-suite decision-makers I spoke with all agree that the value of internal communication exceeds the ability of current tools to measure it effectively. They are particularly skeptical about using ROI as a measure (though it may be more applicable to platforms and tools than to campaigns or one-off interventions).
Instead, they want to see IC professionals try to measure impact, and get involved with the way the business measures the impact of its business initiatives. Measures like collaboration, alignment, time-to-outcome are seen as sensitive to communication inputs, and that IC interventions can be assessed through such activities as “before-vs.-after” tracking and the monitoring of the use of phrases introduced by IC in the course of a given initiative.
They also welcome the idea of IC asking stakeholders what potential value they see in an IC intervention before it takes place. Darren Boarnet says stakeholders should use this approach (described as “The Comms Factor” in my third Happeo report).
“We need to decide what a sufficient level of understanding and alignment is worth to us. Is it worth 3-4% of a $30 million project if more than half of those participating know what we want to do and why we want to do it?”
Tough customers, but not for the reason you may think
C-suiters have a reputation for being tough customers. But not because they are skeptical of IC. Instead, they have high expectations and sophisticated understandings of internal dynamics. Based on my conversations, “C-suite resistance” will result from insufficient confidence and ambition, rather than an excess of either.
Mike Klein is Principal of Changing The Terms, a communication consultancy with a focus on internal communication strategy and research, based in the Netherlands. Mike is an MBA graduate of London Business School, and has worked on internal communication projects and initiatives for organizations such as Shell, Maersk Oil, Cargill, the US Federal Government, Avery Dennison and easyJet. Mike has been the 2018-2019 Chair of IABC in Europe-Middle East- North Africa and is also a member of EACD, the European Association of Communication Directors.
I teach because I can. Founder Director and Dean, Rustomjee Cambridge International School & Junior College
5 年Good insightful article, Mike. It would be interesting to investigate the attitudinal differences across geographies and cultures, types of organisations, and the challenges in measuring its impact.
Communication Leader | Employee Engagement Strategist | Corporate Storyteller | Change Ambassador | DEI Advocate | Red carpet communication: bridging gaps, translating messages, connecting people
5 年Really nicely done Mike Klein!? It's so great to read this report and see the different perspectives you gathered from all around the world of the C-Suite leaders.? I loved that they want to see internal communicators have the seat at the table as well as be involved in the formation of the strategy--that's mighty powerful!!? Excellent to hear and makes me feel hopeful about the future of our industry.? Keep this good news coming!?
Strategic Communications | LinkedIn Top Internal Communications Voice | Employee Engagement | Storytelling | Innovation | Collaboration | Brand Management
5 年It’s gratifying to hear that ICs are being given the place at the table, but we need to be trusted to come up with overarching strategic plans that encompass all messaging that C-suite execs want to incorporate. Too often, I see ICs’ plans go awry because execs and middle managers see ICs as gophers whose only duties are to execute on whatever they feel is important in the moment to communicate out, without taking into account the larger picture. When audiences start getting flooded with these tactical communications because execs and middle managers put the hammer down on “get this information out now,” it negates the value of having a talented IC practitioner/org.
Communicator. Writer. Linguist. Runner. Chair of Council at Chartered Institute of Linguists.
5 年Really insightful, Mike thank you. I carried out a comparable exercise in the early noughties and my findings were consistent with yours. What's heartening now, though, is the clear sense of the potential business value that org leaders say they see their IC teams providing. Back then, IC was striving for a place at the table. I found it significant that now, the message from your findings is, we'll make room for you but bring your own chair. I take that to mean that IC practitioners need the confidence, the courage, the language and the acumen to take IC's perspective into the C-Suite. An IC job title in itself isn't a ticket to influence. The role holder still has to display the personal qualities to ensure she, he or they are treated as serious contributors to executive deliberations. In my view, our sector at large still has a challenge to meet C-Suite expectations. What should encourage everyone are the clear indications in your findings that those already at the table are willing IC to rise to that challenge.
Internal and change communication specialist | business transformation programmes and projects | employee engagement
5 年A really interesting post Mike. It's great to see the comment about IC being given a chair at the top table.