CorpComms Magazine

I found myself in an unusual position a while back, that of being both interviewee and subject of said interview. It is not a position I am accustomed to, nor, frankly, one that I am particularly comfortable with.

For a professional trumpet blower of the corporate variety, I am remarkably reluctant to blow my own. I prefer to wax lyrical about the industry I represent or the company whose branded t-shirts I wear on my biennial visits to the gym. This was a job interview, however, and extolling one's own virtues is really rather important.

I was being asked for examples of how I have handled difficult communications situations, and of how I have worked to turn around negative perceptions of a company or brand. I thought my answers were good. Thoughtful, thorough and taking into account both the internal and external correlations and complexities. My interviewer, however, felt my answers were too internally focused, given I was being interviewed for an external communications role.

I think I was more surprised than I was disappointed. In my mind, internal and external communications are inextricably linked and feed off each other. In the latter scenario, for example (turning around negative perceptions of a brand), the company I represented was so often mentioned in the press preceded by the word 'troubled' that more than one rookie journalist wondered aloud whether Mr Troubled was one of our founding partners.

It starts from within

The solution started within - instilling belief within the company's ranks by unearthing and communicating positive news more regularly and more widely than before and generating a sense of both achievement and momentum. That, in conjunction with external media campaigns, led to the negative descriptors being dropped and the target phrase - 'remarkable turnaround at...' - appearing in key publications.

Admittedly, the sector in which I operate is notoriously leaky - sneeze at 3.20 and by 3.45, one of the trade magazines will have phoned to say 'Bless you' (unless it was Insurance Insider, who will have phoned at 3.15 to say the same thing) - which lends itself more to that transference of internal communication to external audiences.

The nature of the industry aside, technology has transformed the way we communicate and, at the same time, made it far easier for employees to share those communications with the outside world. How often have we seen supposedly internal communiqués appear in the press or on an influential blog?

Guidelines and outputs

As an aside, I would love to see some research on the proportion of the average company's workforce that are now part-time publishers in their own right, whether it be through their blogs, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or others. It is worthwhile developing a comprehensive set of guidelines for employees on their use of social media in the workplace, if one does not exist already, and keeping it in mind when working through your message and channel development.

This is the age of the iGeneration, an age of iWant and iGet, an age where technology is such that people have access to and expect information-on-demand. It is an unprecedented age of transparency, where the internal/external transference is high, where a simple Google search can instantly reveal inconsistencies and variations.

I seem to remember a certain high-profile political candidate who came under intense fire for saying she came under intense fire upon arriving in the Balkans for a springtime visit. To be fair, anything said during a US primary does tend to involve far greater scrutiny than your typical corporate announcement.

Recent research by Financial Dynamics unit showed that chief executives and senior managers turn more to the Internet for their news than any other channel. The speed at which a staff email or something on the company's internal blog can hit news portals, business blogs and the wider social media-sphere is simply staggering and I can't help but look back on the initial emergence of the 24 hour news cycle with a hint of nostalgic fondness.

One voice

It goes to underscore my fundamental belief that a company should speak with one voice, internally and externally, to staff, customers, investors, the media and the wider public. Of course, there need to be subtle variations in tone, delivery and sentiment in order to best reach and influence each of those key stakeholder groups, and it can be a very delicate balancing act at times.

This year in particular, against a backdrop of elections, regulatory reform and economic recovery, communicators will be operating in a very crowded space. We will all be fighting for share of voice as we seek to influence, to protect or to grow.

Those organisations that have their communications and messages aligned and focused, internally, externally and with strategic partners, and that speak with one clear voice, will be the ones heard above the din. They are more likely to engender greater trust and therefore build a stronger, more resilient brand.

A company that is inconsistent in its messaging, that doesn't have its communications aligned inside and out, risks more than just being lost in the collective noise we create- although failing to meet your communications objectives is not the best way to advance your company (or your career) - it also risks erosion of trust and could end up with a weakened brand.

Remember: in this day and age, an Advocate can become an Activist with just one click of a mouse.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet