My effort to promote the idea of “selective engagement” as a central way to increase the effectiveness ofÂ internal communication has found another outlet, with the Journal of Internal Communication posting my latest piece on the subject.
Not long ago, London-based internal communicationÂ consultancyÂ Gatehouse published its eighth annual â€œState of the Sectorâ€ survey looking at how internal comms practitioners are experiencing their roles and how they use their time, money and energy.
Having spent the last four years in an in-house comms role, none of the conclusions particularly surprised me. Practitioners these days are focused on â€œdigital,â€ channel management and eventÂ management,Â in pursuit of informing people about corporate strategy and, to a lesser extent, supporting the ongoing push for â€œemployee engagement,â€ whatever that might exactly be.
They are worried about their budget levels and dabbling with a range of measurement tools in order to have some facts that can justify sustaining at least part of those budgets. But what the Gatehouse survey does not touch is any effort to sharpen the impact of internal communication by identifying and focusing on high-value and high-impact individuals and audiences within their organizations.
Whether this is a simple omission in the Gatehouse methodology or a major gap in current practice is a question I will leave open for now. But when at 28% of survey respondents anticipate taking a budget hit this year, the question of whether one can drive more impact with fewer dollars, euros or pounds is one that ought to be on most communicatorsâ€™ radar screens.
Now, to answer that question, a few other questions are worth asking:
- Does the 80-20 rule have an equivalent in internal communication?
According to Innovisor, a Copenhagen-based niche consultancy specializing in identifying and mapping the relationships between formal and informal leaders in organizations, the internal comms equivalent actually reflects a 3%-90% rule, where three percent of a companyâ€™s population has the ability to drive and influence conversations reaching 90% of employees.
These three percent are not merely senior leaders at the top of the pyramid, but the internal experts, role models and social networkers who combine high connectivity with high credibility to move and validate messages, official and otherwise.
- Isnâ€™t it more difficult or expensive to find the right people than to just focus on everyone?
The process of identifying an organizationâ€™s most influential employees and, if desired, mapping out their connections and their spheres of influence, is a task that requires actual work, either through a survey where employees identify their key personal and professional contacts in the workplace, or, less precisely, through a combination of interviews, desk research and management input.
Once found, the list of influencers and their maps of connections and influence have to be updated in a manner reflecting the level of change, turnover and organizational momentum. But even factoring the degree of work involved in developing definitive lists and maps, the opportunity for saving money, reducing noise and increasing impact is immense.
- Isnâ€™t this a function of management and not internal communication?
A sharpened focus on high impact employees and audiences isnâ€™t the same thing as a focus on high-status employees. Top-down communication may remain the gold standard for delivering authoritative pronouncements, but employees look to select peers and experts to define, sanity check and contextualize those messages. This is an approach that combines management with management in a powerful, integrated way.
- Has anyone actually done this successfully?
Selective engagement, which focuses on identifying, connecting and mobilizing key individuals, whether through Innovisorâ€™s approach to social mapping, or Leandro Herreroâ€™s Viral Change approach, is an increasingly popular and efficient way of making things happen in organizations and communities.
In doing such an excellent job of identifying what internal comms leaders and practitioners are doing and focusing on, Gatehouse does a massive service to the IC community.
And in highlighting such a gap in the arena of audience focus, Gatehouse, perhaps inadvertently, has created an opportunity for internal comms pros – and those who employ us – to look at how they can engage more selectively, and in so doing, increase their impact while making better use of money and organizational bandwidth.