« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
February 24, 2006
How to actually change employee behavior by using brand attributes
I've been attending a conference in Chicago this week called "Extending Your Brand to Employees," organized by the Conference Board.
We've had many interesting discussions about how to build the business case for internal branding, whether or not your external brand be the same as your internal brand (yes, in my opinion) and how you create strong connections between brand attributes and daily behavior.
On this last point, I was particularly impressed with comments made by Randall Rozin, global director of branding and marketing with Dow Corning. He talked about a workshop structure that they've put in place that allows departments and functions to essentially run all their daily work through the filter created by Dow Corning's brand attributes to check for alignment.
One specific example he gave was "cease and desist" letters coming out of the legal department. Before the workshop, they were very threatening and legalistic. During the workshop, the legal department realized that the tone conflicted with the Dow Corning brand and had the potential to create the wrong impressions with recipients of the letters, as well as with those employees writing and sending them. The tone of those letters has since changed. A small but interesting example of how to align daily employee behavior with a brand.
Posted by Christopher at 8:43 AM
Comments
It's interesting how much tone has to do with effective communication. Phrase it like an edict, and people turn off immediately, or even do the opposite out of spite. But politely explain why something is important, or how doing the wrong thing can negatively affect the business or its reputation, and you might get what you want.
I'm very interested in the whole area of branding and employee communications. Christopher, can you, or any of your blogs readers, point me to other sources where I might find interesting case studies? I'm preparing for a presentation on this topic at a conference next month. I have some examples of my own, but I want to be able to present the latest thinking on the subject. Any thoughts or references you might have would be appreciated.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk at March 22, 2006 3:57 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackFebruary 22, 2006
GlaxoSmithKline engages sales force to change perception
I applaud GSK for its recent decision to actively engage its 8,000 U.S. sales reps as "public relations ambassadors" to improve GSK’s image and that of the entire pharma industry. GSK has realized – correctly, in my opinion – that corporate reputation is forged on the individual level, not through advertising or even public relations (hopefully not a career-limiting statement for me, given that PR has been my firm's bread and butter for 53 years).
A company's sales force is its most visible public face and holds enormous power to change perceptions. And while this supposition is true for all employees of a company, sales reps – and especially ones in the beleaguered pharma industry – are a particularly valuable asset.
GSK has dubbed their program "Value of Medicine." I was intrigued by a comment that Michael Pucci, vice president of external advocacy, made to Ad Age about the campaign: "What we're leveraging here is asking our employees to talk to people, even if they just start with their family members," he said. Pucci acknowledges what so many companies don't: that regardless of "only PR can talk to the public" policies, all employees talk to members of the public on a 24/7 basis. Rather than denying this, GSK has decided to try to turn this to their advantage.
According to Ad Age, GSK has given sales reps talking points and answers to tough questions and is then sending them to Rotarians, Elks, Lions Club members, senior-citizen groups, weekly newspapers, schools and every community group they can think of. Pucci said the majority of questions the reps receive revolve around pricing, and he has given them what he calls a "learning system" that takes 50 minutes to master and will enable the rep to satisfy queries about the company and the industry. GSK reps made 15,000 presentations last year, Mr. Pucci said, reaching 1.8 million people.
I disagree with an anonymous chief marketing officer for a top-10 drug maker who provided a counterpoint in the Ad Age coverage. He or she said "I'm not sure I want 8,000 people on the ground given that level of responsibility to basically speak for a company and an industry. With that many, the odds say there’s going to be a percentage of them -- however small -- that will make a mistake, or stray from the script, or whatever."
With all due respect, I believe this person misses the point. This is not about sticking to the script, it's about creating relationships with the public that will change perceptions. GSK is putting a human and credible face on the pharma industry and acknowledging the reality that their sales reps were most likely hungry for this kind of engagement. I welcome your thoughts and perspectives on this issue.
Posted by Christopher at 12:35 PM
Comments
Post a comment
| TrackBackFebruary 16, 2006
A trend I hope doesn't catch on: micro-chipping employees
The use of radio frequency identification (where small microchips are placed on an object for the purpose of tracking and identification) has been around for about 30 years. It's used by businesses to track items, farmers to locate missing animals and by libraries to keep tabs on books.
Now it seems they may be about to enter the workplace. I read a report yesterday in the Chicago Tribune about a security company in Ohio that has begun offering the chips to its employees to boost security. Instead of having to swipe a magentic card to gain entry to a facility, a few of these employees (including the head of the company) have had the chips installed to facilitate instant identity verification at security checkpoints.
The only other company I am aware of that chips its employees is VeriChip, the company that makes them. In October 2004, VeriChip received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration to implant the chips into humans.
Although the chips do not emit signals that allow for tracking, the concept blurs in new ways the division between "work life" and "private life" that is already so blurred in many societies. I could easily see a scenario in which companies with large hourly workforces could require chip implants as a condition of employment and use them to more accurately track time at work. If you go outside for a cigarette break, for example, sensors detect your chip leaving the building and then entering again 5 minutes later; your pay is then adjusted accordingly. Let's hope it never gets to this point.
Posted by Christopher at 6:02 AM
Comments
Post a comment
| TrackBackFebruary 15, 2006
Welcome to a new employee communications blogger!
I'd like to extend a blogosphere welcome to Ron Shewchuk, who has started a blog dedicated to employee communications called For Your Approval at http://ronshewchuk.blogs.com/for_your_approval/. His site, like this one, also has a list of favorite reads and blogs that's worth checking out.
Posted by Christopher at 8:51 AM
Comments
Thanks for the warm welcome, Christopher. I look forward to participating in the big endless conversation that is the blogosphere.
Cheers,
Ron
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk at February 17, 2006 7:04 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackFebruary 6, 2006
What we can learn from Fortune's 100 best companies to work for
This year's Fortune "100 Best Companies to Work For" list is particularly interesting in that comparisons to past lists create a rather good barometer of how workplaces have changed in just a few years. Here are some of the changes I found most interesting:
-- In 2001, 33 companies on the list paid 100 percent of employees' health care premiums. Today, just 14 do.
-- The number of companies on the list that offer a defined benefit pension plan to new employees has dropped from 40 to 27 in just three years.
-- In 1999, only 18 companies on the list offered telecommuting; today 79 do.
-- In 1999, only 25 companies on the list offered compressed workweeks; today 81 do.
-- More companies than ever before are offering personal concierge services, take-home meals and free or subsidized lunches.
Also interesting to see that the average age of the 100 best companies is 85 and that only exactly half of them are publicly traded.
I'll be blogging more about some of the winners (the #1 slot went to Genentech, in case you were curious) over the coming weeks, as well as sharing tips on how companies can apply for consideration for the list themselves (the deadline for the 2007 list is March 31, 2006).
Posted by Christopher at 6:09 PM
Comments
Will future reports be able to address the concern that "Best" is, at best, an ambiguous term? (It was one of Drucker's most famous responses: best for what purpose?)
I know some of these places in the listing, and they are very different from each other. Some are the best because of the hard-driving opportunities for achievement they provide. Others, because they allow for “lower hours for lower pay.” There’s clearly more than one definition of “best place to work” going on.
This leads me to wonder whether it is really possible to have a meaningful, consistent definition of “best place to work,”
For example, for a few years before its demise, Arthur Andersen set itself the goal of being a “A Great Place to do Great Work.”
The source of this slogan is perhaps unfortunate but it’s still an intriguing concept. What would make a firm a great place to do great work? Here are some of my hypotheses:
* A high percentage of smart, energetic colleagues (no dummies.)
* A disproportionately high percentage of top-end assignments. (Only bring in challenging work.)
* An A client list. (Refuse to work for the rest.)
* Real mutual support and collaboration among partners (Get rid of the cowboys.)
* Practicing with others who share mutual interests. (Base teams around individual enthusiasms, not dry analytics.)
* Lots of help around (Real coaching from peers and group leaders)
* A willingness by the firm to provide the tools and support needed. (Avoid excessive cost-cutting)
* High standards, enforced with help and discipline. (Acting according to what we preach.)
* A clearly articulated set of values that everyone believes in. (A firm driven by principle, not expediency)
Done well, all of this would create a firm-wide reputation, not dependent on individuals, that would help each person succeed in the marketplace in attracting and executing the best possible, most challenging work.
Only a few of these things are referred to in the Fortune report (although they may exist in the companies named.) What I’m trying to get at here is that “Best Place to Work” is going to mean different things to different people, and we’re going to have to be careful how we throw the term around.
Posted by: David Maister at February 7, 2006 7:03 AM
Having been close the Fortune Best Places to Work process and also doing HR consulting with organizations on the list here's what I have observed:
The companies that make the list, make it primarily because their employees think they are a great employer. Most of the weight for making the list rests on employee surveys and feedback.
This means the listed organizations are doing a very good job of clearly articulating their employment offer and living up to the promise. Articulating the employment offer allows them to attract employees who will think the company is great(because they are attracted to the things the company promises) Living up to the promise allows these companies to maintain employees' feelings that they made a good choice.
The most interesting thing trend I see is that half of the companies are privately held. This is a very big shift. Any thoughts why public companies are having a more difficult time??
Posted by: Kathy Collura at March 29, 2006 12:49 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackFebruary 1, 2006
Welcome back, United Airlines
United Airlines emerged today from the longest and costliest bankruptcy in airline history after cutting $7 billion in costs and 25,000 of its workforce. I was on the communications team that worked through the night and early morning on December 10, 2002, to prepare for the filing the next morning. I will never forget the sense of profound sadness and despair that we all felt when the call came in at 6:15 a.m. that the Chapter 11 filing documents had been received by the court and date stamped, starting the communications rollout to internal and exteral customers. Although we had been preparing for months, the fact that United -- once the world's greatest airline -- had filed for bankruptcy still was difficult to fathom.
Say what you want about United (and I know everyone has their United horror stories) but here's hoping that this is indeed the start of a new era for the company and for the employees who remain. To say United's rank and file employees have been through a lot is an understatement to say the least. Throughout the three years in Chapter 11, I continued flying with United and was always struck by how nearly every single employee was still trying to make the most of a bad situation and do the right thing by customers despite the dire affect of the bankruptcy on their own lives. To those employees who remain today and are doing their best to keep the skies friendly, I say thank you and good luck.
Posted by Christopher at 6:25 PM