Just days after the President’s latest address, the seemingly singular focus on the economy has given way to a broader agenda -and the presumed “back burner” priorities such as healthcare and the Employee Free Choice Act are once again front and center.

Thus far much of the debate around Employee Free Choice has centered around the pro’s and cons of the legislation with a recent report dominating the news suggesting that an employee has a one in four chance of being fired for union activity.

Whatever your politics, this is a game-changer.  And whether the Act as it is currently written ultimately passes or not, one thing is crystal clear – organized labor is re-asserting its relevance in a way we haven’t seen in generations.  This should serve as a wake-up call to corporate leaders and managers everywhere. 

At the heart of the decision to seek third party representation is the employees’ relationship with management.  Is there mutual trust and respect?  Do employees have a voice?  Are their concerns taken seriously?  Do they get a “fair shake?”   If the answer to these questions is yes, the issue of EFCA is academic.  But if the answer is no, you need to take an honest look at your policies and your employee communications.  (Whether your EOS data will actually answer those questions is another topic for another day…too many of those surveys are designed to demonstrate that HR is doing a great job, rather than truly measuring employee opinion.  But I digress).

For sure, the issue of employee policies is key….no amount of access to management and no fancy newsletter will make employees feel good about lousy policies.  But the idea that employees only care about themselves is as outdated and untrue as the idea that CEO’s only care about profits.

In its simplest form, this is a communications problem.  Employees at all levels need to support the Company’s goals, and see their own success as intrinsically tied to their employer’s success.  This requires an understanding of the overall priorities, process for decisions, and when an unpopular decision is made the context and benefits of making that hard decision.   In the current climate, where fear of unemployment is at an all time high (reports the Associated Press) many employees are willing to sacrifice short term or personal gain for the longer term benefit of the enterprise…but only if they are actively engaged and committed to a shared vision, and believe that there will be shared benefits later.   

The good news is that actively engaging your employees now – which requires an emotional connection between the employee and the Company – has an urgent an immediate benefit to the Company, beyond smooth labor relations.   Employees who are engaged are better informed, less fearful and more likely to alert you to issues before they become big problems.  They are more likely to deliver the kind of service that helps you win and keep customers in this environment.  They are a competitive advantage, in any industry.   

So regardless of your point of view about EFCA, and the labor questions being played out in dueling op-eds and by television talking heads, make employee communications a priority.  

Not sure where to begin?  Start by listening.  But start today.  Tomorrow may be too late.

Carreen Winters / cwinters@mww.com

cwinters Employee Engagement Internal Communications, Labor Relations

The benefit of working with a solid team of corporate communications counselors is the constant exposure to broad expertise, experiences and opinions.  Periodically my non-blogging colleagues may contribute thoughts to Reputation Premium.  When they do, I will include their name and email address at the end of the post should you wish to contact them directly – Matt

What’s In A Name?

Do you remember the days when Employee Communications was simply that employee communications?    Well that nomenclature soon gave way to a variety of terms – Employee Relations, and the latest term of art – Employee Engagement.

At first blush it might seem like some mid-level person in a cubicle in corporate-land decided that he or she was under-appreciated…inventing a loftier sounding phrase was an easy path to respect, appreciation, even admiration.

But the reality is that this is more than just a change in nomenclature…the evolution of the terms reflects an increased understanding of the importance of the employees to the success of an enterprise. 

Communications suggests one-way delivery of messages….we talk…you listen.  This worked great in the era of the Company Man, tirelessly working for his retirement luncheon and gold watch.  But as employees found themselves in the driver’s seat it became increasingly clear that both parties had some skin in the game, and that in order to keep the best and the brightest talent there is indeed a relationship – a two way street of sorts.  So on the heels of employee relations we saw programs like flex-time, company sponsored training, creative approaches to the workplace that allowed for telecommuting, job sharing and countless other innovations.

Most recently, the concept of employee relations  gave way to Employee Engagement….and with it the implication that the employment relationship should be more than a series of great dates.  It requires an emotional vesting in the job, and for companies in the employees.  And with that investment comes a longer  term commitment, yielding numerous benefits to the Company and rewarding careers for the employees.   It’s finally gotten personal.  Some argue that this was driven largely by the war for talent and the cost of turnover.  And this may be true for some organizations.  But for many companies, the driver of Employee Engagement is more about the benefits to all parties, most notably customers.

It will be interesting to see whose commitments to Employee Engagement remain intact in this market.  For those who mistakenly believe that the current economy gives employers license to back away from employee communications and engagement – think again.    I love the way the Gallup Management Journal put it:  “In bad times, employee engagement means the difference between surviving, or not.”

So unless you are planning to go out of business….get engaged…and keep your employees engaged.  Start today.

Carreen Winters / cwinters@mww.com

cwinters Employee Engagement Employees, Internal Communications

A recent Harvard Business Review article on effective strategies for a smooth CEO transition retells an old joke:

The new CEO asks the departing CEO for advice. The outgoing says there are three envelopes in the desk, and the newbie should open them as crises hits.  Sure enough, the first crisis hits, and the new CEO opens the first note which reads:  ”Blame your predecessor.”  The next crisis hits and the second message read: “Reorganize.” A year after that, a third crisis hits and the CEO opens the final envelope, which plaintively instructs him to: “Prepare three envelopes.”

For all companies, CEO transitions are a risky time, ripe with difficulties and innumerable variables. Is the departing CEO gracefully taking retirement, or quickly getting the boot on the heels of a scandal?  By picking a certain candidate for the job, which others were spurned? What do the most important investors think? What is the level of expectation for the new guy or gal?

Protecting corporate reputation during this process is critical. Do it correctly and praise (along HBR case studies) is yours.  Do it wrong and the reverberations may cause problems for months…even years. Communicating a clear, consistent message to the media, to employees, to shareholders and investors is a simple but sound strategy.

The HBR article rightly points out that during this time, the departing CEO should let the next CEO own the public face of the company.  Executing on this can be far more difficult and no transition is without missteps.   Leaks from unnamed and disaffected sources make print. Reporters covering it like a horse race – who’s in the lead, who’s behind. Investors with shaken confidence looking for the door.

This is acutely so in the event a venerated leader exist the stage. Such was the case when Jack Welch turned over GE’s reins to Jeffery Immelt.  A leader like Welch, the media breathlessly speculated, was impossible to replace, and the unlucky soul tapped to replace him would face a steep climb.   More recent examples of this ‘irreplaceable leader’ phenomenon – Gates-Balmer at Microsoft, or Lee-Duke at Wal-Mart.

The thing about transitions is that if they are done correctly and communicated effectively, they can reinforce notions of operational excellence and superb leadership development. Stakeholders of all stripes abhor confusion – they want to know who is in charge.  Make the message about that.

msacks Executive Visibility Leadership, Transition