Breakfast with Geeks & Luddites
I’m wrapping up my coverage of the IABC International Conference with a couple of session recaps.
On Tuesday morning, I attended the Business Breakfast 2, “Communication Leaders or Luddites,” led by Tudor Williams, ABC, MC. I chose to attend this session because 1) I had never met Tudor before–although I’ve known of his communication consulting expertise for years, and 2) Anytime you mention Luddites, you get my attention.
Luddites rioted in Britain in the early 1800s, resisting the advances of technology. Although we are not rioting today, many communicators are clinging to old familiar ways of communicating, rather than exploring new communications choices.
I’m the communication analyst for the IT Department of VW Credit, Inc., which makes me more interested than some in discussions of how to balance the love of technology with the basics of communication. Tudor addressed that balance in an engaging presentation that included discussions of what has, and has not, changed in communications.
He started his presentation by holding up that day’s newspaper, pointing to an article describing a recent Supreme Court decision involving communications. “Even today, we have people who are questioning the role of technology in communications, and who are framing the discussion of what we can and cannot do,” he said.
Tudor spent some time tracing the history of communications, pointing out that in the “old days” (a decade ago or longer), messages were sender-driven and owner-controlled. The sender decided when to communicate and which audience(s) would receive the message. With the advent of the Internet, email and other forms of instant, independent communication, information today is receiver-driven and largely uncontrolled by the originator.
What hasn’t changed in communication, according to Tudor? 1) Face-to-face communications is still the most effective form of communication, and 2) People love toys.
Our love of toys is driving the adoption of new technology and communication channels such as blogs and wickis, he said. Four areas where technology is changing communication strategy are:
1) Immediacy
2) Integration
3) Access
4) Collaboration.
Prior to the IABC Conference, I had never blogged, and I used this opportunity to become familiar with that new communication option. My decision was in line with Tudor’s advice to the audience at his breakfast session. He said we communicators should be change agents for communication channels, gaining understanding and then offering advice to our customers regarding effective choices.
July 11th, 2005 at 6:09 am
Tom, VW Credit, like Volkswagen, the scandal-plagued German car company with the free-trips to Brazil bribery allegations?
I was wondering last night about employee communications at VW, and it’s great that I learned a real VW person is here. You are a perfect source. (I’m working on a BAK’s Report story and also helping someone else on a Journal of Employee Communications Management story that might mention VW)
On the subject of employee communications, what has VW told its staff in North America about the scandal?
—————–
From yesterday’s New York Times: FRANKFURT, July 6 - Volkswagen is engulfed in a rapidly expanding bribery and corruption scandal that threatens one of Germany’s most prominent corporate executives and could harm Chancellor Gerhard Schröder as he girds for an uphill campaign to stay in office.
————-
With the story now breaking in the USA, it would be a beautiful case study of how a multi-national ensures its employees around the world are up to speed on major matters of reputation.
If any Ketchum employees are reading this, I’m curious too about the Los Angeles charges, and how the employees of various Ketchum offices world-wide are learning of the proceedings there.
Looking for ward to replies
BAK
July 11th, 2005 at 7:48 am
Brian,
I prefer: VW Credit, like Volkswagen, the best value in a German-engineered motorcar.
Regarding your hunt for a VW source, I must decline comment, other than to direct you to Dirk Grosse-Leege, head of VW Group Communications, in Wolfsburg, Germany. His contact information is:
dirk.grosse-leege@volkswagen.de
+49-5361-9-23155
Good luck with your articles.
Tom
July 12th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Good response, Tom - direct Brian to a source with the knowledge and authority to respond. This is a great example of the advantages of our new technologies that I described in the session that Brian is not (apparantly) pursuing. I am sure Dirk Grosse-Legge is accessible and would respond to Brian’s request immediately, if approached.
But I am intrigued by the style Brian continues in his quest to communicate in the blogosphere - that of tabloid journalism with statements intended to provoke. I believe that there is very little lasting value to such a style - just as the information in a daily tabloid has a shelf life that extends very little past the time you throw away the paper. And I do not think tabloid styles of postings will survive long as an approach to successful blogging
(success being the exchange of ideas and knowledge beyond fleeting entertainment).
The other change I noted in the conference session was the ability to collaborate using our new technical tools and toys. How different might Tom’s response have been to Brian’s post if he had attempted to collaborate with Tom in his search for information? Blogs like this are much more about the immediacy with which we can access and share ideas and information. And new knowledge gained will probably have much more lasting value for both the collaborators and those who come here to read and appreciate.
Having said that, the BAK Report is what it is and Brian’s style is what characterizes it. Regular subscribers would probably miss his combative approach.
Tudor
July 12th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Geezz.. Professor Williams twists my words and he should be ashamed of himself. Talk about tabloid journalism.
Here’s what I wrote, for those unable to look above on the page: “With the story now breaking in the USA, it would be a beautiful case study of how a multi-national ensures its employees around the world are up to speed on major matters of reputation.”
The story clip I put into my original message came from the New York Times. Williams thinks this is a tabloid? Spare us all.
And the phrasing in my question about whether VW Credit has something to do with the company? This was just a well-written lead, (or led without the a, in journalise) but then again, I don’t purport to be an academic.
I do, incidentally, purport to be a journalist, and I write accurately, and I check my facts. Are bloggers journalists? We leave that for another day.
In regard to the longevity of tabloids — again, Williams is out to lunch, perhaps wrapped in yesterday’s tabloid. But nevertheless, a Google web search tells us that even the Providence, Rhode Island, former smallest of the forty-eight, ran the VW story. Tabloids get indexed by Google, too, and these stories stay around forever.
Try that again …. these stories stay around forever.
Now, I’m talking about stories in real papers, edited by real editors. Lord only knows if drivel in blogs, writtten by the ignornat and intelligent alike, will end up in Google.
Williams writes, above, “How different might Tom’s response have been to Brian’s post if he had attempted to collaborate with Tom in his search for information?” What the …. did I do wrong? My search for information asked a guy supposedly at Volkswagen, and supposedly having something to do with communications (he “analyses” it for a credit department, apparently, which promts me to wonder what a communciations analyst actually does, but I’ll save that for another day.) whether VW headquarters told emmployees anything about a big, big story.
Even if it was not his job to actually communicate with employees, he’s an employee himself. He could have said simply, “yes, employees throughout my part of Valkswagen, or at least the people near me, or at least me, have been informed of the topic at hand.” And then he could have said, ask the guy in Germany, or he could have left this out, having answered my question. Or he could have told me what he was told. It would be itneresting to employyee communciations pros reading this stuff.
I’m very respectable when I write here in the IABC blog, but for those who can remember back a couple of months, the reason Bickford took this over is some “tabloid” journalism from a few of us — Mr. Jenkins and I, primarily — who thought his predecessar was doing a disgraceful job.
Anyway, now that I’m on a roll, let’s look at this comment, too; “direct Brian to a source with the knowledge and authority to respond.” Remember the story in IABC CAFE about the Larkin talk? This Larkin guy says you get information from the lowest level employee you can find, and Larkin got a standing ovation for this stuff. If the purpose of telling employees things is so they, too, can become “media” what’s with this approval from Tudor of sending my question all the way to Germany to some big shot?
Here’s how employee communciations should work — a company tells everyone in it lots of interesting, important stuff, good and bad, and those people are allowed to pass it on, subject to laws encouraging secrets.
BAK
July 13th, 2005 at 6:10 am
Brian,
A few clarifications. First, you originally called me “a perfect source” for your case study, BAK’s Report story and the Journal of Employee Communications Management story. On what basis did you make that assumption? The only fact you evidentally know about me, based on your following quote, is that you know I work for some part of the larger Volkswagen company:
“supposedly having something to do with communications (he “analyses” it for a credit department, apparently, which promts me to wonder what a communciations analyst actually does”
Second, your comment regarding “how employee communciations should work” wouldn’t change my original suggestion to you to contact our head of VW Group Communications. VW does share information (good and bad) with its employees, and we are allowed to share non-private or company-confidential information. I chose not to share information with you, and directed you to the person closest to the facts you wanted–other than your question regarding whether VW has communicated to employees, which I now have confirmed.
Third, my view of how employee communications should work is based partially on experience at Cellular One (public relations), Fort James Corporation (corporate communications), the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (internal communications) and other companies, both public and private. I’ve seen employee communications done well, and I’ve seen it botched. I’ve witnessed the mess that happens when employees speculate on matters when they are not privy to important details. I’ve been part of employee education to train employees about media contacts–including when or when not to respond directly.
Brian, you need to talk to the head of VW Group Communications if you want to know VW’s plan for communicating to employees. He is the person who can address that question.
Fourth, were you actually at the Larkin presentation? If so, we heard different points. I didn’t hear Larkin say anything like, “you get information from the lowest level employee you can find,” or, “the purpose of telling employees things is so they, too, can become ‘media.’”
Larkin discussed, “Intranet, paper or face-to-face: What each channel does best.” You seem to be referencing his earlier book, “Communicating Change: Winning Employee Support for New Business Goals.” The main point of that book is that when companies have something very important to communicate, that they want front-line employees to hear and believe, the message tends to be accepted more when delivered by an employee’s direct supervisor.
Fifth, when I was a newspaper reporter, I tried to get information from the source closest to the information. At times, I started with other people, to get an understanding of an issue, or to gain some insight that would help me to ask sharper questions of the main source. Perhaps you want me to be that “starter” source. If so, curb the insults and sarcasm–they are not engaging.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:33 am
Hmmmm, to loosely quote the bard, Brian doth protest too much!
Tudor
July 14th, 2005 at 5:56 am
>
This is the most naive, misinformed view of how employee communication should work that I have seen in some time. I’m not surprised when I see such a misunderstanding perpetuated by people who don’t manage communication for a living, but to see someone who professes to be “one of us” make such a statement is scary.
Tom did precisely the right thing as an employee of VW Credit and as a member of its communication team. He referred a member of the media to the designated spokesperson for his company.
The reason we counsel business leaders to communicate with employees is not so the employees can go out and serve as spokespeople. That would be a disaster. The reasons we encourage business leaders to communicate with employees include giving employees a vested stake in the success of the business, engaging employees in the evolution of the business, earning employees’ respect for and trust of the leadership, and educating employees so their actions and behaviors are grounded in fact rather than speculation.
But I would never give information to employees in the hopes that they would “pass it on” to members of the news media. In fact, I recall one particular issue in which I was managing both employee communication and media relations. One of the key messages to employees was that if they were contacted by a reporter, they should direct the reporter to a company spokesperson — and that doing so was in the best interests of the employee and the business.
July 15th, 2005 at 6:35 am
My goodness Tom, did you imagine your blog post on a conference session would result in a café conversation with so many volleys, curves and dips?
In observing the ebb and flow, I liked to compare and contrast it with some of the earlier chats that have taken place in the cafe, including areas such as transparency, proper communication channels, clear and honest language (i.e., an absence of spin), plus the role/expectations of communicators in contributing to the overall business aspect and public profile of a company (i.e., the “trust intermediary” role covered in the recent Conference Board of Canada report.). For the record, I score you highly on all of the above.
Maybe what would be helpful (if unrelated to this particular topic) would at some point to give café visitors a better understanding of what an “IT communications analyst” does…sounds like an interesting area of work, and not one in which too many IABC members are involved. We already know about your journalism background, but what other core competencies and knowledge base do you need to build upon to take on and grow in this role? And what do you find yourself using more of, your right or left brain?
The other thing that didn’t get addressed directly was how this recent situation might affect your parent company’s key product–its vehicles–as well as the overall Volkswagen brand. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you indicated that the Volkswagen brand includes “the best value in a German-engineered motorcar.” The people I know that own and drive Volkswagen products are happy and loyal customers. Maybe what’s happening at head office won’t thrill them, but it doesn’t detract from the value of the vehicles. (And this is a company with a long history, having survived an awful lot of tumultuous times.) I predict Volkswagen is going to be around for a long time, and that the impact of recent events will have a minimal (and only short term) effect on sales. After all, it’s an enduring brand.
Speaking of foreign imports and enduring brands, the Rolling Stones are currently rehearsing for their next tour at a location approximately five minutes from my midtown office. How cool is that? (“Start me up.”)
July 15th, 2005 at 7:53 am
I don’t like the twists and turns this conversation has taken. It seems to me that there are some people are bombastic for sport - running interference no matter what is said, playing Devil’s advocate, high-minded idealists, et al.
Oh, the purists will say that’s what conversations are… give and take. But I say it’s total b.s., particularly when its the same old voices coming out with the the same old, by now predictable, responses.
I’ve taken the bait on too many occasions, this one included.
It’s a sad commentary, and perhaps the reason why so many people lurk, and few participate. Who wants to join this fracas?
It’s totally inappropriate to put anyone in this forum on the spot about their employer - over which few of us have any control. From the standpoint of employee engagement, I was happy to see one employee go the extra mile with supportive comment while referencing the proper media relations contact at their company.
And for the record, IMHO, employees are an important channel in disseminating key messages informally because they are credible. Not a formal channel, but an informal, yet important channel.
Non-sequiter: I visited the VW Museum in Volksburg, Germany, several years ago. Fascinating. My buddy and I also took the Volkswagen production facility tour. Plus, we had the best rotisserie chicken of the entire trip to Europe right there in that peaceful hamlet.
But this topic was about a conference session, not VW. Somehow we’ve lost sight of that. This plot twist has not motivated me to continue posting my conference notes. And that’s a damn shame.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Charles, the unfortunate reality is that in a “public” forum like this, you get the occasional inappropriate comment from the fringe. Most of the comments in this forum and others are on topic, insightful, respectful and enlightening. But just as happens in a town hall meeting or even a cocktail party, there’s the occasional person who incites controversey and injects comments that are just way off base. So, do we just shut down conversations altogether? No, we allow them to continue. I’ve always believed extremism will be shown for what it is and pushed to the side so the rest of us can gain the positive outcomes of open dialogue.
I’m not entirely sure if you’re making a veiled reference to me when you talk about the “same old voices,” but I simply couldn’t let Brian Kilgore’s misguided description of employee communication go unchallenged. And I believe it’s healthy to have such debate.
In fact, amid your scolding I found a useful bit of perspective — that employees are in fact an effective way to disseminate information informally. Good point and I’m glad you made it. Yes, that’s one reason businesses should communicate with employees — but Brian was suggesting (in my interpretation of his comments) that business leaders should expect employees to pass along information to the news media. That’s just bad communication management.
July 15th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Reference to the Bard above reminded me of this quote from Harold Bloom: In Shakespeare, characters develop rather than unfold, and they develop because they reconceive themselves. Sometimes this comes about because they overhear themselves talking, whether to themselves or others.
I think a blog like this and the replies is a great way for all of us to “overhear ourselves”. Who knows, it might lead to all kinds of development and growth.
July 17th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
[...] discussion in the Café while I was away in the comments section of Tom Keefe’s post Breakfast with Geeks and Luddites. For the record, I agree that To [...]
July 18th, 2005 at 4:33 am
Michael, I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of the value blogging holds for organizations like IABC. Excellent point!
July 18th, 2005 at 10:54 am
I am surprised that someone from the old days of online discussion (e.g. IABC/Hyperspace) hasn’t mentioned the long-established best practice for dealing with “trolling” (i.e. the posting of deliberately provocative statements). It is essentially to acknowledge the attempted diversion but not to take the bait and argue. Something like “I don’t think you have a valid point of view there. As I was saying, ….” Like a bridge bid with a bad hand, it says, “I hear you but I don’t choose to raise the stakes.”
One man’s trolling is another man’s interesting posting, but it takes two to make an argument. If you think a point is on theme, respond; if you think it’s off theme, don’t. It’s as easy as that.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:00 am
Classic media relations, Tim.
However, I also believe in correcting bad information. I think Brian’s view of the purpose of employee communication is so distorted that I couldn’t let it pass unchallenged!
July 20th, 2005 at 2:49 am
Tabloid journalism? I appreciate the nod, BAK, but Desirable Roasted Coffee isn’t (supposed to be) tabloid journalism.
(Wander away for a week and miss loads of fun!)