Home | What we’re doing | News

MD Stuart Maister in Communicate Magazine

Friday June 5th 09

Read the debate appeared on Communicate Magazine between our MD Stuart Maister and Tim Buckley from the CIB on 'In employee engagement, is technology now more effective than face-to-face communication?'

In the Yes corner is Stuart Maister, managing director of BroadView, a web TV agency specialising in stakeholder relations. His opponent is Tim Buckley, commercial director of the British Association of Communicators in Business and managing director of internal communications agency AB.

Dear Tim,

In an ideal world, all employees would be fully engaged through their immediate managers, who would all be fantastic communicators. Face to face would rule. Employees would all be in teams in one place with regular, dynamic meetings. I guess such a world exists and it’s probably in Second Life :)

In the real world, the cascade is frozen, or at least icy. A lot of communication comes through the computer and mobile device and is as likely to come from YouTube, Facebook chat or a tweet. Employees may be homeworkers, dispersed, or just not very engaged by their boss.

In the face of this, is it still as effective to rely on those face-to-face meetings? When the CEO wants to ensure strategy is understood by employees, so that they know what’s expected of them, will you stake your job on local managers rallying the troops? Surely it’s better for the organisation to engage in the technological conversation with those who work for it? Content can and should drive the internal conversation, not replace it.

We’ve just produced an internal TV programme for a major IT company explaining its transformation strategy: 22,000 out of 24,000 (dispersed) employees watched it within two days, loved it, shared it and talked about it online. It’s a platform for the internal conversations to build upon. The CEO knows his staff now understand what he wants to achieve. Even you and I are now debating through technology. I hope this has you engaged.

All the best,

Stuart

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your email but, as ever from those who believe technology can supplant face-to-face communication, it misses the point entirely.

There is a widely held belief that broadcast is communication, but it's only half the story. Communication has to be balanced. You can only truly say you’ve communicated with someone when you know they've understood what you're saying - you cannot do that remotely.

You admit the potency of face-to-face but go on to say companies should basically give up on that and spend money broadcasting in the forlorn hope that employees will become ‘engaged’. Employees overwhelmingly vote for face-to-face communication – almost 70% say it’s their preferred method. While email and the intranet can give context, they cannot engage.

Indeed, a friend of mine has only two meetings with her line manager a year and spends the rest of the time dealing with the business through the intranet. She couldn’t be less engaged. She is getting her engagement from the union who – and here you’ll probably be surprised – are holding face-to-face meetings.

The point you’ve missed is that engagement does not come with information; it comes with understanding and interaction. I absolutely recognise the strides that technology has made in providing an avenue for two-way dialogue. However, it still cannot make up for the impact that’s missed when you don’t meet with people.

Interesting that you have to resort to an emoticon to show you’re joking – with 90% of communication being in body language, no wonder technology is so lacking in the engagement stakes.

If you’re free, I’d much rather sit down and have this conversation with you…

Cheers,
Tim

Hi Tim

Agreed. Broadcast is only half the story. Engagement – or lack of it – takes place in various ways. Dialogue beats monologue. Of course. But corporate communicators need to ask what are the most effective levers to support engagement by an often dispersed workforce. With rapid change, big decisions and a need forreal leadership, line managers are themselves looking up as well as down to work out what happens next.

Then there’s the need to inspire as well as inform; provide good as well as bad news; show best practice; connect people who might otherwise not meet; and demonstrate what good looks like in working practice or CSR. These are all vital to an engagement strategy.

Can word of mouth from a line manager do any of that? Consistently, reliably, trackably across the board? Social media combined with online video, often live and interactive, can do a lot of this. What’s more the content hits the people who weren’t there for the team meeting and remains as a point of reference long after it took place. It feeds upon itself, creating dialogue and buzz.

I love your point about body language. I evangelise about the use of video as a strategic communications ool and this is one of my big selling points. Does any of this negate the need for face time with your line manager? Not a bit. But that may be for my final email.

All the best,
Stuart

“It took hundreds of years for Jesus to network his message via those who were physically present. Most businesses need to move quicker than that”

Comments

This article has no comments.

Add a Comment

Comments are not currently being accepted on this article.

« Return to News