Losing the plot

Gia picks up on a great rant about the "truth" of television which makes the point that there is so much inevitable artifice in the process that clinging to the truth is no mean feat.

This was why it was so hysterically funny when the BBC turned the monster in on intself and employed televisual techniques for their One BBC internal comms campaign. The idea was to engender a more collaborative culture within the organisation but mass staff meetings with swooping camera moves, "hard hitting" interviews with senior managers and happy clappy staff talking heads just made some of us feel like all grip of reality had been lost. It is bad enough doing this sort of stuff to the public but doing it to yourselves ..... It was a bit like watching a dog caught in a trap chewing its own leg off.

In contrast someone on our internal bulletin board, talk.gateway, said that the forums had done more to engender a one BBC feel than any of the official activities but we had done it ourselves, slowly and subtly by spending time with each other online, socialising and rubbing shoulders. Surely the way any real culture change happens?

Comments

[Nigel]

Euan - I recommend John Smythe's new book 'Chief Engagement Officer' Can you help an organisation evolve into an 'engaged' one by just lowering the barriers to collaboration?

[Euan]

Yes I think you mentioned that book in a previous comment. I know John and have seen him speak a few times but I'll obviously need to look out for the book!

[Sue Wittenoom]

Hi Euan - agree - there might well be an official change mgt "program", but that doesnt equate to change happening unless people somehow choose to do it or believe it for themself.

Not a topdown/bottom up thing, more inside out. Not the official conference program, but the back channel/breakout debriefs and post mortems. Genuine, not contrived. Emergent, not controlled.

[Sam Berrisford]

I don't want to be defensive about the One BBC experience, and I wasn't personally involved, but I would suggest that there is never a single answer to an internal communications challenge.

Having the opportunity to hear hard hitting questions put to the director general, listening to people talking 'live' in a group situation can be powerful tools.

There is something here about a real shared experience that an exchange on an internal bulletin board cannot replicate - leaving aside the point that participation on talk.gateway is even more self selecting than attendance at a mass BBC meeting.

The point must be that in any organisation communications are layered across a range of media and through both formal and informal interactions. The overall effect will always be cumulative.

I can share your reservations about Mark Thompson's leadership style and the inadequacies of the internal TV coverage of the one BBC event, and I welcome your advocacy of social media use inside organisations. But to suggest that the internal bulletin board makes more than a minor contribution to a sense of organisational cohesion stretches credibility.

[Euan Semple]

"to suggest that the internal bulletin board makes more than a minor contribution to a sense of organisational cohesion stretches credibility." - ah there speaks a comms professional.

:-)

To be honest to most of the people I knew at the BBC the comms stuff not only had minor impact it was actually negative. It made us feel more disengaged and cynical. The comment about talk.gateway was made by one of the users as was another comment, made by someone else, "now that Euan has given us all of these tools what do we ned an internal comms department for?"

Clearly there is still a role for good comms people but having heard some of the stories about the mismanagement of internal messages about the recent fiasco at the BBC they are in short supply.

[Nigel]

"Having the opportunity to hear hard hitting questions put to the director general, listening to people talking 'live' in a group situation can be powerful tools.

There is something here about a real shared experience that an exchange on an internal bulletin board cannot replicate"

Yet - I've worked for organisations where staff have been too intimidated by the presence of the so called 'senior management team' to speak their mind in 'live group situations' (not everyone is expert in corporate b****cks speak).
Or the whole 'town hall' event has been too stage-managed for any meaningful dialogue to take place.
Staff engagement must be a bottom up process.

[Roger Wilmut]

Nothing is new. In 1993 I had to attend an awayday at MHS with a mix of BBC staff: we were shown videos and lectured at, and encouraged to tell all our friends and relations what a jolly good thing the BBC was. We were also supposed to go up on the stage in groups and make a presentation on the BBC's values - I declined to participate. I only got one useful piece of information out of it: the multiple spotlights demonstrated to me that I was developing cataracts.

[Liam]

Doesn't it depend on who you've got as senior managers and what the issues are?

Some are great performers who can pull of the dry-ice and lasers routine but someone told me the other day that 70% of private sector CEO's are intraverts (I don't know where the figure came from but it doesn't really surprise me all that much).

So if you've got an intravert at the top, a more intiate and less staged event is always going to be better.

And surely the big set pieces are fine if there are few high concern issues around with staff wanting answers and to know that their worries are being listened to...

But that still doesn't stop people be professional - just cut the cheese!

Liam