![]() Sharing this information demands a suitable form of communication, but too often is shared, explained or acted on unsuccessfully. Those working on the front line might not even see these messages: what is the worth then?Īn example of one such dilemma, is knowing how best to communicate financial results, whether it be annually, quarterly or otherwise. It replaces typical closed-loop communication systems, whereby communications exist as messages that thoughtlessly go out across the board but have no means of evoking a response. ![]() This matrix allows you to put a safe strategy in place and work to change team behaviours simultaneously. It is no longer about putting a list of actions together and doing them as and when suits it is about long term strategic plans. If it’s not working or reaching its maximum potential then it should be stopped and changed, sooner rather than later. To put it frankly, most businesses are being let down by their out-of-date or dysfunctional internal communications systems. Why do we need this internal communications matrix? Importantly, the matrix is driven by objectives, using strategies that focus on mobilising specific actions or embedding specific behaviours which have a direct impact on those objectives. It is strategy led, which for Mike and Rob means inspiring, encouraging and harnessing the type of behaviour a leader hopes to evoke from their people. This is a gyroscopic process with many flexible, interchangeable components. You cannot expect a one-size fits all product with a linear journey. Specifically it is about creating, adapting and maintaining an open, efficient and trustworthy internal communication strategy to help future-proof a company. The matrix is a constant journey with no definite final achievement, instead looking to continuously improve and extend capabilities. What is this internal communications matrix? Why should we differentiate between those who need to be aware of an issue and those who need to address it actively? What is the anticipated impact of any communicative intervention made? Consider:Īre we treating all employees equally, or can we identify employees who have higher degrees of influence and the potential to drive change? Then start looking deeper into these questions. Why do we communicate in the first place? To address this illogical inundation Rob and Mike agree that there are a few questions businesses should focus on. #Priority matrix in an organisation full#This is counterproductive: generating nothing but dis-empowerment, and, not to mention, very full inboxes. Instead, this matrix renovates universal engagement within individual businesses. Employees become inundated with irrelevant, useless, or misguided content. Current to-and-from communication and dead-end email exchanges just don’t work efficiently enough and often have considerable business costs. It is these clunky intranets which have got to go. What is proving even more problematic is that many of us tend to default into buying these internal communication systems through the platforms that are sold- namely intranets- without knowing what they really need. The sad reality is that often these one-size-fits-all programs don’t work for a specialised business, and result in a loss of productivity and investment. The last ten years have brought innumerable technology systems into the corporate space, advertising vast internal communications improvement and fast success rates from the moment of purchase. ![]() It also noted what not to do, and what not to expend. This existed as an engagement approach based on conscious decisions about what to do and which resources to expend when. They called it the internal communications matrix.Ī case for strategy was made. The result? An established framework from which to hang the pillars of any successful engagement initiative: People, process, technology and content. Combining extensive experience in the field across a varied breadth of clientele and company cultures, they looked at ways to disrupt the monotonous auto-pilot procedures of internal communication. After a lengthy discussion, they agreed that the engagement of internal teams needs to be organised more intelligently, so that every participant’s input is valued, and time is managed efficiently.įrom the start it was clear that strategy always has to be driven by intent rather than content. When technology and strategy specialist Rob Dumbleton reconnected with Mike Klein, an experienced internal communications leader with a background in consulting, they got talking about the modern-day pitfalls of internal communications. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |