Do we have to raise the bar when it comes to 'two-way communication'?

By Graeme Ginsberg, Managing Editor, Research, Melcrum

Mike walks into a new bar in Chelsea, London.

Barman: What can I get you?
Mike: “Margarita, thanks.”
Barman: No problem. [There’s silence while the barman makes the margarita] There you go, that’ll be £4.
Mike passes the barman the money, the barman smiles. Mike takes his drink to a table and takes a book from his pocket.

or

Barman: What can I get you?
Mike: Margarita, thanks.
Barman: No problem. [He starts mixing] Looks cold outside.
Mike: Yeah, can you believe this weather?
Barman: I know, I wish I was somewhere hot. Greece maybe.
Mike (smiles): Definitely. Actually I was there just two months ago – awesome weather.
Barman: Oh really? Where were you?
Mike: Corfu. Beautiful island. Fantastic beaches, really nice people – I’d really recommend it.
Barman: Sounds great. How long did it take you to get there?
Mike: Oh not too long. They have regular flights from Gatwick…

They continue to chat while the barman finishes making the drink and then Mike sits down at the bar with his margarita and the conversation continues. The barman learns about Corfu and Mike learns that the barman actually owns the bar and his name is Andy. Andy tells Mike about how this bar used to be a derelict office and the ins and outs of how he did it up. Mike ends up staying up at the bar for another drink, encouraging Andy to experiment on him with one of his cocktail creations and giving Andy feedback about it.

Half an hour later, Mike’s wife Jane arrives – Mike had called the restaurant they were going to meet at to put the reservation back an hour and suggested Jane come over to “this great new bar I’ve found”. Jane sits by Mike at the bar and she, Mike and Andy discuss a wide variety of things, including what Mike and Jane think about the bar, improvements they feel Andy might make over time, what kind of food he might serve (Andy tells them he’s thinking of introducing a proper menu rather than just bar snacks), and so on. Andy finds out that Jane used to be an interior designer and she gives Andy some great tips about working with suppliers, negotiating contracts, etc.

What does this story show? Certainly that I’m deluded – cocktails don’t cost £4 in Chelsea! Also, I’m thinking about the nature of two-way communication. A lot of companies say they’re engaging in two-way communication with their employees, inviting feedback, building relationships and so on. This is all very well, but I would have some questions for these companies:

1. What is the depth of your two-way communication?
Do your employees come to ‘sit at the bar’ without extensive flyers, incentives and pushing/cajoling? And when these sceptical employees have finally and cautiously approached the seats at the bar, are they monosyllabic or do they really open up, sharing their knowledge and provding really insightful information about what makes them tick and how the bar might be improved? Do they feel so comfortable that they ask questions as well as just respond to your questions – do they open things up beyond the limited and contained Q&A you sat for weeks in your meeting room developing by yourselves, so that you can actually find things out spontaneously in the moment – when really valuable learnings (on both sides) emerge?

2. Who’s included in this two-way communication?
Are you seeking two-way communication or a conversation? Is it accessible for all, so that anyone who wants to come to the bar can pull up a chair, or is it restricted to only those who you think should be invited because ‘they’re appropriate’ and ‘will have the relevant views we want/need’? And, if the employees at the bar want to talk with each other about the issues among themselves, do you offer support to help them – do you facilitate their conversation, perhaps sitting quietly in the background but on hand in case they might want to ask you a question, or, if the employees prefer, even withdrawing out of sight?

3. How long does the communication go on for?
Is this a two-way communication initiative, with a beginning and end, which you’re doing only to make yourself feel good, ticking the ‘Get feedback’ box on your ‘best-practice’ and performance measurement checklists? If so, what happens when the initiative comes to an end? Don’t you want the people to come back to the bar again ,,, and again? Don’t you want your employees to tell other employees about the fantastic bar and barman, who tells them really interesting things, wants to listen to their views and is really keen to understand where they're coming from – on a continuous basis? Are you just going to say, “Right, we’re done here”, lock up the bar and go away, only finding that you'll have to come back, unlock the bar, dust it down and start all over again when another similar initiative (finally) comes along?

If you truly want to communicate with your employees – not just for a set period but as part of a continuous conversation – you may need to move beyond the notion of ‘two-way communication’ and believing (deluding yourself?) that you’re doing innovative, enviable and perhaps magical things by 'ticking the box'. Perhaps you need to ditch the term ‘two-way communication’ altogether and move to something like ‘ongoing conversation’. Applying the bar analogy, I imagine this might include:

(i) Great barmen, who are able to listen as well as provide information and opinions (ie leaders and managers who are truly great communicators, informing/listening/adapting/etc)

(ii) A comfortable and attractive environment that people will want to try out and spend time in, including some quiet tables away from the bar for employees to chat with each other (ie communication channels that fit the employees’ needs, including appropriate peer-to-peer and social networking tools).

(iii) A change in the licensing laws and in the (unwritten) 'bar culture' (ie new approaches to communication and a shift in the organisational culture).

The last of these is the really fundamental one --- and, I imagine, the most difficult. In Melcrum’s new report, Viral Communication in the Workplace, Leandro Herrero, Chief Executive of The Chalfont Project, suggests that the traditional view of what culture change is, whereby culture change leads to changed behaviours, has it the wrong way round. It's the behaviours that need to change first for these licensing laws and culture to change. Those employees who come to the bar will spread the word naturally and virally to their peers (like Mike did in the example). But the CEO, leaders and managers may need to be 'proactively moved' to their new attitudes and behaviours - perhaps considerable effort (and frustrations) for the internal communication function in terms of breaking down preconceptions, educating and persuading (!), but oh-so worth it.

So, this is the theory anyway... But I'm hoping it’s something more substantial than a bit of barroom philosophy over a bowl of peanuts – perhaps even a Jerry Maguire moment! I’d be really interested to hear any thoughts you may have about whether this is suitable, feasible and acceptable and, if so, how it might be (or is actually being) achieved.