Mission, Vision, Values – Who’s the orphan?

Working with organisations to define their EVP or culture, or helping them communicate better, I need to understand their essence.

That’s often defined in mission, vision, values. Some replace, or add to, them with purpose, behaviours, principles etc

I think that’s too much.

My observation is that – done well – two can gain traction: can capture attention, stay in the minds of employees, affect decision-making, are felt by customers, (Equally, if they don’t capture the spirit, or describe meaningful goals, all fall flat)

In any event, three is too much, there’s always one or more orphans. One that gets neglected, that falls by the wayside.

Because it says less. It’s less distinctive, less precise. And so, people are less arsed about it.

My hunch is that companies feel they need to have all three. It’s in the textbook. 

A scout of the literature shows few good reasons. There are, however, a LOT of articles explaining the difference. To me, that underlines the problem.

My solution? Ditch one.

If it doesn’t speak to you, your people or the people you serve, get rid. If you can’t tell me why it’s there in 10 seconds, bin it. Focus only on what really matters, that excites, connects and inspires your audience.

The Right Levers

What’s your objective as an IC pro?

Most likely: improve engagement, or words to that effect.

You’re perfectly placed: you connect people, you educate and inspire, you bring new perspectives. 

But engagement is far bigger.

It’s how your people feel about colleagues, benefits, development, flexibility, workplace, leaders, mission, values. And more.

You don’t control those levers.

I think that troubles many in IC. They feel measuring their impact is beyond them.

I’d argue differently. 

Measuring engagement often sits with HR (often with a survey, on which I have MANY thoughts). Perhaps it shouldn’t.

For one, HR control more of the factors that affect engagement. Should they measure it too?

For another, engagement is how people, interact and collaborate, how they feel about their work. Natural areas for comms to be involved.

Comms can understand how people feel and what they want. A trusted advisor to the organisation to tell them: 
• With us: this is how we should talk with our people
• For you to consider: our people would like to see this
HR often presents as the conscience of an organisation. I’d like to see comms become the voice.

A 360 vision of what’s important to the organisation AND its people, bringing them ever closer together.

We value your opinions

We value your opinions.

Those that want your money, those that want your vote. Those employers who want to better understand your needs.

Trouble is… there’s no value in distributing a survey. It’s TOO easy, TOO cheap. And so, rarely is much value placed in designing a survey. (HT @ballantine70 for this point).

Over and over, I see examples where the options limit your answer, stop you expressing your true opinion, or where the design forces you to quit … or tick a meaningless box. Or they just bore you to submission.

If the design is rubbish, you can be damn sure the output is rubbish.

Fewer people take part, those that do will drop out more. Those that persist give more rote, unconsidered, even absurd answers.

It’s got to be worth their time to take part, and to do so fully.

You might offer an incentive, or the promise of feedback and action.

But what if you can’t?

Then, your survey must sing.

It must be engagingly written, it must offer variety, ideally wit, it must pose intriguing, accessible questions.

Want people to give up five minutes of their time? Five! Know how many Tik Toks they can get through in that time? It simply has to offer them more – and in return you’ll get far better data, and far better insight.

(And, a great platform to explore more)

“Effectiveness” might be the language internal comms needs

I attend lots of IC events and get-togethers, “Measurement” is a regular topic.

IC pros recognise they need to get better.

It proves their worth, it gives their expertise a louder voice.

But. Next session; same topic.

I have to wonder whether the word – measurement – is a barrier.

Too high a bar? Too precise, too scientific, too hard?

People say “I’m hopeless at maths!” in a way they never say “I’m barely literate!” Is this at play?

So, I’m going to talk about Effectiveness.
a) Because no good professional is ever shies away from demonstrating they know their sh*t. It’s underlining the positives.
b) Because it wraps in the piecemeal, anecdotal and pre-work that happens already. Impromptu group to see if people get a message – that’s testing Effectiveness! Gauging response to the idea of Slack – that’s testing Effectiveness!
c) Because it’s not absolute – not black and white. There’s scale, with an acceptable range of success No-one pretends a condom is 100% effective – but lots are happy to use them!

Now, I DO want to set a very high bar. I want to prove your comms make your organisation more successful – but I also see the need for accessible entry points.

How can you test your #effectiveness today #internalcomms?

Engagement Surveys - Symptioms and Causes

Engagement surveys ask highly-validated questions, with an excellent correlation of high scores to better performance.

BUT Do they focus on symptoms not causes?

Consider this: I go to the doctor with a rash.


I’m not interested in benchmarking it against the last bloke’s. I don’t want to know how to cover it up, or just stop itching. I want to know how to get rid of it.

And, ideally, restore my skin to peachy-softness.

Surveys – or at least the response – often address the itch. Results are usually numeric and one-dimensional, they don’t look for reasons why or make the right connections.

So, if asked if you’ve had a performance review lately, expect one of two things to happen: having one soon after a poor score, or for proactive managers, one just prior to the survey.

Itch scratched. Score increased.

But nothing on quality of conversation, nothing about whether that was even a priority for you, your team or organisation.

Surveys, including for #employeeengagement, are hugely useful. I’ve done nowt else for about a fortnight. But they aren’t the last word in diagnosis, there’s far more at your disposal.

Have deeper, broader conversations with your people. Find out what makes what makes them tick and what ticks them off.

Don’t just scratch itches, get to the real causes.

Employee Engagement: Raise the stakes to achieve more

Too much engagement starts at “let’s DO something” … without consultation about what that is. I read a piece with advice to Collect, Understand, Act. That makes so much sense.

But, that collection often relies on an engagement survey, with stock questions based on – credible – research about engagement drivers. BUT questions that limit insight, that set sights low.

Recognition, understanding the vision, development, etc are intrinsic to engagement. They can be useful to measure. They contribute to how people feel, to commitment levels.

But are you looking at symptoms, not cause?

Are you doling out a paracetamol for the headache, or getting at the problem?

Elevate what you collect. E.g. Understanding vision is one thing. Working towards it, another. Being inspired by it, that’s another thing again.

Your people are smart. They know best what works and what needs fixing. They’re capable of balancing their interests, the organisation’s and the customers’.

Ask them wide-open questions about how you can function better, because ultimately, that’s what allows engagement.

You’ll understand, you can act. You’ve raised the stakes – now you can raise performance.

Variety makes you a better specialist

 I’ve been thinking about variety and specialism. Right now, I have mixed bag of work on the slate, including:
• Developing the concept for an L&D offering - what IS the USP, why should people get involved?
• Understanding and defining what leadership looks like, specific to the context of one organisation
• Creating a social enterprise's visions and values by listening to employee experiences
• Running a 360 appraisal for how well managers are living behaviours
• Understanding why new starters chose to join their new employer

They all sound very disparate, but they all call on those key insight skills of understanding data and sentiment, and bringing ideas together until they become simpler, more accessible and more usable. 

But more importantly, the experience of working on one develops the capability for working on the next. It's that kind of variety that keeps work interesting and fresh. One idea leads to another, one method or thought process is applied to the next work. It makes synapses connect. It makes you a better specialist.

How do you bring variety into your work? And what benefit could you take from getting more?