You Can't Win Unless You Campaign

Business and politics -- same, similar or different? That's part of what we're trying to figure out today, through this election, and this blog is no place to talk about it. Instead, let's remind ourselves that everything we do in Compensation is communication. And remember that, at any given time, we might not win a popular vote in our organizations (in spite of the Total Rewards that we dole out).

There are lessons that we can learn from the campaign that will help us -- and HR -- become far more effective at leadership. One of the most important lessons is one that President Obama himself is learning. 

I wouldn't be surprised if most everyone who specializes in Compensation wouldn't find themselves in his shoes under the same circumstances.

'It was the job of the president, Obama said, to "tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism,"' and this was where he had fallen short, he admitted. This was the candid intro to the article, "Still Waiting for the Narrator in Chief," by Matt Bai in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Obama's was admitting that this mistake has cost him support (and didn't have to, if he had handled it better).

Support for his policies, decisions, administration and leadership. All of which are challenges that HR and our business leaders face every day. So I'm suggesting that we listen and see what we can learn. Look at the problems that have been ascribed to the President's communications style to see how many can apply to our situation in Compensation.

Compensation plays the role of articulating key policies that are meant to keep our (company's) economy chugging along. Policies like setting objectives that have impact, collaborating for success and investing (in people) for the long-term good. 

Here are some of the observations on the administration's communication weaknesses. Check out how well they could apply to communications for Compensation and other areas of HR.

"They think very little about how to build support for the governing agenda." Matt Bai

 '"They haven't talked about how the pieces of the puzzle fit together and move us forward from where we've been . . ."' Don Baer

'"It's been random and unconnected . . . For a narrative to work, a president has to be extremely repetitive."' David Gergen 

There are other insights in this article, but let's just take a look at these three and think about how well they suit our Compensation communication work. It's a close fit, if you ask me. And we wonder why we keep running into low support and high frustration.

Let's turn what Matt Bai says in the article, " . . . An election result isn't a final verdict on one governing philosophy over another, but rather a signal that your voters have agreed to hear your case . . ." into HR speak.  It would go like this, "When employees join your company, it isn't a final, absolute verdict on your company's leadership, principles or business goals. But it is a signal that they have agreed to hear your case."

Now you take it from here and rework the rest of his observation about communications, "Once you're in office, the story you tell about and to the country isn't some barely tolerable performance that distracts you from the job of being president. It is, to a large extent, the presidency itself."

(Who gave me the right to talk to you about this? Everything I do is communication. I have been an HR campaign strategist, copywriter, speechwriter, executive coach, media director, promoter, trainer and event coordinator for all things Total Rewards for over 25 years.)

Margaret O'Hanlon is founder and Principal of re:Think Consulting. She joined Ann Bares and Dan Walter of the Compensation Cafe to speak the unspoken -- "Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communication" -- at the WorldatWork 2012 Conference. Margaret brings deep expertise in total rewards communications and change management to the dialog at the Café. Before founding re:Think Communications Consulting, she was a Principal in Total Rewards Communications and Change Management with Towers Watson. Margaret is Deputy Director of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Pacific Plains Region. She earned her M.S. and Ed.S. in Instructional Technology at Indiana University, Bloomington. Creative writing is one of her outside passions, along with Masters Swimming.

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Well-delivered pretty promises have never produced either a successful presidency or an effective total rewards program. Substance in terms of actual output results must exist below the superficial process. Rhetoric and communications are quite important, but they are not essential because they only shape image rather than create reality. Guess it depends what you live by.

Funny, that this topic arises today, because the blog article already scheduled for tomorrow speaks to that issue.

[Margaret O'Hanlon]

Jim, I am talking about how not what, so I'm afraid you missed the point of the article.

[Paul Weatherhead]

I think that I missed the point as well. Margaret, it looks like you are making an argument for 'style' over 'substance'.

But maybe I missed a key point in your posting.

[Margaret O'Hanlon]

This is great because it gets to the heart of a classic communications challenge. The position that good communications = style not substance.

The reality is that you can have all the substance in the world, but if you don't make the effort to explain it in a way that people can understand, if you hold back under the belief that the facts speak for themselves, you will not only inhibit understanding of your "substance," you will create obstacles for your efforts because the people will recognize that you are not making an effort to reach them.

This push/pull of listen to me when I feel like talking and then play along with me when I don't can really get in the way of HR communications. Few organizations make the effort to keep the conversation going. (With emphasis on conversation not just telling them what's on HR's mind). As a result, employees don't understand their role in the strategy, they are confused about what pay for performance is supposed to mean, etc.

The majority of the country believe President Obama has substance, that's why he won. But he has struggled to make his achievements clear in everyone's mind. That's another fact.

Matt Bai's article points out that poor communication played a big part in creating that situation. To learn and improve, the President will need a communication strategy that helps us understand his plans more cohesively and thus stand together (something this country is currently struggling with and many companies do, too).

Helping us feel and see clearly how we are all in this together isn't style, it's the substance, in my experience.

[Paul Weatherhead]

Thank you, Margaret, for that extra explanation.

I'd prefer not to get into a political discussion on the Cafe, but I am glad to see your clarification about compensation communications.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Some of the worst pay programs I've ever seen were very effectively communicated. While that made the initial receptions quite positive and hopeful, it simply raised expectations and increased the disappointment levels when the programs failed to deliver as promised. You are correct, of course, that poor presentation of really well-conceived programs will inhibit or reduce their success.

Bottom line, in communications, is that people listen to what you say (style) but respond to what you do (substance). When the substance doesn't match the syle, dissonance occurs. The two elements must be linked for optimal results.

[Margaret O'Hanlon]

Paul, this was never meant to be a political discussion. My blog was inspired by the article I cited, which is a common practice on Compensation Cafe. In fact, I thought I made that clear in the second sentence of the blog posting that this had nothing to do with politics.

I wanted to share the article with our readers because the recommendations it made resonated with issues I've experienced in HR communications. Nothing political about that.

Jim, there is no reference in the article to a dichotomy between style and substance.
In fact, just the opposite. One can't live without the other.

Just take a look at what Ann, Dan and I have been espousing in our work on everything we do in compensation is communications. The program that you were dissatisfied with could very well have been improved through the kinds of actions that Ann, Dan and I have espoused. Ones that improve compensation design itself by treating it as a process that shouldn't happen behind the Compensation Department's closed doors, because it impacts all and therefore benefits from a dialogue.

People respond to both words and actions. And the whole point is that actions on their own are misinterpreted regularly(think of an executive pay program that the outside sees as extravagant) and so are words on their own(think of announcing a survey results and then not acting on them. If you work to align actions and words toward a purpose, anyone can be better understood and more effective.