 |
|
|
|||||
When organizations face disruption, whether its a corporate restructuring, the sunsetting of a product line, or a shift in return-to-office policies, executive teams often turn to internal communications professionals to guide the messaging and navigate change. However, theres a missing link in this equation: the middle manager. As an employee communications cloud platform, we at Staffbase are always looking at what (and who) is impacting the effectiveness of those communications most. Our recently released communication impact study found that direct managers are the most trusted source of information for U.S. employees. Fifty-five percent of respondents reported that their immediate supervisor is their preferred communication channel, and 56% said they place a great deal of trust in them. Despite that trust, theres a glaring disconnect: Non-desk workers, those on the frontlines in healthcare, manufacturing, transportation, logistics, and retail, say they are consistently less well-informed than their desk-based colleagues. Simply put, companies can’t afford for frontline workers to miss out on their communications efforts. Internal comms teams can set the strategy together with executive leadership, but they must put the effort into fostering the pipeline that supports middle managers who bring these communications to life. The current state of the world is leading many organizations to lay off middle managers, but thats a grave error, severing one of the most vital communications lifelines between upper management and their workforce. Why internal comms cant go it alone The pandemic, ongoing economic volatility, and evolving employee expectations have fundamentally reshaped how companies communicate. In many cases, internal comms teams have shrunk, been centralized to one part of the organization, and generally had their reach stretched thin. The best communications in the world mean little if they arent reinforced and humanized by the people employees interact with daily. Our research revealed that only 10% of non-desk workers are very satisfied with the internal communication at their companies. Furthermore, nearly 60% of employees who are considering quitting cite poor communication as a significant contributing factor. The implications are clear: If companies want to improve retention, reinforce change, and build trust, they must focus on improving both the quality and consistency of communications with all levels of employees. Since middle managers are one of the most trusted sources of information, organizations need to work toward empowering them to become stronger communicators who can provide that consistency and quality across the business. Closing the information gap between desk and non-desk workers One of the most striking findings in our study was the communication divide between desk-based and non-desk employees. While 67% of desk-based workers say their managers keep them well-informed, that number drops to 48% for frontline workers. This gap is about both access and equity. Frontline employees are often the most critical to day-to-day operations, yet theyre also the least likely to receive timely or high-quality updates. Many dont use company email or sit at a desk, meaning they rely heavily on their direct managers to pass down critical information. When that chain breaks, confusion, misinformation, and disengagement follow. Creating dedicated communication processes can better equip managers with the knowledge and ability to deliver key information to those who struggle to receive it most. Tech can be a huge boon in this process. While there’s no all-encompassing app that can replace employees’ trust in their managers, utilizing an employee app as a main communication channel can help improve frontline access to information. These tools must be paired with training that ensures managers are both enabled and motivated to properly pair these communications channels with necessary in-person communications. Through posts, comments, and real-life conversations, managers will be better equipped to provide the communications support their various employees need. Coaching managers to lead communication, not just tasks We often assume that people management is synonymous with people leadership. However, just because someone oversees a team, doesnt mean theyve been trained to navigate tough conversations, deliver clear change updates, or answer sensitive employee questions. Managers can subsequently become bottlenecks, delivering incomplete or inconsistent messagesor worse, avoiding communication altogether. Thats where communications coaching comes in. High-performing organizations are starting to view manager communication as a core competency, rather than a desirable trait. Theyre investing in tools and training that help managers distill key messages, understand the why behind changes, and create space for team dialogue. Theyre offering templates, talking points, and even in-the-moment coaching for big moments of transformation. The payoff is significant. When it comes to leadership communication, 91% of employees who say that the vision and strategy are very clear also report being very or somewhat happy in their jobs. When managers communicate well, employees are more likely to feel connected to the companys mission, confident about their future, and have clear expectations. What does this look like in practice? Leading organizations are rethinking internal communication as a shared responsibility. Theyre not asking comms teams to carry the burden alone, theyre making it a joint effort between leaders, HR, and middle managers. First, turn to training. Create or bring on formal communications training for all middle managers and leaders of the organization. This will help create a standard for the entire company and unify the skills for every voice across the business. Second, conduct an audit of your current systems and protocols to identify what tools are working well, which audiences are being underserved and what messages have resonated well to date. Third, create a set process for announcements, change and crisis communications. A team with representatives from the aforementioned core groups can work together to create toolkits and talking points that will help translating key messages much simpler and more direct for managers. Leadership may question the investment of time and money into the above efforts, so employee communications teams should work to measure success along the way. Develop a framework that measures the ROI of your communication efforts by tracking metrics like employee satisfaction, behavioral shifts, and impact on critical business goals. Doing so can help shine a light on the bottom line value of these efforts and create further buy-in across the entire team. In moments of uncertainty, employees dont need perfect messaging. They need consistency and transparency, and more than anything, they need to hear it from someone they trust.
Category:
E-Commerce
Professional sports is big businessand the stakes have never been higher. Sarah Spain, host of the podcast Good Game With Sarah Spain, longtime ESPN personality, and sports journalist, unpacks what those stakes mean for the leagues, teams, companies, and players involved. From the WNBAs breakthrough to the future of ESPNs streaming to the looming legal settlement that could transform college athletics, sports business is at a crossroads. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. As women’s pro sports become more successful, do you worry that it’s going to take on some of the toxic qualities of men’s pro sports, more aggressive media conversations, bad behavior off the court or off the field? How much is that a looming question that these women’s leagues have to sort of grapple with or maybe redefine? Very much. And actually, we saw it last year with Caitlin Clark’s entry into the [WNBA]. It was awesome that more people were watching and more people were interested. It also meant talking heads who didn’t know the game, weren’t watching the games, and certainly didn’t understand the intersectionality of women’s sports, and how it intersects with race, sexuality, homophobia, misogyny, all those things. And they created damaging and toxic conversations that were actually dangerous to players. There were multiple incidents of players addresses being sent, and [notes saying] “I’m going to find you.” Or people showing up in the places the players were and players feeling like they were endangered. Breanna Stewart’s wife actually got threats. So I think the attention is great, the investment is great, but what comes with that is an expectation that well suddenly turn women’s sports into the same as men’s. And there’s a real gift in it not being the same. There’s a real joy in the space feeling different than men’s. And I named my show Good Game With Sarah Spain, because originally I wanted to name it The Good Place With Sarah Spain. But that’s a TV show, and it would be hard for people to distinguish and find when they looked for it online. But that’s how I feel about going to a women’s professional sporting event. It’s the good place. It is incredibly diverse. It is incredibly kind. Everyone’s rooting for their team, and they’re very competitive, but there’s no fistfights. People aren’t getting hammered and falling down the stands on each other. I think that with the NWSL [National Women’s Soccer League], for instance, when they had the recent forced purchases of a couple teams due to the toxicity I mentioned, they had a new rule where the majority owner needed to be financially liable as one person. There could be a group of owners, but they required that one owner bear the financial burden, if necessary, and that person had to be a billionaire. That meant that these large groups of women, who have a lot of money but aren’t billionaires, were shut out. And it inevitably meant that once again, we were returning to ownership groups where it was going to be most likely a middle-aged white guy that owned it. And that’s fine if that person is really dedicated to women’s sports, and wants to learn the space and understand everything about it. It’s a little tougher if it’s another plaything that they have with four other teams, and they don’t feel as connected to the space. And, again, #notallmen. But what the problem with the previous iteration of the NWSL was how many owners and coaches it turned out were engaging in toxic or abusive behavior, or at the very least, covering up for each other, sending a coach on his way: “Thank you for your service.” Nice long letter: “Thanks for your time here.” While knowing that they were letting them go because of abusive behavior, and letting them get hired somewhere else. And that’s not to say that women won’t do that and never do that, but there is a belief that youve got to have more women at the highest levels to help prevent those kind of situations, and that kind of atmosphere and culture, from taking over again. You worked at ESPN in various roles for a bunch of years. And I want to ask you about ESPN’s new dedicated streaming service: $30 a month for all the live coverage, ESPN+, in-game betting, so on. What impact do you think that this will have on sports media? Bob, are you as confused by the name being ESPN as I am? I am. I was, like, so ESPN+ is on ESPN, but I can also get ESPN? I don’t know, it’s . . . Right. I just feel like we’re about to enter another HBO Max, Max, HBO, Max, ouroboros kind of situation here. But it feels inevitable. Obviously, during the massive shift away from traditional cable, and the unbundling, where ESPN no longer got $13, or whatever it was, from every human in America who had cable. What a great deal for ESPN, because not all of them were watching ESPN, right? But also, for cable, ESPN was a huge reason that people wanted to buy it. So it was a great partnership for a long time. That goes away, and it becomes quite clear that ESPN needs to try to keep up with the digital side of things, and needs to have a streaming direct-to-consumer service, because people aren’t just going with cable anymore. I think for a while, folks who appreciate the television side will still get an approximation of what it used to be. But you’re already seeing ESPN2 used to be an incubator for new shows, and creativity, and new talent, and now it’s mostly reruns. You’re seeing shows like Around the Horn, and others, that are shoulder programming for the live shows, that will start to go away. Because on streaming you don’t need to fill a specific amount of time. You just create whatever amount of content you want to have. So they’ll start focusing on rights, pre- and post-show Sports Center, and I would say a couple big-property studio shows. But I think those are going to go away more and more. And I think if you also look at ESPN’s decision-making around more influencer-type and former-athlete-type content, as opposed to journalistic content, that is unfortunate reacting to the world’s, I guess, demands, and the speed and desires of the current younger consumer. But I do worry about how that impacts ESPN’s position in the industry. Because what separates them from everyone else is that they’re the worldwide leader. If it’s on ESPN, it’s right, it’s accurate, it’s vetted, it’s journalistically sound. When you’ve got a Pat McAfee, whose show is produced elsewhere and dropped onto ESPN airwaves, and they wash their hands of the production and creation side of it, and they tell you it’s a little bit differentbut the viewer doesn’t know that. So when he goes on and says things that are factually incorrect, does stries that arefor instance, one he’s now being sued for libelessentially, that aren’t vetted, and aren’t sourced before he takes them in front of millions. That, I think, impacts how people view everything else on the network, even if it’s just subconsciously. When they turn it on, do they still think everything Adam Schefter says is journalistically sound? Or does the fact that Pat McAfee is on the same network. Or Stephen A. Smith, who will say, “Oh, I can’t talk about Dana White hitting his wife on camera; he’s a close personal friend of mine.” That’s not how journalism works, right? And so when that starts to blur the lines, does the rest of what’s coming out on that network get harmed by it? And does it then prevent them from being separated from the pack in a way that they used to be? I don’t know. I’m not in charge. It’s above my pay grade. From my point of view, yes, and that concerns me. But also, I get that everyone’s trying to get the younger consumer, and they seem to like a screaming head influencer or former athlete more than they like someone who knows how to do journalism.
Category:
E-Commerce
Should you invest in a new consumer market? Cut that underperforming division? Buy off-the-shelf or build custom technology you urgently need to compete? Over the course of my career, I’ve seen leaders make good, bad, and risky decisions to guide their businesses. These decisions are often based on consensus, gut instinct or complex financial modelsand occasionally, a half-formed idea from the back of a meeting agenda. But years in business have taught me something crucial: Success is driven neither by pure data worship nor blind intuition. Companies need bothespecially knowing that today’s opportunity could be tomorrow’s risk. The path forward requires balancing rigorous analysis with human wisdom and context and ultimately knowing when to say what. The three data traps Companies typically fall into one of three traps when it comes to data. First, low confidence in the data itself. For data to work, it must be trusted and accurate. When leaders are able to pull different reports based on different numbers, confidence evaporates. Major business decisions get derailed because teams cant agree on basic metrics. Without consistent, and accessible, information, even the most sophisticated analytics become useless. Second, companies can get stuck analyzing endless information. If every dashboard drives more questions than answers, that’s a losing battle. Businesses chasing endless data or sifting through a deluge risk delaying critical decisions while their competitors move ahead. Analysis paralysis is realand costly. Finding the sweet spot between information gathering and action is the difference between missing or meeting the market. Third, companies cant over-rely on analytics without human context. Data can reflect what happened and may predict what happens next, but it frequently misses the “why.” A dashboard may show low engagement from an internal tool and recommend sunsetting it. What this doesnt take into account is the user perspective where maybe they find it hard to use or have competing priorities. Balance data and intuition I spent part of my early career in public relations but exited the industry out of frustration due to the lack of meaningful data at the time, although now it is quite different. We would get a feature in a top-tier outlet, then struggle to measure the business impact. Through this, I learned a valuable lesson about balancing a good story with verifiable stats. This balance matters across every function. Marketing teams solely relying on metrics may miss the emotional connections that drive loyalty, while finance departments only tracking historical performance may miss emerging market signals that leaders can spot. The magic happens when companies combine data-backed insights with human expertise. At West Monroe, we’ve seen the power of this firsthand. When we worked with a tire distributor to optimize their supply chain, we didn’t just build predictive models. We paired real-time analytics and insights to optimize their planning and inventory models WITH the expertise of people who understood supplier relationships and market nuances. The result? A $200 million reduction in working capitalall during pandemic disruptions, when either data or intuition alone would have failed. How to fix it: Build a data-driven culture Build trust in your data first. Start with the basics: Identify the numbers that actually move the needle for your business and ensure everyone defines and measures them consistently. When leaders trust the numbers, they’ll use them to make impactful decisions. Bring data where decisions happen. Stop making people hunt through separate dashboards. Instead, embed relevant insights directly into the tools your team already uses. When the right information is available at the right moment, it naturally becomes part of the decision-making process. Show, dont tell. Leaders should visibly incorporate data in their decisions while acknowledging its limitations. Create space in meetings where teams can discuss both hard metrics and real-world observations. Both perspectives deserve equal airtime and consideration. Its never too late to lead with data You can always become a data-driven leader. Even walk the halls executives who have historically avoided analytics can develop this muscle. Start smallidentify one key business question where better data would improve decisions. As confidence grows, expand to more complex ones. The most successful leaders won’t be those with the most data or the best intuition. They’ll be the ones who master the art of balancing bothand take decisive action with confidence. Casey Foss is chief operating officer of West Monroe.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||