Many communication departments are in the same business they were in 25-30 years ago—informing “audiences,” which conjures images of someone speaking to an audience.

A confluence of forces including customer demands, increased competition, technology, regulation, environmental pressures and workforce changes are requiring every department and function to generate more value.   The business reality is that budgets that generate acceptable returns aren’t as likely to be cut as those that don’t.

True, not everything that’s done in a communication function–or any other function–adds the same value in terms of its contribution to cash flow, customer satisfaction, operating income or whatever financial measures the company is chasing.

But these forces and the need to add value are requiring communication departments to shift from being a source of information directed at audiences, to a function that eliminates communication defects impeding organizational performance among and within teams.

This shift makes sense to customers who benefit from improved quality, delivery and value. It makes sense to business leaders who can gain a new resource for measurably improving organizational performance. And it makes sense to those in the communication department who can go home at night knowing they influence something important to the greater good.

Communication department transformations today are not unlike those that occurred in HR in the late nineties, or in manufacturing and supply chain management before that.

• Using rigorous analytics to focus the department’s work on activities that increase value–work that improves business results. (One auto company CEO told me our approach was similar to portfolio management.) This helps eliminate low value work that’s traditionally been done because “it’s always been done.”
• Adopting lean six sigma principles and processes that weed out the nice-to-do activities that add no value to the customer who buys the organization’s products or services.
• Shifting the focus from generating output to creating outcomes that are consistent with the higher level organizational measures. This includes eliminating communication breakdowns that cause people to underperform, like mixed messages or inaccurate information.

This systems-wide approach requires far more integration with other disciplines and departments, such as HR, finance and line operations, where much of the money is made.  And because the department is becoming more business-focused, it often requires new skills and knowledge, including business and financial literacy.

As the work becomes directed toward higher value activities, there’s more focus on systems and processes (e.g., measurement, rewards and recognition) that communicate and affect performance more powerfully than, say, newsletters and portals.

Communication departments have an opportunity to shift from a pure cost center to one that adds measureable value when the gains it creates are greater than the cost of creating those gains.

That’s a good news story all around.

I initially heard “time is currency” when I was working at Microsoft. Referring to Bill Gates’ obsession with time management, my host told me they refer to his time as “Bill capital.” “It’s a strategic asset that we monitor regularly.”

I was recently reminded of that comment when I was waiting for a client to start a weekly leadership meeting. Scheduled start time was 10 am. At 10:15, people were filing in as though it were a backyard barbeque. There was no sense of urgency. The meeting ran 20 minutes late.

Contrast this experience with one I had when I was working with GE Chairman Jack Welch at the company’s leadership institute in Crotonville, NY.

Welch and I were facilitating an afternoon session on leadership for Amtrak, who was one of my clients. Welch’s office had sent me his schedule for the event: Helicopter lands at 1:10 pm, he speaks at 1:15.

Sure enough, at 1:06 pm I heard the whop-whop of the chopper blades. It landed at 1:10 and we started precisely at 1:15.

• Being on time means people can count on you.
• Being on time shows you respect others around you.
• Being on time communicates you have your act together.

Of course there are extenuating circumstances when you simply can’t help being late. But not chronically late.

Being late means you’re undisciplined. If you can’t manage your own time, why should I put my trust in you?

Being late probably means you’ll run late. When you run late you do so at my expense.

When a group of people schedule a time to start, they’re making a contract. When you show up late, you’re breaking the contract. Why bother to agree to a start time if you aren’t going to live up to your end of the deal?

When a television network or cable channel says a program will start at 6 pm, they don’t start at 6:03 because someone couldn’t get through traffic or misjudged how long it would take to get to work because of the rain.

6 pm is 6 pm.

Last year, I worked with a company that had a gain-sharing plan for hourly people. Employees worked to create gains that they, in turn, shared. It was a relatively decent design but its implementation was flawed. As a result, it became perceived as a form of entitlement—something employees deserved. Even worse, they had no idea how to create the gains.

Here are some characteristics of good incentive plans:

The right targets
There should be a clear line of sight between what people do and what they can influence. Expecting hourly people to connect to an earnings-per-share goal is a bit of a stretch. But connecting them to reducing scrap or re-work in their area provides line of sight. The incentive needs to focus on targets that drive results because results fund the payout. If there’s no gain, there’s no payout.

High involvement
People are more apt to actively participate in an incentive plan that they’ve helped design and set targets to achieve. They will work like the devil to hit the stretch targets that they have set. In most cases, people will beat their own goals, even if they are high.

Leaders at all levels, but especially first line leaders, need to promote high involvement and a disciplined continuous improvement process that fosters root cause identification, problem solving, solution testing and refinement.

An information-rich environment
Goals and actual performance information should be as available to the incentive plan participants as a sporting event scoreboard is available to the players on the field. And they should have the information they need when they need it to improve work and results. This includes information about the workings of the business and what it takes to “improve the score.”

The right payout at the right time
Payouts should be large enough to get attention, yet frequent enough to connect the work that was improved with the results that were created. For example, if the incentive is paid annually, the line of sight between work and results is so long that most employees forget the plan exists. Monthly or quarterly payouts (with a form of hold-back in case the company tanks late in the year) keep the effort, results and payout connected.

That’s what we all say we are these days. But when is “crazy busy” a waste of time?

Well, how often do you manage your time according to the value it adds to your business?

An organization’s role is to create value for its customers and continuously improve the process, so more value can be added.

This is the concept of lean. Leading an organization using lean principles and a lean mindset is becoming a big deal everywhere.

If you’re not pruning waste out of your core process—like converting raw materials to something customers’ value—you’re likely to be at a competitive disadvantage.  You can bet your competitors down the street are pruning madly.

How can you add more measurable value today than you did yesterday? How can you add more value tomorrow than you will today?

Check your calendar. Is what you’re doing every hour today adding value to your core process, or is some of it draining value from that process?

Will you say “no” to a meeting that you know will not add value to the organization’s core process?

When you’re in the throes of a petty, political conversation, are you willing to stop and ask your fellow “politicians” whether the discussion you’re having right now is something the customer would be willing to pay for?

Will you give up some sense of control by delegating a lower value-adding task to someone who makes less money than you do?

Will you prune your core process today? The other guys might be doing it right now.

What counts is what you count.

Among the CEO’s I work with, getting people to work together across functions and departments is one of the top issues. Why then, do others guard turf and focus only on their department, business unit, function or geographic area, which is often at the expense of the company’s overall health?

With the assumption that few if any of us get up in the morning relishing another emotionally-draining day of battle with our teammates, I believe we aren’t willingly creating the silos. Systems create them and they usually start within the goal setting and reward systems. These two systems communicate what’s expected in a powerful way.

If you want integration, check to see if your leaders have shared goals. The way I do it is to use a simple Excel spreadsheet, listing the leaders down the left column and company goals across the top. Fill in each leader’s goals and weightings. You should be able to see quickly if you have a problem. The goals will be out of whack at a glance.

Here’s what you should focus on:

• Keep the number of goals to a minimum—the critical numbers. Having a small number of goals clarify priorities. Having many goals confuse people as to what’s important.
• Company-related goals should be shared by the leaders and weighted heavily.  This makes it clear what’s important and creates interdependencies among the leaders. That is, the goals should be set so that individual member rewards come as a result of the entire team winning.
• Business unit or functional goals should be secondary, so they should receive lighter weightings. They should drive the overall corporate goals.

If you’re trying to integrate your organization, start with the exercise I use and see what it tells you.  Then, if necessary, modify the goals and weightings to eliminate silos, integrate the organization and improve overall results.

For this reason, savvy business leaders target their engagement efforts where they’ll get the biggest returns and the most leverage. You can do this, too.

What do they do that you can do?

For those who missed an earlier Leadership Report, let me reiterate two fundamental, but not universally understood, notions about engagement.

First, employee engagement is a condition that occurs when your employees share the values and purpose of the organization and are willing to “do whatever it takes” to help the organization succeed.  The condition must be properly directed at hitting or exceeding operating or financial performance goals that are important to your business. When you do this well, you’ll hit those goals more efficiently. It’s the equivalent of driving your car to a destination on eight cylinders instead of five.

Second, engaging people requires hard work and resources, as do so many things that are worth doing.  There’s a cost associated with increasing employee engagement.  But the return can be huge—or it can be small. In fact, somewhere along the line, there can be a point of diminishing returns where the cost to engage people is greater than the gains increased engagement can create.  (Do you have to be at a six sigma level (99.9997 defect free) in everything? Most would say no.

Initial efforts to engage people often—but not always– should be focused where the potential gains are the greatest.  Below is a Pareto chart (named after Vilfredo Pareto, which is why it’s always capitalized), representing five cities where a company maintains distribution centers. The height of the bars reflects the number of customer service complaints each facility received in a given unit of time.  The percentage numbers above each bar reflect the engagement scores (on a scale of 1-100) for that facility.

The data tell us that the biggest opportunity for improvement is at the Atlanta facility where the complaints are the highest and the engagement scores are the lowest.  This shows us where the potential opportunity is to improve engagement, but doesn’t necessarily tell us the size of the potential return on the investment (ROI).

To calculate the ROI, we need to know answers to some questions.

1. What’s the size of the problem caused by the complaints? This might be reflected in warranty costs, the cost of rework, processing customer returns or loss of contracts or future sales.
2. What are the root causes of the complaints and what actions and investments are required to make the root causes go away and lift to occur?
3. How much of #1 and #2 above do people have control over? That is, to what extent will an investment in engaging people modify discretionary effort, eliminate root causes and create the gain?
4. Knowing the size of the investment and the size of the gain will reveal the ROI.

It’s important to appreciate what employees can and can’t control through the use of their discretionary effort. To use an exaggerated example, insurance company employees have no control over where a hurricane hits. But, they do have control over how accurately or quickly they process the claims.

Similarly, the employees in the Atlanta facility in the example above have a lot of control over what goes on inside the four walls of the distribution center. But control over inventory levels may be dictated by a corporate supply chain operation, something employees in the distribution center may have no control over. Yet the inventory levels may be too low, causing late shipments that are spawn the customer complaints. So, it’s important to focus engagement efforts where people have control over the results that need to be improved.

Typically, the ROI is higher where the opportunity is the greatest. As a leader increases engagement over time, performance goes up and the so-called low hanging fruit gets picked. Reducing cycle time, for instance, becomes increasingly challenging as the degree of difficulty goes up. Eventually the investment/return lines can cross and leaders need to decide whether to keep improving performance at a cost that may well be higher than the cost to create those gains. That’s, as they say, a strategic decision.

However, as I’ve said many times, aiming for a 100 percent engaged workforce is a fool’s errand in almost all cases.

Why don’t sales and production people work out the tension between inventories and on-time delivery?  Why don’t human resources and internal communication folks create and administer one employee survey instead of two?  Why don’t department heads with competing priorities work out their differences? Why do complex organizational matrices throw unnecessary political friction into an already overburdened business?

Yes, it’s true that some organizations have worked out these issues. But by my count, not many have. Huge amounts of productive time are wasted trying to negotiate the conflicting priorities, or figuring out ways to work around So-and-So who’s known as a turf-protector but has all the right contacts in high places.

How much could we get done for the customers if we didn’t have this collaboration friction?

Here are four likely root causes of condition, which in fancy-talk is known as organizational segmentation (versus integration).

The root causes:

• The organizational arrangements are based on antiquated business functions, not on value streams. That is, they have little to do with meeting customer requirements.
• Leaders are being paid to meet the goals of their business unit, geographic region, department or functional unit. The compensation arrangement dictates that they make the numbers, all else be damned. (It’s not that crass, but that’s really what it’s saying.)
• There are no priorities, or too many priorities (one in the same), or conflicting priorities. Everyone is on his or her own and until someone figures out what it really takes to win, everything’s up for grabs.
• Processes aren’t in place to enable conversations across functions. Even if the previously mentioned causes were tied down perfectly, when there’s no formal or informal way to build consensus (as in over lunch), getting together is difficult.

Most CEO’s I work with or know wouldn’t put up with what others routinely face before that nicely packaged presentation makes it to the CEO’s desk.

Agile organizations focus on tomorrow, are intolerant of the way things are and systematically renew and improve themselves.  They dig deep for new customer requirements and ways to meet them. And they obsess over getting their people involved in creating incremental and transformational improvements.

An agile organization is adaptive; it anticipates, constantly questions its assumptions and continuously improves its processes and systems. In short, the organization’s culture is to actively and simultaneously listen to its customers and  people.

The balancing act that’s required is managing the tension between maintaining a core sense of purpose and a “what if” mindset.  If you focus too much on the core, you become set in your ways and apt to stagnate.

If you are excessively “what if” focused, you flop around trying this and that, sending energy in multiple directions without a clear purpose or strategy. The nice thing about strategies is that they help you know what to disregard.

I’m going to use this Report to clear up a few things about the subject—or at least do my level best.

First, engagement is not a synonym for involvement, as some think. It’s not an activity, program, event or the number of meetings people attend. It’s not how many suggestions people make. (What if half the suggestions would if implemented put you out of business?)

Second, employee engagement is a condition that occurs when employees share the values and purpose of the organization and are willing to “do whatever it takes” to help the organization succeed. There’s ample research showing a causal relationship between engaged people and improved performance. Lots of it. This is not a fluffy subject.

Creating the condition of engagement is hard work. It’s not something you just turn on. It’s not something that gets bolted on to everything else. Engagement needs to be designed into the organization. Then it needs to be directed.

People who deliver unbelievable customer service certainly are engaged. But so are suicide bombers! Engaged people have knowledge and passion. Knowledge and passion can send energy down good and bad roads. It’s not enough to engage people. You have to know what to do with it.

Some say engagement can’t be measured. That’s bunk. We’re measuring it every day, quantitatively in climate or culture surveys and qualitatively in walks through retail operations or grocery stores. Using statistical analysis, we can identify factors that contribute to and drive engagement upward. Those factors include a sense of meaning and purpose, opportunity to learn and develop, fair and appropriate extrinsic and intrinsic incentives, the ability to influence results, open, candid communication and pride in the organization and its commitment to quality. When we use this information smartly, we can target efforts to increase engagement just as a physician might give an injection here or there to eliminate pain.

But creating the condition has a cost to it. It requires leadership’s time, a lot of communication, intense involvement and the right measurement, work processes, rewards, recognition and learning systems. Because engagement has a cost to it and because it can produce significant improvements in financial and operating performance, it makes good business sense to invest the engagement resources where they’ll do the most good. It’s rare that engaging everyone makes good business. At some point there’s usually a point of diminishing return where the cost to engage people is greater than the gains you’ll create.

Here’s a real example.
A call center has a 300 percent turnover rate. Turnover adds costs and affects quality and service.

Question: How much should the company invest in reducing turnover through increased engagement? Answer: Engagement investments should be made until the engagement investments no longer pay off.

It might be far less expensive to reduce the first 75 percent of call center turnover than it is to reduce the last 25 percent. Reducing all 300 percent might sound like a good idea but it’s a lousy idea if you end up throwing money at something that doesn’t produce a return.   As I said, this is not a fluffy subject. It’s a business subject.

As you contemplate improving performance through engagement, here are some questions to ask yourself.

• What performance am I trying to improve? Quality, service, cost, speed, productivity, safety, sales? It’s important to set clear targets.
• What’s the nature of the performance problem? That is, what barriers exist to hitting the targets?
• Can employees through the use of their discretionary effort influence performance? Do they have control over the outcome? (The people inside an insurance company can’t stop Katrina from hitting New Orleans, but they might be able to process the claims faster or more accurately.)
• Where are the engagement gaps? For instance, do they understand the problem? Do they believe they have the authority to make it go away? Do they have the information they need when they need it to make it go away? Do they think it’s in their best interests to make it go away? In other words, do they know “what’s in it for me?” What are the root causes of the symptoms I’ve discovered?
• What is my projected cost to engage people to hit the targets? Is the return on investment acceptable?
• If the return is acceptable, develop and implement your plan to make the problem go away so you can hit your targets.

Your goal isn’t to increase engagement. Your goal isn’t to raise survey scores. Your goal is to improve performance through appropriately targeted improvements in engagement. If your survey scores went up but the right performance didn’t, you need to examine where you wasted resources and not do it again.

But other businesses have simply gone through the motions and have little to show for their efforts other than a bunch of disgruntled employees. In most cases they fail because they  adopt tools, techniques, measures and mechanics associated with lean, but  don’t recognize that lean is a mindset  that must be built into the culture. These organizations view lean as no more than moving machines around or changing workflow arrangements without much input from employees.

A lean culture values–and is obsessed by–customers, employees and continuous improvement.

In the lean world, there’s a workplace organizational methodology called 5S (pronounced five ess). The name comes from five Japanese words that loosely translate to Sorting, Straightening, Shining, Standardizing and Sustaining. If you 5S’ed your garage this morning, it would be immaculate. There’s a place for everything and everything should be in it’s place, as the ditty goes.

But like most things in business, it’s easy to go anal nuts with lean. So nuts that some companies have used gobs of white tape to outline where, for instance, standard desk items should go on a desk–your desk. I was visiting a company recently and desks had taped outlines reserved for the stapler, the desk owners’ laptops, yet another for the paperclips, calculators and drink coasters. Neatly typed at the base of each rectangle were the words, STAPLER, LAPTOP, PAPERCLIPS, CALCULATOR AND COASTER, BLACKBERRY.

Now some lean acolytes would respond by saying, “Of course, that’s the way it’s supposed to be to make sure everything has its place and is in its place.”

To these acolytes I’d suggest they take their trolls of tape where they will do some good and not offend my sensitivities to pure, unadulterated tackiness and most employees’ sensitivities to intrusions into their personal expression.

Forcing this kind of rigid structure takes away the passion and fun out of a team’s quest for greatness. I visit a lot of offices and employee cubicles and I get a real kick out of seeing family pictures, little kid’s school drawings and personalized disorder that communicates about the owner of the cubicle or the office.  There’s a line between a quest for professional order and an act that snuffs out the very personality that was a key ingredient to your decision to hire Mary, the accountant.

What should really matter is our ability to meet customer requirements. For example, hospital patients (customers) might benefit if the hospital didn’t permit nurses to put medications wherever they want –each nurse having a different spot or putting the medicines in a different spot each time. The lack of standardization might lead to errors. In this case, the need for standardization probably outweighs the need for individual expression.

But in cases like determining how to decorate an office or deciding where you will place your stapler, there’s probably no customer benefit to having standardized decorations or taped off areas for your stapler, lamp or whatever. If anything, it dehumanizes the workplace. It takes away the color and passion and personal expression. The following video satirizes the use of lean as a mindless way to control.