Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Academy of Management
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management
Executive (1993-2005).
http://www.jstor.org
Academy of Management
A Strategy for Communicating about Uncertainty
Author(s): Phillip G. Clampitt, Robert J. DeKoch and Thomas Cashman
Source:
The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005),
Vol. 14, No. 4, Themes: Strategy,
Culture, and Change (Nov., 2000), pp. 41-57
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165684
Accessed: 20-10-2015 16:55 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:55:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? Academy of Management Executive, 2000, Vol. 14, No. 4
A
strategy
for
communicating
about
uncertainty
Phillip G. Clampitt, Robert J. DeKoch, and Thomas Cashman
Executive Overview
Executives can communicate about anything, but they cannot communicate about
everything. Consequently, either explicitly or implicitly, they make communicative
choices, which, in turn, become the organization's communication strategy. These choices
are all the more important in times of great organizational uncertainty wrought by
increased global competition, quicker cycle times, and the ever-changing marketplace.
What are the communication strategies available to executives? How should they be
made? Which ones increase organizational effectiveness? These are the core questions
discussed in this article. We conclude with a case study demonstrating the benefits of
systematically developing a communication strategy to address organizational
uncertainty.
------------------------. ---------------------------------------.. -----------.. ---- ---------------------------------------------------------... -----------.. ----------
Talk is not cheap. After all, executives spend a
great deal of time conducting meetings, giving
speeches, responding to e-mail, and drafting re-
ports. Executives usually have less time than
money. No executive would cavalierly spend fi-
nancial capital, nor carelessly fritter away commu-
nications resources. Yet many do. Why? Perhaps
they do not realize the value of a comprehensive
communication strategy. Executives face an array
of pressing issues, including how to retain quality
employees,' combat organizational cynicism,2 and
create a dynamic, evolving workplace.3 A proper
communication strategy provides more than an-
other tool to address issues of this sort; it creates
the right environment. Organizations like FedEx,
which can create passion in the workplace through
consistent and energizing messages, tend to expe-
rience less employee turnover.4 A communication
strategy can provide a hedge against employee
cynicism by ensuring that dissenting opinions
about decisions, practices, or policies are appro-
priately channeled. A well-developed communica-
tion strategy also cultivates the kind of environ-
ment more accepting of change and innovation.5
3M, for example, sows the seeds of innovation by
routinely recording and telling stories about
breakthrough products, processes, and ideas.6
Technologies like the Internet should also en-
courage executives to reconsider traditional top-
down communication strategies. Employees can
quickly and easily get information from sources
both inside and outside the organization. These
communication tools can profoundly affect work-
ers' thoughts, motivations, and actions. Executives
cannot hope to control information the way they
once did. Therefore, they need new strategies that
can adjust to these dynamics.
What Is a Communication Strategy?
The word strategy has more frequently been cou-
pled with the word business than with communi-
cation. A long and intellectually stimulating his-
tory regarding business strategy has spawned
both controversy and understanding.7 Our aim is
not to revisit the debates but to glean the core
insights that allow us to suggest a viable, though
surely not unique, approach for developing orga-
nizations' internal communication strategies. We
broadly define strategy as the macro-level choices
and tradeoffs executives8 make, based on their or-
ganizational goals and judgments about others'
reactions, which serve as a basis for action.
Strategy is different from tactics
The word strategy is derived from the Greek strat-
egos, which denotes generalship. Generals are
concerned with the big picture. Strategy typically
occurs at higher organizational and abstraction
41
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:55:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 Academy of Management Executive November
levels than tactical issues. Strategy is less easily
changed than tactics. There are usually many dif-
ferent tactics that could be used to implement a
strategy. Southwest Airlines' strategy to serve
price- and convenience-sensitive travelers is sup-
ported by a host of tactics, including using second-
ary airports, flying relatively short distances, and
using standard aircraft for the entire fleet.9 Pre-
sumably, some of those tactics could be modified
or some added and the strategy would remain in-
tact.
Strategy is less easily changed than
tactics.
Likewise, a strategic communication decision to
foster interdepartmental communication can be
accomplished by various methods, such as job ro-
tation and using cross-functional teams.'0 Confu-
sion between communication strategies and tac-
tics can be problematic, because focusing on
tactical perfection does not guarantee strategic
success. An effective job rotation program may not
result in better interdepartmental communication.
While job rotation can help a few employees un-
derstand different departmental dynamics, the tac-
tic may not provide the timely information neces-
sary to alleviate conflicts between divisions.
To be fair, the distinction between strategy and
tactics is not always clear; often they evolve in
tandem. Nevertheless, the distinction helps struc-
ture an executive's thinking. Often when execu-
tives are questioned about their communication
strategy they say something like, "We have a
monthly newsletter and I hold quarterly meetings
with employees." This is like an executive's saying
to a potential investor that a new product is a
strategy. A savvy investor wants to know about the
target market, the company's underlying objec-
tives, and how the company is positioned. In short,
a communication strategy involves something
more than selecting channels.
Strategy involves choices
An organization makes choices about which mar-
kets to pursue and which opportunities to ignore.
Sometimes this is a thoughtful and explicit choice,
like using a specific strategic planning process. At
other times, it is more emergent, like the choices of
businesses focused on experimentation.
Likewise, communicators explicitly or implicitly
choose what to talk about, and what to ignore. An
executive's agenda could include virtually any-
thing from internal issues like sexual harassment
and team building to external ones like market
share or meeting customer expectations. How the
agenda is shaped can have a profound impact on
the organization. For instance, an executive for a
dairy plant was advised that it was important for
employees to express their concerns, no matter
how trivial or misguided they might be. On the
surface, listening to employee concerns may ap-
pear to be a fine idea. Unfortunately, it turned out
to be a counterproductive practice in this company,
leading to a culture of complaint in which every-
one was free to gripe but no one did anything to
address the problems. There was no forum or
mechanism for distinguishing between legitimate
and illegitimate concerns. The manager made an
inappropriate tradeoff in favor of allowing employ-
ees to voice their concerns instead of discussing
solutions. Consequently, everyone was dissatis-
fied, important issues were overlooked, and the
plant underperformed. Eventually, the plant man-
ager was replaced by one who insisted that all
concerns be accompanied with ideas for resolu-
tion. This drastically cut down on the griping while
improving productivity.
Managing the agenda, or what an executive
talks about is not the only critical choice. The tra-
ditional questions of who, when, where, and how
are a reasonably good starting point for develop-
ing a communication strategy:
. With whom will executives communicate?
. How will employees and executives communi-
cate?
. When will employees and executives communi-
cate?
. Where will employees and executives communi-
cate?
These are not trivial questions, for they will shape
the communication environment of executives. Un-
fortunately, many of these issues are rarely dis-
cussed explicitly, much less with an eye to the
implicit tradeoffs.
The age-old efficiency/effectiveness and short-
term/long-term dilemmas often lie at the root of
these tradeoffs. It may be more efficient to send
e-mail to all employees outlining a major change,
but this is not an effective way to create employee
buy-in. Face-to-face communication is a more per-
suasive channel, because it provides a dynamic
and effective way for dealing with employee ob-
jections. However, a rich medium like face-to-face
communication costs the organization more in
terms of time and energy than a lean medium like
e-mail."1 A fundamental strategic question is:
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:55:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2000 Clampitt, DeKoch, and Cashman 43
which issues are worth discussing using this ex-
pensive channel?
* Who versus what. Employees routinely report
that they prefer to receive information from their
immediate supervisor. Surveys also show that
employees are most curious about organiza-
tional plans for the future.'2 Unfortunately, su-
pervisors are often in the worst possible position
to know about future plans, understand the ra-
tionale for the plans, and advocate the plans.
There are often legitimate legal and organiza-
tional reasons why executives cannot ade-
quately inform first-line supervisors about im-
pending plans. Consequently, a strategic
question is: who is empowered to talk about what?
* When versus how. One executive insisted that
all the details of minor organizational policies
be completed before unveiling them to employ-
ees in an all-company meeting, regardless of the
number of rumors circulating. He never realized
that speed is sometimes more important than
complete two-way communication with employ-
ees. In this case, the efficiency of e-mail or voice-
mail would have been more effective in taming
the grapevine. Executives need to ask a funda-
mental question: when is speed more important
than comprehensiveness?
* Why versus what. One executive's primary fo-
rum for communicating was a quarterly meeting
with employees about the company's plans. He
provided appropriate information about how the
business was doing and the future outlook. Em-
ployees even complimented him on his ability to
explain what was going on. Strangely, many
employees were vaguely mistrustful of him. Fel-
low executives had precisely the opposite im-
pression, which made the situation even more
puzzling. The key insight came when we ana-
lyzed his communications to employees. We dis-
covered that he never discussed his underlying
motives; he communicated only about what he
was doing and not why. Equipped with this in-
sight, he slightly altered his communication
style and employee apprehensions slowly dis-
appeared. Thus, a critical question is how to
properly balance why and what messages.
There are, of course, many other tension points to
address. But the fundamental strategic issue ques-
tion persists: how do executives make the appro-
priate tradeoffs? To this issue we now turn.
Strategy involves goal setting
Virtually all organizations have stated objectives.
But determining those objectives is not a simple
task. Consider the difficulty in specifying the goals
of U.S. foreign policy. Former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger remarked:
The problem of most previous periods was
that purpose outran knowledge. The chal-
lenge of our period is the opposite: knowledge
is far outrunning purposes. The task for the
United States therefore is not only to reconcile
its power and its morality but to temper its
faith with wisdom.'3
Similar difficulties plague executives seeking to
determine the objectives of communication sys-
tems. Many don't think about their objectives ex-
plicitly. Others have a vague objective of keeping
everyone informed, but no idea about what, in how
much detail, in what way, or how often. They have
no answer to such questions as: "How will we
know when employees have been properly in-
formed?" "Is it really possibly to keep everyone
informed about everything?" "Is it even desir-
able?" As Kissinger points out, information or
knowledge is not always the answer; it may, in
fact, be the problem.
The central question executives need to ask is:
"Why should we communicate?" Inevitably, this
leads to setting communication priorities. Unfortu-
nately, most discussions of communication never
reach this level, and implicit or ill-conceived ob-
jectives underpin the strategy.
The central question executives need to
ask is: "Why should we communicate?"
Strategy involves anticipating reactions
The great military strategist, Edward Luttwak, ob-
served:
In the ebb and flow of reciprocal develop-
ment, the same device could be highly effec-
tive, totally useless, and positively dangerous
within a matter of months, as in the case of
rearward-looking radars fitted on British
bombers to warn of approaching fighters,
which were first lifesavers, then jammed, and
soon became a deadly danger to those who
used them. . .14
In the realm of business strategy, anticipating the
cascade of responses proves critical. For instance,
when a software company decides to develop
a new product, it should clearly consider how
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:55:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 Academy of Management Executive November
Microsoft would respond. Even when an opportu-
nity currently exists, the crucial issue revolves
around how competitors are likely to respond.
Likewise, anticipating the probable responses of
employees to communicative initiatives is central
to the development of a viable strategy. The dance
between the initiative and the response and then
the subsequent adjustments create the dialogue
that determines the success of the strategy. Why?
Because the messages sent influence those re-
ceived. If, for example, the message sent to em-
ployees is that mistakes will not be tolerated, then
employees will often not only make efforts to avoid
mistakes but also to avoid telling anyone that mis-
takes have been made. That dance differs greatly
from one based on a theme of learning to avoid
mistakes-a subtle difference that can have pro-
found consequences.
Strategy serves as the basis for action
Strategic planning is rarely done solely as an in-
tellectual activity. Rather the exercise is used to
focus decision making, shape personnel policies,
motivate employees, and guide a host of other ac-
tivities.
Likewise, communication strategy provides the
An effective strategy links to organizational goals
There is no one-size-fits-all communication strat-
egy because organizations have very different ob-
jectives. Consider, for example, an Internet-based
organization. The industry and its protocols are
changing so rapidly that a communication strat-
egy designed to provide employees with carefully
thought-out and fully developed plans would
quickly break down. Therefore, the communication
strategy should focus on speed. When the industry
matures, companies will need to develop different
approaches. In fact, researchers have linked effec-
tive communication strategies to productivity gains,
efficiency improvements, cost reductions, improved
morale, and decreased turnover.'5 In short, aligned
strategies tend to enhance organizational perfor-
mance.
In fact, researchers have linked effective
communication strategies to productivity
gains, efficiency improvements, cost
reductions, improved morale, and
decreased turnover.
On the other hand, misaligned strategies can
