Academy of Management | Course Paper

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