Articles: Are your programs centered on face-to-face conversations? If not, you’re wasting your efforts.
as appeared in the
Journal of Employee Communication Management

Jack Pyle is incredulous that, after all the research that has been done, all the lessons that have been learned, communicators still rely on communications “media” to get the word out. Here, Pyle attempts to bury outdated assumptions once and for all, and suggest what a competent employee communication program might look like.

---

After some 35 years of involvement in organizational communication and problem-solving, I’m still surprised and mystified by a communication paradox.

Decades of behavioral science research support the importance of face-to-face communication and the significance of word-of-mouth in influencing people to change their minds and their behaviors. The evidence has been around for 50 years.

And still, organizations – even some of the most sophisticated organizations – place little emphasis on face-to-face communication. Employee communication managers, public relations people, marketing managers, and organization leaders keep putting words on paper – often at great cost – and sending them out, believing they have communicated.

I must confess, I made the same mistake for many years. Sending messages. Thinking I was communicating. Then, one seminal experience started me thinking what all communicators need to think: that face-to-face communication is by far the most powerful tool in a practitioner’s kit-bag; and that it ought to be the centerpiece of any communication program.

Where I got these radical ideas

I can trace the first inklings I had about the importance of relationship building and personalized public relations to an event that happened to me in the state of Washington. At the time I was managing the Western U.S. public relations activities for the oil and gas exploration and production operations of one of the world’s largest oil companies.

We were trying to get a new oil and gas production law passed. The existing one was so antiquated that we would not be able to produce oil and gas in the state if our exploration efforts led to a discovery of new oil or gas fields.

I was in my boss’s office one day when a call came from the head of the legal department. “Send Jack out there,” he said. “Two county commissions and a chamber of commerce are actively opposed to the bill. It will not pass if they don’t change their positions.”

I knew the commissioners and chamber manager. They were among the first people I had established relationships with when we started drilling the initial exploration well. I knew they must have misunderstood the bill, because there was nothing in it that should cause them to be concerned.

I called leaders in each organization and told them I thought there must be a misunderstanding. I requested a meeting to explain the key elements of the bill and answer their questions. They all agreed. This was a Monday. I flew out Tuesday with an attorney and an engineer.

While standing in the hallway of one of the county commissions, I overheard a commissioner on the phone saying: “Yeah, Jack Pyle is here from Houston. He thinks he’s going to change our minds about this bill, but have I got news for him!”

Over the next two days we had three meetings. The public was invited to attend, also. All three groups reversed their positions and became active supporters for passage of the bill. Friday we were back home in Houston.

If I had not built relationships with them in advance, do you think they would have set up those special meetings? What would have been their reaction when an unknown oil company public relations man from Houston called, saying they had misunderstood the bill? Quite a different response, I suspect.

And then I began reading the research...

It was a few years later that I began to wonder if there was scientific evidence to support the value of relationship building. Not surprisingly, I found a great deal of behavioral science evidence to support what I had learned through my own practical experience.

There isn’t a veteran communicator around who isn’t at least vaguely familiar with the countless studies by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and other organizations that indicate employees rank communication “vehicles” in the lower half of long lists of preferred sources of information; and meetings with supervisors, usually, at the very top.

Research by American corporations – GM, General Tire & Rubber, GE, Hewlett-Packard, and AT&T – have reported the same preference. And in my own unpublished research, separate groups of employees and supervisors in both focus groups and questionnaires ranked one-on-one meetings with supervisors most preferred and group meetings with supervisors next highest. Publications and memos ranked lowest, with bulletin boards in the middle. There were few exceptions for specific information (both groups wanted information on personnel changes in writing, for instance).

But all that research on “preferred sources” of information apparently hasn’t sunk in. Perhaps some less well-known research – namely the dismal results of several radical research projects conducted by corporations – will illustrate the situation more clearly.

• A large bank with 40,000 employees at 1,200 locations stopped all corporate communication for eight weeks to find out which of its communications vehicles were valued by employees. The bank stopped its monthly video news program and eight print publications. Then began the wait to take calls and notes from employees wondering why their favorite magazine, newsletter or video program was delayed.
  
  
• The result was devastating. Only four of 40,000 employees asked about the missing video news program. (It’s annual budget was $1.5 million.) Not a single employee noticed the disappearance of three of the publications; three others received a total of 49 inquiries. The publication missed most was the one with job postings – five percent asked about it (2,100 employees). Some two percent asked about the missing monthly social committee publication.
  
  
• A Dutch company asked if employees had read its "social report" about human resources policies and plans. In written questionnaires, 53 percent responded that they had read it "rather thoroughly." When interviewed face-to-face – without the distance of a questionnaire, which paradoxically gives them permission to politely lie – only 28 percent said they had read it.
  
  
• What about managers? Surely they read information from the corporation. Maybe not. A U.S. west coast corporation sent a three-page memo to its top 450 managers. Buried in the middle of a paragraph on the third page was a statement offering a $100 gift certificate if the manager called the phone number listed. Seventeen managers called.
  
  
• How about schools? Phi Delta Kappan asked parents and non-parents what was their source of information about schools. Word-of-mouth ranked highest at 70 percent; local newspapers were way behind. Only seven percent picked school publications as their source of school information. And where did respondents get the most "word-of-mouth" information? From students. Not a good showing for school leaders and employees.
  
  
• One of the most troubling examples of the ease with which companies can eliminate traditional communication "vehicles" is also one of the most heartening. In 1991, PMI Food Equipment Group & Hobart Corp. (Troy, Ohio) eliminated corporate print publications and a quarterly video program. (Some informal print media continue – electronic bulletin boards, regular bulletin boards, informal newsletters.) The company had spent four years training managers how to communicate face-to-face, especially in the manufacturing area. After that work was done, the job of manager of internal communications was eliminated when Dean Landeche left the company. "Based on the programs that were established and the inroads made with face-to-face communication," Landeche said, "the real need for an ongoing employee communication function with a person dedicated to it was gone."
  
  Now here’s the hopeful part. In 1993, Landeche returned to PMI to "run our sales training, service training and marketing communication program." Sales training includes management training on employee communication – how to conduct an employee meeting, how to talk about important topics, developing communications plans ranging from formal business announcements to Q&A sessions. Exactly the kinds of activities, I contend, that communicators ought to be concentrating on.

Face-to-face communication more in demand than ever

Social trends point to the increasing need for face-to-face communication in efforts to change people’s attitudes and behaviors. Consider the following research, trends, and recommendations from communication experts:

1. Diversity: Minority groups are growing in size and number. Even majority groups are being splintered by special interests and differing lifestyles. Communication will need to be personalized much more often to match the varying needs of people who make up our audiences. Messages should relate to their specific interests. What does that mean for employee communication?
   
   
2. Information overload: There is so much new information available in so many new channels that traditional mass communication is becoming less and less effective in reaching mass audiences. Fewer people are watching television networks or reading newspapers today. What makes us think that won’t have an effect on our corporate video networks or employee newsletters?
   
   
3. Results of pure publicity are on the decline. Several years ago, I was director of communication for a state transportation department. Several staffers spent most of their time writing and sending out news releases – some 300-400 different releases annually. Thousands of stories were printed throughout the state. If results were determined by column inches, we were doing great. However, opinion research showed that only 16 percent of the people in the state knew it was the department of transportation that built and maintained the state highways. Most thought it was handled by the Secretary of State, where they got their driver’s licenses and plates.

When companies make face-to-face the centerpiece

The power of well-organized face-to-face, word-of-mouth communication techniques is best illustrated with examples:

• Dow Corning "faced" its breast implant and Chapter 11 crises – literally. The company held informal meetings worldwide the day following the announcement that it was considering Chapter 11 protection. Why? Because "dialogue-based communication facilitates understanding," says Jon Botz, former manager of communications at the once-down, now rising Midland, Mich., firm. Fifteen senior managers met with employees at many locations worldwide, armed with a few talking points. The idea was to respond to questions of employees in informal settings in cafeterias. These meetings were held routinely as needed.
  
  In these meetings and in broadcast e-mails, key messages were repeated over and over. Middle managers were trained to help retain employees worried about job security and likely contemplating jumping ship. The result – turnover turned out to be below industry average. Botz credits the face-to-face approach for making the program work as well as it did. At the end of the year, 89 percent agreed with the statement: "My need for information on the breast implant issue is being met," compared to 82 percent the year before; 71 percent felt "positive" in rating the company in providing job security, compared to 72 percent the year before; and 87 percent agreed with the statement: "I am proud to say I work for Dow Corning," compared to 81 percent the year before.
  
  
• A rural hospital is using its employees to spread a crucial message. One of my clients has a problem: It’s a rural hospital that has a very enlightened CEO who keeps it on the leading edge of healthcare trends. Its focus is to keep people healthy. It’s been recognized as one of the best 100 hospitals in America. Here’s the problem: The public perception of the old, county hospital image remains. When people are seriously ill, they tend to go to the big city hospital 60 miles or so away.

I have trained groups of employees to speak before community and civic groups about how the hospital is changing. I wrote a talking guide for two speeches, and trained employees in intensive two-day sessions. They learned how to tell stories about their own experiences in delivering healthcare services in the community. They are now much more comfortable giving talks, and their ability to be credible and interesting speakers has been much enhanced. So has the hospital’s reputation as a modern healthcare facility.

Put principles of behavioral science to work

The scientific evidence supporting the power of word-of-mouth communication has been around for decades, but few people are aware of it. Behavioral science studies show that a little over 10 percent of a group has a major impact on the opinions of others. Learn to harness that power by creating a program of two-way face-to-face communication designed to influence key leaders one at a time and build long-term relationships.

"Diffusion" is a term used by researchers to describe how new ideas are spread and adopted by members of a group or community. Many of us like to believe we are independent thinkers, but diffusion research has shown the opposite to be true. More than 3,000 diffusion studies over the past 50 years from around the world show people’s opinions and behaviors come from their group and its opinion leaders.

It doesn’t matter whether you live in a grass hut, a ghetto or a penthouse. People basically behave the same everywhere. Whether the subject is family planning, buying air conditioners, farming, education, medicine, whatever, we behave the same. Generally, we don’t buy into an idea or product until someone we know and trust says it’s a good one.

Think about it: Who are you going to vote for? Have you been to a good restaurant lately? We’re going to the movies; have you seen a good one lately? Why did you buy that car?

These are the questions we ask of the people we know and trust. The answers help us make up our minds. The scientific evidence is compelling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was the first to develop a scientific understanding of how new ideas are accepted and adopted in groups. It found that simply discovering and publicizing a new and much better method didn’t mean farmers would adopt it. Highly productive corn hybrids became commercially available in the 1930s, but most farmers didn’t use them. The new products were widely publicized in agricultural trade publications and in cooperative extension bulletins (the printed word).

The USDA hired rural sociologists to find out why farmers weren’t planting the more productive new agricultural products. Bruce Ryan and Neal Gross pioneered diffusion theory in the U.S. with a study published in 1943.

They discovered that Iowa farmers found out about hybrid seeds from corn salesmen. But the farmers became convinced to buy only after other farmers whose opinions they valued started using the corn and had good results. From the time they first became aware of hybrid seeds, it took an average of nine years for the Iowa farmers to be convinced to plant the new corn themselves. It took 50 years for hybrid corn to be widely used throughout the U.S.

The roots of diffusion research in education come from Columbia University’s Teachers College. More than 30 years ago, Donald Ross reviewed over 150 diffusion studies on school improvement. He found the average American school was lagging 25 years behind the best educational practices. It took 50 years for schools to adopt kindergarten throughout the United States and 18 years for driver’s training to be fully adopted. It was a word-of-mouth process.

How ideas are adopted by groups: How people change

Everett Rogers built on the research done by diffusion pioneers. His work, published in the 1970s, and the results of his predecessors give us many insights into the process of how people learn ideas that cause them to change their behaviors.

A key insight: A group gains awareness and knowledge about ideas from the mass media, but doesn’t adopt and use new ideas until influenced by leaders in the group, friends and neighbors. It’s personal influence that counts in getting people to change.

New communications strategies come from the understanding that people generally fall into five distinct groups:

Innovators are the first to accept new ideas. They represent a tiny portion of a group (2-3 percent). The seek out and willingly try new ideas, knowing they are taking risks by being the first to use ideas or products that are not fully tested or accepted. They are the highest educated, most traveled and make the most money of any group. But they usually have little influence upon the group. They are considered a bit odd.

Early Adopters have a great influence on others, though relatively small in numbers (about 10 percent of a group). Others respect them for their recommendations. Many hold leadership positions. Once this group accepts an idea or belief, the majority of the group buys in and adopts it, too. The early adopters convince the rest of the group to change.

Early Majority represents about one-third of the population. They follow the lead of the Early Adopters. While they help to influence more broad acceptance of an idea or product, they are seldom recognized as leaders.

Late Majority also represents about one-third of a group. They are more skeptical and wait to adopt new ideas until a significant number of others have done so.

Laggards (15 percent of group) are traditionalists who are the last in the group to adopt new ideas. They are reluctant to change. Ignore these people, because there is little you can do to change their minds or behaviors.

Some basic communication strategies

Several key ideas about new ways to gain support of a group of people come from this behavioral science research:

1. Word-of-mouth is best. Innovators learn new ideas from the media, especially technical journals. But for the great majority of a group, what causes them to adopt new ideas or products comes word-of-mouth from people they believe and trust-influencers.
   
   
2. Newsletters, brochures, letters and annual reports do not cause people to make decisions supporting an organization’s activities. News releases and stories in mass media also are too impersonal to cause people to change.
   
   
3. Build relationships with opinion leaders (influentials). Develop a strategy to regularly communicate with the Early Adopters. This small group will influence about 70 percent of the group to change to their way of thinking.
   
   In the September/October issue of the Journal of Employee Communication Management, David Freeland described how a company got its union to agree to a contributory medical plan rather than it’s previous full-paid plan. The change came after 25 employee key influencers were identified and invited to ongoing discussions about how to communicate on the subject of healthcare costs and delivery issues.
   
   
4. Develop a long-term communication strategy. The best strategy for convincing opinion leaders is relationship building. Add word-of-mouth as a key long-term communication strategy. Create a program to identify influencers and begin to communicate with them one at a time or in small groups. Plan to communicate on a regular basis to build long-term relationships.
   
   
5. Use employees to build relationships outside the organization. The organization’s leaders can’t do the word-of-mouth communicating and relationship building alone. Enlist the help of employees. They already are talking about the organization with family, friends and people in power in the community. Harness this powerful communication source and train employees to work together to help gain ongoing understanding and support.
   
   
6. Use the printed word mainly to reinforce word-of-mouth activities.

Face-to-face works

I believe so strongly in the importance of face-to-face communication that I founded a company six years ago to specialize in interpersonal communication. This follows a 30-year career managing public relations programs for global corporations and a state government agency. The whole mission of my company, Face-to-Face Matters, is to build trust in organizations by improving face-to-face communication.

Improving speaking and listening skills can have major impacts on leadership, teamwork and internal communication, as well as public relations, marketing and grass roots success. I believe that more than 50 percent of an internal communication or public relations program should involve verbal communication tactics.

A good question to continually ask, about every project: Are we using two-way communication for this project? If the answer is "No," it might be a good idea to rethink the action plan. Here are some suggestions to begin moving toward communication that gets results:

1. Get supervisors to help you identify opinion leaders in various work groups, departments, plants and divisions. Get to know these influencers. They are key links to the grapevine. They bring others around to their way of thinking. Feed them information.
   
   
2. Develop a way to provide information to supervisors quickly and encourage them to pass it on to opinion leaders and everyone else afterwards. They can do it one-on-one and in small groups. This is the most important activity of a supervisor. Support them with information!
   
   
3. Create brief key messages (6-10 words) that give a quick review of important issues, ideas, programs, activities. Make these positioning statements easy to remember. (For example: "Our goal is to keep traffic moving while we rebuild the freeway"; or, "We want to make healthcare more accessible and affordable.") This helps managers and employees to be better organized when they talk to others. Encourage them to begin talking with a key message, repeat the key message during the conversation and when they are concluding. This aids others in remembering the messages and helps keep them focused.
   
   
4. Educate leaders in your organization about how face-to-face communication gets results. Share research studies and articles like this one. But talk to them about it, too - don’t just mail them clippings.
   
   
5. Teach supervisors and managers listening skills. The one thing most identified when employees are asked what they liked about good bosses is: "They listened to me."

A last word

For maximum success, communication mangers, public relations people, marketers, and other organization execs and managers can take the lead by establishing policies that make communication more personal, more verbal. Traditional top down, one-way communication approaches do not work. Face-to-face interchange is vital.

Make dialogue, not publications.

---

Jack Pyle, APR, Fellow PRSA, builds trust by improving face-to-face communication through his company Face to Face Matters, Inc., Mason, Michigan. His strategies and training help organizations with change, teamwork, leadership and crisis response.

» Contact Jack Pyle for information.

Face to Face Matters, Inc. 1560 Little Lake Drive #16 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 517-243-3223