[MUSIC]

So, Ollie, what examples have you got to share with us?

>> So my first example is actually about the need to reinforce,

check, understand, and the sort of relative importance of communication.

So there was a time when I was indirectly

involved in a massive system change.

So about a couple of weeks before Go Live, me as a team leader and

subsequently the groups I was in charge of.

We'll call it part a of this system is not going to work for Go Live.

There's a problem, part a just won't work, so don't use it for the time being.

So fine, all very straightforward.

So we go to Go Live and whilst it was every clear that part a wasn't working,

parts b, c, d, e, none of them were working either.

So of course, hit the fan, you know?

>> [LAUGH] >> As it does.

So as we went through this period of change where

large parts of the system wasn't working,

it got lost in translation part a isn't working.

But because that message wasn't reinforced and

there was all of the other parts of the system that wasn't working.

A lot of time and effort went into collated [INAUDIBLE] isn't working so

you put the information together, you feed it up the line.

Then it comes back down, and I say, it never worked in the first place.

It wasn't anybody's fault I don't think.

I think it was the fact that, because everything else wasn't working,

there was all the panic about that.

Whilst was clearly communicated, it wasn't clearly reinforced that, okay,

whilst working on all these other thing, by the way,

don't forget this part was never going to work in the first place.

>> That sounds like a bit of a pickle when it comes to communication and

applying these what seemed like very simple principles.

Because we've heard from this example of what seems like a fairly

transformational change going that first part wasn't working.

So whilst the initial communication was correct from what we've heard,

was it followed up in a timely manner because there were changes?

Probably not.

Was the audience, so the recipient of the communication, thought about?

Sounds like it probably wasn't because there were big parts of the employee base

that didn't know what was going on.

Was there a two-way communications process?

So up the line and down the line, or up the organizational structure and

down the organizational structure.

Sounds if there probably was, albeit from a reactive situation, because

once the implementors realized there was a problem, they fed it back up the line.

The only challenge was the people up the line already knew there was a problem,

they just hadn't fed it down the line.

So, not only have we got a change in the situation

that seemed to have challenges with its planning and its implementation.

Underpinning any change and underpinning any aspect of organizational life,

you need to have very effective communication.

And it seems like there were some considerable flaws in terms of

what was going on here.

The consistency of sharing that

information through the different channels.

The reinforcement at the right time and

the reacting to change when that took place.

What was the outcome in terms of communication?

How was it dealt with?

>> Well, I guess it was a lot of time wasted,

which I think frustrated everybody.

But largely, avoidable amongst the panic and the reactive sort of part of it.

All very avoidable in the first place.

>> So, key learning for

everybody when you are looking to put together a communications strategy.

So how are you going to effectively communicate anything?

We need to think about our audience,

we need to think about the timing, we need to think about the content.

We need to think about the complexity.

We need to think about the reinforcement.

We need to think about the regularity of reinforcement.

We need to make sure that any communication is correct.

We need to think about which delivery channel,

or channels, that we're going to use.

So wonderful list.

But then we start to think about the implications about when things go well,

which they can do, not quite like in the situation you shared with us, but

which they can do.

Or conversely, when they don't quite go to plan because when you have

a communications strategy that is looked to be put in place and it needs reworking.

Which it did in the example that we've heard about, and

even worse from an organizational point of view, that rework could've been avoided.

You've got direct cost and resource implications.

Sometimes that happens because things don't go to plan and

it's just not avoidable, it's not predictable so

it's going to be additional costs and resource implications.

But in my experience, and I know in Ollie's experience,

at the very senior levels of an organization, if you're lucky, they'll

support you if a communication strategy had to change and there's extra cost.

They might support you.

But if you go back up the organizational hierarchy and a communication strategy has

gone wrong because it's been managed badly

or it's been implemented incorrectly and there's additional cost in resource,

that can be quite a different story, can't it, when you go back up the line.

It's not usually news that's quite so well welcomed.

And there's another example as well that you've got from

Deborah Meaden that you were going to share with us, Ollie, about this isn't it?

>> Yeah, there's two examples here that we can cover about the type of message.

So in Deborah Meaden's book that I've been just been reading in my spare

time actually, she talks about her investments and here businesses and

I guess split the type of communication she would like into two areas.

So if everything's going well and quick, high level email is

absolutely fine because everything's going fine and as we would expect.

>> Nothing to worry about.

>> Yeah. >> If things aren't going well,

then a quick high level email is not really acceptable.

It's a face to face phone call and how we're going to sort it out.

So it depends on the type of messages, depends how you would communicate.

>> So the content of the message becomes really pivotal.

What it is you're looking to communicate will, or

should determine the delivery channel that you use.

And also, what the recipient is expecting.

So in Deborah Meaden's case, good news, just a quick email, everything is okay.

Anything less than good news, I expect to be told directly.

I'm a bit like that as well, and life tends to be like that.

Particularly organizational life.

You think about the amount of times you've worked with colleagues and,

in particular, when you've worked with line managers.

How many times can you count, and I use my words deliberately,

of downward feedback from your line managers who've

communicated positive news for the work that you've done.

So well done.

Thank you for doing that.

That's a great job.

You'll have your own stories to tell.

I hear many, many times in terms of downward communication from leaders and

managers at all levels.

When everything's going well, or even when everything's going ever so well,

you don't hear about that.

But when things start to go a little bit off track then, guess what?

High profile management, here we come.

Want to know what's going on.

Why, what you doing about it?

How are we going to put it right?

How can I feed good news back up the line?

Completely different set of circumstances.

So what we start to draw from this short video

is that the principles of communication by word, again,

are very simple, they're very straightforward.

When it comes to the practicalities of organizational implementation,

what actually happens can be extraordinarily different.

[MUSIC]

Case Study: Interview with Oliver James | Applications of the 7Cs of Communication

Professional Skills for International Business

与讲师见面