HAPPINESS @ WORK

We’re confused.

When it comes to assessing employee engagement or “contentment,” every consultancy offers a different measure.

One claims it’s about having a best friend (among other factors).  Some point to the amount of discretionary effort workers exert – willingly.  “It’s all about the manager-employee relationship, in part, how well your boss supports you,” say a number of other experts.  At its extreme, happiness can be translated, simply, into higher pay and company-sponsored outings.  [That was the solution for Foxconn, the Taiwanese contract manufacturer that experienced worker suicides not so long ago.]

Then there’s the constant dialogue about the differences between generations – surveyed Millennials, for example, rated their managers more highly than Boomers did – among diverse populations, and in different geographies.

It’s no wonder that work happiness is under discussion.

Our point of view (and you know we have one):  Friend after friend, story upon story tells us that meaningful and self-empowered work makes the difference in productivity and engagement.  No, it’s not a statistically significant study.  On the other hand, these anecdotes are very personal and very powerful.  Listen to the comments:

“I quit my job because life is too short; I wasn’t making a difference.”

“My boss was a micromanager.  In the end, I couldn’t please her – and when a recruiter called, I hurried.”

“The work was boring.  I’d spend hours surfing.  And no one cared.”

Even in this challenged economy, workers, whenever they can, are opting out – to join other companies, to do their own thing, even to take sabbaticals.  It’s about the purpose  of, the meaning behind, and the contribution to work.  Twenty-first century trend-seers have already pegged the issue, from Daniel Pink to Stephen Covey.  And a handful of corporations are experiencing true engagement – and worker happiness, like Southwest Airlines, W.L. Gore, Zappos. 

Happiness, in short, is no longer a warm puppy.

WHY GOOD THINGS MIGHT (RE)APPEAR IN SMALL PACKAGES

Flash fiction.  AOL’s CliffNotes in comic video formats.  Retailers that gobble up high-end sale sites.

These three newsy trends all say small:  Fiction that’s usually less than 1,000 words.  Classics reinterpreted quickly for the non-reading public.  And designer duds at reduced prices for an hour or so. 

Thinking further, we figured out that packaging also ties the three together.  Which got us ruminating about the power of packaging inside corporations. 

Externally, we can all vouch for the impact of great packaging.  After all, CPG companies spend millions and more on product look and feel, the way it’s displayed on shelves, in aisles, and end caps, how it appears in advertising and online. 

As consumers, we’re attracted to bright shiny objects as well as cinematographically-challenging movies (Inception, anyone?).  Many of us, regardless of generation, are captivated by the speed of Internet search and purchase, not to mention the ever-changing possibilities of digital networks.  That, too, is packaging at its height, one of many time-proven ways to get us hooked into and using brands.

Rarely, though, do we ever get well-packaged communications as employees.  Here are just a few examples to trigger some thoughts:  For many and often legal reasons, communicating about benefits tends to be long and involved and simply not all that engaging.  In quite a few businesses, corporate announcements are often ignored or stored in e-folders for later reference.  Even major initiatives that bring good change to life don’t necessarily receive the kind of overall look and feel they deserve.

No, we’re not advocating good looks without quality content and well-defined metrics.   Nor do we espouse internal advertising-type campaigns that are glitz sans information, and lack in-depth analysis and use of WIIFMs, up and down the ladder. 

We’d like to continue the form-versus-function debate re communications:  Does it matter if the package is Tiffany blue or UPS brown?  Or, simply, that something worthy is inside?

DIGGING TO CHIINA

Ever been flummoxed by a seemingly simple request for data?

We have. 

When starting work on a new project or for a new employer-client, we usually ask for more information than anyone’s supposed to have, ranging from brand guidelines to a pretty explicit picture of employees, internal customers, and external stakeholders. 

Of course, we could do the research ourselves (caveat:  Barbara is a former MSLS-type librarian).  On the other hand, what better way to immerse ourselves in the business – and get a great bead on the culture – than by reviewing all sorts of stats and surveys and guidelines, noting questions and some surprises, and then beginning a conversation with the folks inside?

That’s a best-case scenario, unfortunately. 

Many times, we get a high-level portrait of audiences, without the kinds of demographics (not to mention psychographics) we’d prefer.  Agreed:  There’s usually an enterprise IT system that can spit out information on groups.  Human resources and marketing/sales and corporate communications functions also provide decent pictures of the different stakeholders, inside and out. 

If, though, our mission is to drive behavior change(s) among specific audiences, we gotta dig deeper.  Knowing past and detailed responses to change events helps.  Segmentation’s even better.  So are the kinds of in-depth emotional customer studies often pioneered by ad agencies, or by the new data analytics software.

That’s our point.  Let’s take a cue or two from our business partners and corporations.  Intel, for instance, boasts an on-staff cultural anthropologist who provides her company a better understanding of how people, worldwide, use technology.  HP, IBM, and Microsoft also employ social scientists with similar skills.  Dr. G. Clotaire Rapaille of The Culture Code (among other books) is another who applies that kind of thinking.

So why not an up-close, personal, and psychological look at the different internal groups that comprise our worlds?   After all, our employees buy our company’s products and use its services.  They interact with brands in much the same ways as our customers do.  Armed with that information, we’d proceed to developing and delivering plans that work hard to change behavior.

Sure beats digging to China. 

PICTURE THIS

A comic strip in Bloomberg Businessweek – called The Joy of Tech - prompted a smile.  And some thoughts.

It’s clear that Americans’ love of comix has lasted for decades; today, it’s morphed into a major business.  Librarians now cite the rush to check out graphic novels – in the adult as well as kids’ sections.  There’s a great uproar when newspapers cancel specific strips – and, often, popular outcry re-institutes their publication. 

In fact, the preference for “whimsical drawings” (English for the Chinese manga) and bande dessinée (“drawn strips” in French) is almost universal.  Think Tintin and Astro Boy, just two of the world’s most beloved characters.

The big question (at least among educators):  How much should we rely on captions/word balloons and pictures for learning and instruction – at any age?   Many naysay the medium, claiming it oversimplifies content.  Others see no issues; anything that prompts more people to read is good.  Even the late and much-celebratted author John Updike championed it, saying publicly in 1969:  “I see no intrinsic reason why a doubly talented artist might not arise and create a comic strip novel masterpiece.” 

Given this background and our admitted sensibilities, we’re voting to launch (or continue, as the case may be) comix in the workplace. 

We’re not talking satirical, op-ed type of cartoons.  Nor do we advocate pretty visuals, without being accompanied by relevant content.  The pictures we’re seeing deal with how-tos, for one.  Like a new process to apply for internal jobs.  Or a visual preview of the elements of databases.  They can also relate stories – quickly and powerfully.  About culture, the way we do things around here.  About employee heroes and brand ambassadors.  [Add your great ideas here!]

Now we can just anticipate some of the reactions.  “Original illustration is expensive.”  “Our company won’t accept this kind of media.”  “It downgrades our efforts.” 

Nonsense.  All generations read and enjoy comix.  Many do their best learning through pictures.  It’s a true break from screen viewing and, yes, ponderous text.  As to the cost?  Ask your designer about adding an illustrative style to photographs using Adobe.  [Among other techniques.]

Japanese use manga to communicate about every subject imaginable, from romance to business.  Why not us?

MARS VERSUS VENUS

Sheconomy.  The Third Billion.  Influence-Hers.

Obviously, all three slogans tout the importance of women as consumers – and their major role in buying products and services. 

In fact, the numbers do astound:  Women account for 80 percent of buying decisions (though that statistic has been debated of late).  One-third out-earn their husbands.   Forty-four percent are NFL fans.  Et cetera. 

In targeting this group, marketers, through much trial and error, have discovered that women buy differently.  [Duh.]  Loyalty counts.   Explanations are critical.  Social networking makes large inroads into their decisions and preferences.  Once converted, they’re evangelistic and tend to spend more. 

Specific programs from the Dells and Midases of the world, though, have faltered.  Why?  Because originally these companies talked “female,” prettifying, almost downscaling information.  Others have learned the hard way that a woman scorned will resort to viral networking to broadcast contrarian messages. 

Dealing with internal change is different. 

We’ll argue that, today, genders don’t need to catered to as separate stakeholder groups. After all, the lines between the sexes have been blurred.  Men have nearly equal say on spend.  Roles and traditions have flipped.  Many products are almost agnostic in appealing to different populations.

Opt, instead, for engagement in change.  Before the “it” happens, ask both men and women to weigh in.  Request their opinions.  Show them what happens now and what will occur in the future.  Explain in detail why the change is needed – and solicit their help.  And use that help with all due candor and speed. 

Then:  We bet decisions will be made, along with whole-hearted buy-in.  Sure, segmenting and targeting groups in line with their preferences  and profiles makes sense.  For change to succeed, though, upfront participation counts.  No matter which planet you live on.