Communications as Ikor

 < ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

테레사 수녀의 옷을 입은 파멜라 엔더슨.. 

 

사람에게도 인격이 있듯이 기업에도 사격(?)이 있는 모양입니다. 기존의 Reputation(기업적 명성)이라는 것이 줄곧 옳은 기업적 행위로 말미암아 성취되는 그 무엇인줄 알던때가 있었습니다.

 

그러니까 “Reputation교(종교)”에 의하면 “기업의 구원(reputation의 보유)은 행동으로 받는것이 아니라, 인(사)격의 수향으로 받는 것이다”라는 표현이 맞는 것 같습니다.

 

Hill & Knowlton의 워싱턴DC 사무소 제너럴 매니져인 Buckmaster는 많은 기업들이 자사의 사격(社格)을 공중과 공유하는 데 RM(Reputation Management)의 촛점을 맞추기보다,사격에 기반하지 않는 행동으로만(물론 비 전략적인..) RM을 추구하고 있다고 지적합니다.

 

그는 사라 퍼거슨 (왕년의 섹시스타)이 테레사 수녀의 모습을 한다고 해서 그녀가 그러한 성인이 되는 것은 아니라고 주장합니다. (저는 이 글을 읽으시는 홍사모 여러분들의 년령에 맞추어 사라 퍼거슨을 파멜라 엔더슨으로 바꾸어 인용하는 만행(?)을 저질렀습니다만..)

 

파멜라.. 다아시지요? (베이웟치에서 활약하던 비대” 여성배우)

 

이것이 코메디 아닙니까? 파멜라가 테레사의 행동을 따라하고, 낡아 빠진 테레사의 옷을 경매 갖은데서 사서 입고 다닌다고 누가 파멜라를 성인으로 보겠습니까? 물론 테레사 갖은 좋은일을 한 몇십년하면 나중에 파멜라의 전력을 알지 못하는 후손들쯤은 다시 생각해 줄수도 있겠지만…

 

또 Buckmaster는 그의 2살짜리 조카가 가지고 노는 망원경을 예로 듭니다. 망원경을 볼때 어려서 거꾸로 넓은 렌즈쪽을 눈에 대고 좁은 쪽을 보신적이 계실껍니다. 바로 가까이 있는 동생의 얼굴이 얼마나 멀리 있는 것 처럼 느껴지는지요..

 

우리는 일반적으로 이렇게 RM이라는 망원경을 거꾸로 보며 만족해 하는 경우가 있습니다. 물론 인식적인 것이지만, 그 방법은 실제 소용이 없는 앞뒤가 바뀐 행위이지요.

 

기업의 RM의 시작은 기업적 성격(또는 社格)을 완벽하게 구축하는 데서 시작 됩니다. 그러면 기업의 성격은 어떻게 구축되는가?

 

전에도 말씀드렸지만 기업에는 비젼, 가치, Mission, 규율, 리더쉽등을 아우르는 기업문화가 있습니다. 이러한 기업문화가 기업 성격의 가장 중요한 핵심입니다.

 

돌쇠의 인격을 社格에 비유해보자면..

돌쇠(나이 20세, 직업 농부지망생)

비젼: 40세 이전에 우리마을 최고 지주농부가 된다

가치: 성실, 강한체력, 연구하는 농사

Mission : 우리 엄니, 아부지에게 자랑스러운 아들이 되기위하여..

규율 : 새벽 4:00 기상, 농사공부, 선진농법연수, 농지가분석…밭일철저

리더쉽 : 강철같은 체력, 예리한 분석력, 방대한 정보력, 만만치 않은 젊은 노사꾼의 돌쇠모습

 

이런 돌쇠란 놈을 처음 만났을때 어떤 느낌이 드시겠습니까. 아마 엄청나게 하나에 몰두해 있고, 무섭게 자기의 길을 가는 모습을 느낄수 있으실 껍니다. 이게 돌쇠인격의 모습입니다. 앞만보고 가는 모습..돌쇠라는 인격의 가장 핵심적인 모습이지요.

 

보통 성공한 인물들은 거의 이런 부류라는 기억이 납니다. (아동 위인전기의 가장 기본적인 형태..) 기업도 성공하는 기업이 되기 위해서는 이러한 기업의 성격자체가 내부에서 충분히 공유되고 직원 하나하나의 생활양식으로 굳어질때 성공할 가능성이 커진다는 얘깁니다.

 

일단 이러한 기업의 성격이 구축된 후에 공중과의 RM작업을 본격적으로 해나가는 것이지요. 돌쇠의 경우 읍내의 순자도 돌쇠의 생활모습과 개인의 비젼을 들으면 결국 시집을 오게 되는 것 같이, 매력적 사격에 기반한 RM으로 인해 공중들도 그 제대로 된 (공중의 마음에 드는) 기업성격을 결국 사랑하게 되는 것 이지요.

 

Buckmaster는 저의 이러한 길고 지저분한 생각들을 Character-based communication이라는 기가막힌 단어로 표현 했습니다. 현재 기업이나 개인이나 커뮤니케이션하지 않을수 없는 세상에 살고 있습니다. (You can not not communicate..라는 말이 있을 껍니다 아마). 이런 세상에서 기업이나 개인이나 Communication을 위한 마르지 않는 자산으로서 무언가를 준비하는 지혜가 필요할 것 같습니다.

 

단편적 뉴스“꺼리” 개발에서 한 걸음 더 나아간 선진적 홍보를 가능케 하는 마술.. 바로 Character-based Communication입니다.

 

선진..홍보!

********************************************************

 

BUCKMASTER: CHARACTER IS COMMUNICATION

 

Effective communication, Tom Buckmaster says, is not about what companies say or even what they do, but rather about who they are. Understanding corporate character can help good people avoid making bad decisions.

 

My two-year-old niece Morgan was looking after me a few months ago when she decided it was time for a lesson in binoculars. Looking through the lenses instead of the eyepiece, she admired her vantage point on the rug, explaining to me how “far” she could see. From her perspective, the boukara was a long way off indeed.

 

I sometimes get the feeling that our view of reputation management is similarly skewed, that too often we find ourselves looking through the wrong end of our intellectual binoculars, focusing on managing a reputation rather than those elements of an organization that create and sustain one. Reputation is, in fact, the result of behavior in the broad public marketplace of goods and services, ideas and issues. That behavior is a reflection of an organization”s culture, and that culture is the manifestation of the Aquinian “first mover” of reputation-character.

 

As I”ve worked with the leadership of companies both in crisis and not, I”ve rarely encountered men and women of bad faith or dishonorable intentions. Most successful CEOs are people of character and integrity. They care about their communities and customers. They hope to make a positive contribution to the greater good. They want to get along with their families, employees, and neighbors.

 

Yet, many times we find them sitting atop companies or trade associations with reputations that would make Mother Theresa look like Sarah Ferguson.

 

One reason for this phenomenon is that organizations often fail to embrace and enforce the principles of character-based communications. At best and all too frequently, they allow their external relations assets-from customer service representatives to chief communications officers-to manage their reputation, rather than build relationships and programs that define and reflect their organization”s core character. They look at the world through the wrong end of the binoculars.

 

Since 1966, the Harris Poll has measured the confidence Americans have in their community institutions. It surprises few to find that overall confidence in public institutions from television news to corporations to the White House is down in most cases by as much as 40 to 50 percent over the 30-year period. In fact, when all institutions are indexed on the 1966 scale of 100, this year”s rating is a rock bottom 39, the lowest in the history of the poll.

 

The findings regarding confidence in the people running major companies are most relevant. They”ve dropped from 29 percent having a “great deal of confidence” in 1973, to only 21 percent today. Wall Street ranks even lower at 13 percent, a scant four points above the survey”s bottom feeders, lawyers and the executive branch of the federal government, both at 9 percent.

 

Dr. Robert Lichter, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Media & Public Affairs, conducted an analysis of the prime-time network programming from viewing seasons 1955-56 to 1985-86 that may offer a partial explanation for the low confidence and trust ratings. For those 30 years, from Dr. Kildare and I Love Lucy, through The Outer Limits and The Mod Squad, to The Waltons and Hill Street Blues, businesspeople in prime time were three times more likely to be depicted as criminals than any other occupation. They were motivated by greed five times as often as other characters. Now, there”s a reputation to manage.

 

Consider, too, the marketplace trends that shape consumer expectations and perceptions. Few would argue with the fact that the last decade has brought with it the “tabloidization” of news standards and the “scandalization” of the commonplace. Local news directors are no longer satisfied with programming characterized by timeliness, accuracy, and insight. Rather, they promote their news programming as “Working for You,” “Seven on Your Side,” or “News at the Speed of Life.” News as advocacy; news as our nanny; news as prosecutor, judge, and jury.

 

Many factors-tabloidization, victimization, scandalization, played out instantly 24 hours a day-have contributed to the devolution of community institutions of all sorts. Most certainly, they have helped foster and sustain a vox populi with low expectations, high standards, and a deep distrust of many institutions both corporate and community. The credibility of “image” has been substantially eroded in an era where organizations face unprecedented competition for a share of voice in the cluttered communications universe.

 

Yet in spite of this environment, many organizations are held in high regard by the general public. Wirthlin Reports has studied public attitudes toward corporate behavior, defining in the process the kinds of programming and philanthropy that resonate with external audiences. The top two responses to the question, “What makes a company a good corporate citizen?” were “community involvement/loyalty” (23 percent) and “cares about employees” (22 percent). Public expectations are both knowledgeable and reasonable in all but the most extreme situations.

 

The Harris “confidence” numbers seem to emphasize one thing: Clarity of mission is directly related to public confidence. How else does one account for the U.S. military leading the survey? That being true, then the quality and clarity of an organization”s communications and its external relationships must be a critical element of a sound, fiscally responsible business strategy. Organizations must communicate their values, priorities, and commitments if they hope to prosper in the public marketplace. And they must do so in a way that connects with their employees and “communities” in the broadest sense. Thus the concept of character-based communications.

 

Character-based communications is a discipline of shaping the relationships and linkages an organization undertakes with its audiences or stakeholders including customers, employees, neighbors, policy makers, regulators, the news media and others by applying a “character test” (to both actions and communications) based on shared values and the public”s interests. Character-based communications is grounded in an organization”s essential positive attributes and its genuine desire to create a barrier-free marketplace for itself and its products.

 

A sound corporate character and a system of character-based communications strategies have very real benefits. By building trust with a key public, you increase customer loyalty, promote brand integrity, minimize regulatory restrictions or disruptions, strengthen employee morale, and generally promote good community karma.

 

Five components form the framework of character-based communications:

 

1. Integrity – Honesty and ethics

 

2. Performance – Doing the job right

 

3. Relevance – Doing the right job

 

4. Accessibility – Two-way communications

 

5. Clarity/Consistency – Telling the truth well and always

 

Each of the five components of character-based communications should be considered against your organization”s characteristics in a traditional audit or benchmarking process. Here are some examples of where to look:

 

1. Integrity: Corporate credos and ethics statements-you”ve made a promise and then promoted it. Is it really true? Are your cupcakes wholesome? Product promotions and claims-do you stand by your guarantees? Check your annual reports. Consider the implications of your cause-related marketing.

 

2. Performance: Executive compensation is one area of current interest. What does that say about how you value performance? Are salaries and layoffs both up while profits are down? Are your investor relations people telling the same story to Wall Street as your labor negotiators are telling main street?

 

3. Relevance: Consider the negative externalities of your business. To what degree do you serve the broad public interest? What are the unintended consequences of your endeavors? What does a lifecycle analysis say about your products or practices?

 

4. Accessibility: Do you listen as well as you talk? Does your philanthropy reflect the values and needs of your key public or the board”s passion for modern art? Are your facilities open to the public? What kind of neighbor are you?

 

5. Clarity/Consistency: Do you speak with a voice that is understandable or do you engage in corporate speak? Do you talk as readily when things aren”t going well?

 

Tough topics, tough questions, but these are the issues that matter, motivate, and resonate. They reflect today”s public standards and environment. And sound communications counsel-from marketing to crisis management to policy advocacy-must take these things into consideration and translate them into responsible action.

 

The key for me has been to engage with clients in a seven-step process designed to leverage these five principles against their organization”s history, current initiatives, and future priorities. In the process, we establish a framework on which to build and measure a character-based communications program. The seven steps to character-based communications:

 

1. Define what you stand for, what value and values you bring to the marketplace. Is it written down? Who knows about it? What do they think?

 

2. Reexamine your internal and external relationships. Invest only in those that make sense and reflect shared values. Identify new ones that meet the “company you keep” standard.

 

3. Understand the public”s expectations in the broadest sense. Compare your history with their future. Are they compatible?

 

4. Quantify the financial and human stakes related to your key stakeholders: community activists, employees, neighbors, stockholders, etc. Who wins, who loses?

 

5. Review the positioning, assets, liabilities, and promises of your brands, products, public positions, and community initiatives. Conduct a competitive analysis of the dynamic marketplace for your products and the ideas they represent.

 

Compare your public profile with your private actions. Are they cohesive or contradictory? And then,

 

7. Share your vision. Make it real.

 

Organizations that follow these concepts will be seen as leaders, or will be viewed as individuals or companies that reflect and embody the values that inspire-or more to the point earn -public confidence and trust. And in today”s environment, that”s what it”s all about.