NO MORE SKIRTING THE ISSUE

For a while now, we’ve deliberately avoided the topic … even though we’re an MWBE company.

But when piles of recent clippings talk about communications differences between men and women, when our own body of work acknowledges the gaps, and when more academes are seriously studying gender conversations, we figured it’s time.

And despite the naysaying about John Gray’s decades-old philosophy stating that Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus, there’s much proof that he’s right.

Women talk. 

Men shy away from openness (especially in stressful times). 

Rosalind Wiseman, in her Masterminds and Wingmen, interviewed dozens and hundreds of teenaged boys, with the conclusion that as boys enter manhood, they do begin to talk less.  Even if they’re as emotionally invested in relationships as girls.

That retreat mentality should be obvious to anyone who’s worked in the business world, even when there’s no reason to dive into a cave.  Straightforward prose and (some) dialogue infuse meetings and reports when males are in charge.  Many women bosses tend towards the chatty, the ‘let’s talk’ narratives, preferring to expose all aspects of a particular issue and all its possible solutions. 

No, this delineation isn’t100 percent true.  But we see it often enough to question if there needs to be some sort of segmented communications by gender as well as by demographics.  Or, perhaps, messages that are composed and directed to specific audiences, each with the same content but different presentations.

Are we on opposing planets?  Please RSVP …

CUSTOMIZED CHANGE? DUH.

We call ourselves “change agnostics.”

As many do.  There are so many change management frameworks to apply that it doesn’t matter which is chosen.  Really. 

You could be a disciple of John Kotter.  A devotee of William Bridges.  Even ProSci certified card carriers.  To us, if clients prefer one architecture over another, so be it.  We’ll adopt it, embrace it, even.

But what we won’t do is slavishly follow the principles, from Point A to Point Z.  Why?  If you think about it:

• ·       Change is never linear.  Though the business case/reason for the shift might be apparent to some, trust us, it won’t be to all.  Somewhere, someone (or most likely, some group) will either have a hard time recalling the “why” or are troubled about the connection between the why and the what.  Too, a number accept the change at first, without whimpers.  Then, suddenly, in media res, they start questioning and erecting barriers.
• ·       Corporations are not the same.  Even if they inhabit the same industry.  There’s that elusive, differentiating culture, for one.  Everyone will admit that a Lenovo differs from Dell – not just in terms of products, but also in how things work around here.  And though many internal programs might appear to be the same, say, HR benefits or performance management, the determinant is in how employees think and feel about them.  So why would the same framework and tools work for each?

What caused our tirade?  One not-to-be-mentioned global professional services firm recently issued a white paper about the mandate for tailored change, driven by analytics, precision, and insights.  It advocates pairing objective and subjective data, ensuring leadership is on board, and following three roads to sustainable change through head, heart, and wallet.

Our response?  [The quick one:  See our headline.]  The more thoughtful answer:  Tailoring or segmentation is something our marketing and communications and advertising brethren have practiced for years.  Today, most of us apply customized change inside as well as outside, along with good hard looks at big and small data and a philosophy that uses change as a momentum, not isolated events. 

It’s never an easy path, this notion of change.  What are your thoughts, dear reader?

THE MICRO-, MINI-, MACRO, AND MEGA VERSIONS OF US

A long time ago, in marketing lands far away (nearby too), we took great delight in classifying our customers, past, present, and future, by groups.  That effort, a/k/a segmentation, could take any number of forms – demographic, geo-demographic, behavioral, lifetime value, occasional, or by the products developed by research firms. 

For a while, that type of identification worked fairly well, leading those of us who specialize in change and behavioral matters to adopt those methods for our messages.  Our thinking:  If we could segment into measurable subsets of colleagues who were a) easy to reach and b) would respond consistently to our messaging, we could ensure awareness, at least, if not action.  [Of course, the premise worked best if your colleagues numbered in the thousands.]  With social media, listservs morphed into social communities, formed on dozens of specifications.  Ergo, those employees fascinated by CSR would rsvp to specific community activities, whereas those intent on becoming cross-functional team “volunteers” to study/solve a business problem would raise their hands.

It don’t work so good these days.  First, many fit into a variety of groups:  Like a hyper-involved philanthropist (a single dad) who also leads an R&D team and travels like a banshee.  Or a work-life balance advocate who works virtually as a sales professional, yet wants to contribute her two-cents’ worth to corporate affinity groups.  Even a marketing assistant (and women’s rights fan) who helps with team-building and conferences, yet has a passion for values-driven causes.

Second is the question:  What am I missing if I sign up for X but not Y?  There’s an innate something in us curious beings that always wonders if we might miss a community notice for, say, Habitat for Humanity volunteers – if we’re not in that forum.  Those working on a business metrics project might lose out when, for instance, an accounting forum mentions some of the latest and greatest.

Finally, consider today’s commandment to change and reinvent ourselves – continually, inside and outside the corporation.  We won’t always be categorized as a procurement analyst.  As an MBA-LLD in the pharma world.  As a sustainability guru in animal health and welfare.  What happens, then, to the already classified mega- and mini-mes? 

COMM-CENSUS

Waahh!

The cries you hear are coming from the Midwest, which, says the U.S. Census, is no longer the heartland.  Instead, metro areas increased by nearly 11 percent over the last 10 to 12 years, as did western and southern regions.

Some other numbers that count:

• Latinos, along with a more concentrated Asian upswing, lead the people growth surge by major margins – like 65 percent in Texas, 55 percent in Florida, and, yes, nearly half the increase in Arizona and Nevada.  [That’s not so good for the GOP.]

• City hoods have become more integrated, with the most prominent example being Atlanta.  [That’s great news for promoting the U.S. of A. as a true melting pot.]

Other drool-worthy stats for demographers and psychographers range from Detroit’s “credit negative” status (a 25 percent decline) to the year 2041, the so-called date for the “majority minority” switch in this country.  [Translation:  At that time, whites of European ancestry will make up less than 50 percent of the population.]

We could spend even more time pondering the population shifts and transitions.  What becomes crystal clear to us, in our professional roles as chief communicators and change mavens, are the implications to our work (not to mention the companies we work for). 

A few of our top-of-mind thoughts: 

• Families and personal life take center stage, with policies and advertising and communications reflecting that focus.

• Diversity gets real.   Nope, not a simple nod to mixing color and gender.  Rather, language and visuals and behaviors become keenly attuned to everyone’s needs and inclinations. 

• Words and pictures matter.  Partnering with human resources experts, draw up different kinds of guides that segment and introduce messages and design and translations that will resonate with the various employee populations. 

• Internal and social-media communities will form naturally, gravitating towards like-minded colleagues who share specific values, yet welcoming other more diverse individuals and teams.

Is this a vision, an evolution, or a brand-new world?