This week afforded me the opportunity to visit with one of
my previous supervisors from my days as a sales representative. When I first
decided to contact my supervisor, I had just finished the Bonini, Mendonca and
Oppenheim (2006) article. What I had read reminded me of a program that the
company I worked for had initiated during my tenure, a program that
incorporated donations to charities with a revenue-building program.
As I looked back on the program, let’s call it OTB, I began
to wonder if our company’s decision to get incorporate the charities had been a
strategic approach; perhaps a preemptive response to calls for social
responsibility (Bonini, Mendonca and Oppenheim, 2006). Given my preconceived
notions of the OTB program as a member of the sales team, it was intriguing to
hear my supervisor’s perspective on the program and the company’s communication
strategy. Her take was quite different from what I had expected.
The OTB was a program in which the company would match
customer dollars in in-kind donations to certain charities. It was rolled out
in what I thought was a rather unorganized and complicated way, which I thought
made it rather confusing to explain and a headache to get customers on board.
My supervisor’s perspective was a little different and shed a little more light
on the subject.
My supervisor explained that as she saw it OTB was initially
designed to do three things: meet the needs expressed by customers, meet the
needs of the larger community and help the company’s bottom line. Where my
impression was that the company had used poor messaging with regard to the OTB
program, my supervisor felt that it allowed customers room to embrace the it in
the way that made the most sense for them.
In light of this, what I perceived at the time as a
“confusing message” had actually been strategic on the part of the company
(Eisenberg, 1984). By not giving explaining OTB with concrete boundaries, the
company left it open to interpretation on the part of employees and customers
who could fill in their own blanks about the program (Eisenberg, 1984). This
was a “strategic communications approach” as described by Argenti, Howell and
Beck (2005). The message presented to the customers was tied to their expressed
needs and the message to internal employees was linked to the company’s
mission.
So, what I had thought would be a conversation solely about
corporate responses to social issues turned out to be an altogether different
conversation. It’s interesting how understanding “strategic ambiguity” (Eisenberg,
1984, p. 228) has changed my appreciation for the company’s approach. It makes
sense to me now why they might choose such a method. I also have a greater
respect for the mammoth juggling act of that is managing corporate
communications. It inclines me to be a little more generous in my recollections
of my days in sales.
It also makes me wonder… if I had known then what I know now
would I have approached my sales job differently?
References
Argenti, P., Howell, R., Beck, K.
(2005). The strategic communication imperative. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 46,
3, pp. 83-89.
Bonini, S. M. J., Mendonca, L., and
Oppenheim, J. (2006). When social issues become strategic. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, pp. 19-31.
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as
strategy in organizational communication. Communication
Monographs, 51,
pp.227-242.
Marissa, this is a great example for this week's topic. Was OTB successful in your eyes? How about the management's eyes? Because you were left confused by your company's strategic communication, do you think this program could have been explained in a different and more effective way? Do you think some customers were also confused?
ReplyDeleteOTB was rather hit or miss in my territory; some customers really embraced it and others wanted nothing to do with it. As an employee, I was frustrated at the lack of communication about the program's structure – it made for a really confusing roll out. After speaking with my supervisor this week, though, it was pretty clear that the company is still behind the program. In the end, although I’m not sure it was intentional, the unstructured communication ended up being a good strategy with customers. OTB is positively impacting the bottom line. My supervisor may have actually used the phrase “all things to all people” to describe it. With regard to employee communication, I think they could have included a little more clarity as Argenti, Howell & Beck (2005) suggest.
DeleteHi Marissa
ReplyDeleteGood insight in this post. I am intrigued to know if this approach promoted "unified diversity" (Eisenberg, 1984, p.230) in your organization since your sales goals now had an attached charitable goals. Also, was this a top down strategy where your CEO made the big announcement of the matching in a press conference? (Bonini, 2006).
In my work, although we are a non-profit, we have to also be in tune with the criticism of stakeholders. Therefore, we invest millions of dollars every year in our fee waiver and equity and access programs to help students who are not performing as well or have access issues. This approach and the messaging surrounding it is ambiguous enough to appease critics, help employees feel good about the mission, and allow our business units to continue their good work.
Marissa,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post and the pros and cons of our "strategic ambiguity" (Eisenberg, 1984) worked with the roll out of the OTB program. I also wonder if it was a strategic and intentional use of 'central metaphors to facilitate an organizational goal the reason it seemed confusing to your as an internal stakeholder.
I wonder, as Courtney mentioned if this ambiguity, while strategic from the top cause external stockholders confusion and therefore if needed was 'deniable, preserving privileged positions' according to Eisenberg's four roles of organizational communication that serve strategic ambiguity?
Overall, enjoyed the post. Thanks for sharing.
Marissa, being in corporate comms, I appreciate your new-found respect for us! Corporate comms is a difficult beast to master, and with lots of different viewpoints and opinions, having the "right answer" to something is very subjective. And something that pretty much never happens (someone is always going to be upset).
ReplyDeleteAs far as your OTB program, though, I don't agree with your supervisor. Part of what drives external programs is how internal messaging is communicated. If you were confused about the program, I can pretty much guarantee you weren't the only one. Think about this: if the plan had been fully communicated to you, you would have been a much better brand ambassador for OTB while the program was going on. Since you, an employee of the company that was running it, didn't have a clear picture of what the initiative was, how were you supposed to answer any questions from people outside the company? Since you wouldn't have been able to clearly answer these questions, I think the internal comms strategy of the OTB roll out failed.
While I understand leaving it open for people to fill in the blanks on how they perceived it, a little bit of structure and parameters can't hurt, either. Very interesting post.