There was a lot to relate to in this week’s readings,
especially when it comes to corporate communication strategies. Since I work in corporate communications I was
especially interested in the paper titled “The Strategic Communication
Imperative” (Argenti, Howell & Beck, 2005).
This was something I could sink my teeth into so to speak and it was
applicable to my work.
When I read this piece I was hoping to interview our CEO
and ask him about the particular statement “We define strategic communication
as communication aligned with the company’s
overall strategy, to enhance its strategic positioning” (Argenti, Howell
& Beck, 2005, p. 83). But he was
travelling and wouldn’t be back in time.
Even though he wasn’t presently available, I could think back to a large
initiative where we overhauled communications with my company from the ground
up.
I work for Zenith Insurance Company, a specialty workers’
compensation insurance carrier. We are
considered the Cadillac of worker’s comp insurance companies and we charge
Cadillac prices as well. My company’s mission statement basically states that
we focus on the long−term compounding of our book value (policies) through
disciplined underwriting and sound financing. But we have a motto that aligns with this statement: ”We service what we
sell”.
But around three or four years ago, we saw that more of
the work comp claims were being litigated (claimants were hiring lawyers at an
alarming rate) and through market research, we heard what the injured workers
and policyholders had to say about our claims services. It basically wasn’t good and we were not “aligning
our strategic communication with our overall strategy.” (Argenti, Howell &
Beck, 2005, p. 83). We were not
servicing what we sold and we were not “allowing our corporate strategy to
drive our communication choices” (Argenti, Howell & Beck, 2005, p. 84).
Zenith had just come out of one the most profitable
periods in the nearly 60 years we had been in business. We grew our book of business tremendously,
but we were providing crappy customer service.
So our executives gave the corporate communications team along with the
HR training team to rebuild our customer service model from the ground up.
There were a lot of serious changes including calls to
claims examiners should never go to voicemail and all calls would be returned
in a timely manner. A method for warm
phone transfers was implemented and hotlines were established that went
directly to a vice president. Our
executives were very sincere about this; they weren’t just paying lip services
to those who were complaining. It worked
and it’s still working today.
But then I was reading the Eisenberg article “Ambiguity
as Strategy in Organizational Communication” (1984) and found myself somewhat
appalled at the notion of deliberately creating ambiguous messaging to
stakeholders. I found I couldn’t relate
to it and that we didn’t practice such things. I wasn’t really getting the
concept. But then I came across something
that really clicked.
“Clarity (and conversely, ambiguity) is not an attribute
of messages; it is a relational variable
which arises through a combination of source, message, and receiver factors” (Eisenberg,
1984, p.229). This with what I read in Goodall
that “strategic ambiguity values the symbolic and dialogic nature of language
and the multicultural bases for interpretations of meanings “(2006, p. 9). And then I realized that we had done exactly
that. Use ambiguity in our messaging.
As part of our ongoing customer service initiative, we
realized that after injured workers filed a claim, they received a form letter with
poorly written instructions and some forms to fill out. It was impersonal and had “get a lawyer”
written all over it (in English and Spanish).
So what we did is deploy a little ambiguity.
We reformatted this packet with colorful instructions,
used ambiguous but caring language letting them know that if their claim “was
accepted”, we would provide them with outstanding medical care and we would get
them back to work as soon as they were medically able. We had cultural
differences as well. A lot of the workforce we cover is Spanish speaking and
many, especially those working in agriculture, are poorly educated. We made
sure to test our Spanish translations to see if the same warm ‘ambiguity’ was
present. I understand this concept in
more concrete terms now. It opened my
eyes to the fact that this can be a very good strategy and one that I didn’t
realize I had adopted.
Argenti, P., Howell, R., Beck, K. (2005) The Strategic
Communication Imperative, MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 #3, pp. 83-89.
Eisenberg, E. (1984) Ambiguity As Strategy In
Organizational Communication, Communication Monographs, 51, pp.227-242
Goodall, B., Terthewey, A., and McDOnald,
K. (2006) Strategic Ambiguity, Communication and Public Diplomacy in an
Uncertain World: Principles and Practices, Consortium for Strategic
Communication, pp. 1-14
Hi Megan,
ReplyDeleteThis week's reading materials were the most stimulating for me thus far. I too was appalled, initially, upon reading the Eisenberg article. Working in an environment where ambiguity is really "stinking up the joint" on one half of the floor and where strategic communication is managed well within a team of people who are part of the staff, I was sickened even more to see this lack of direction is a strategy?!??! (Particularly, p. 228 of Eisneberg's article that states,"Skilled executives develop the ability to vary their language along the spectrum rom explicitness to indirection depending upon their reading of the other person and the situation.")
I appreciate you providing an example of ambiguity as a strategy that has been implemented and works for the good of the customer. Your experience helped me to re-assess the portion of our office where there is a strategy that drives the communication strategy and see that even as direct, clear and focused as they are in their approach, the strategy that drives the machine is an ambiguous message....that works.
This is probably polyanna on my part, but can you tell me to what extent has the strategic ambiguity that you described having been put in place, positively communicated internally to the staff a "message" that has boosted morale? Is this a strategy that impacts external communications as you described or does it have a place in the internal communique of a work environment. I am interested to hear your opinion in that regard.
Hi Lauren,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your questions. I must admit they made me laugh a bit. I must adjust my communication style for my audience. As I described, we use fairly ambiguous language when creating materials for claimants (workers who have filed claims) with instructions, etc. I work closely with our legal department to craft a message that tells them what they need to know, makes it understandable, but doesn't scare them so they run off first thing to an attorney. Most of our business is in California and there are requirements for treating within the medical network. There are two ways I could craft the message:
1. You MUST treat within the Zenith Medical Provider Network and get your medications from the Zenith Pharmacy Network or we will not pay for any of it.
2. Here's how we really put it: "When you are injured, you need medical providers who will see you promptly, listen to your concerns and give you proper treatment. It is beneficial for you to receive treatment from a doctor who has experience treating work-related injuries and illnesses and who understands workers’ compensation rules and benefits." (Zenith, 2012) Then we go on to explain where they will find a provider (in our network).
Nice huh?
Now for my internal communications, I do the exact opposite. I'm as clear and direct as possible. I find if there is any nuance and symbolic language, things will go downhill very quickly.
With the customer service initiative, the company went all-out. It was a serious matter, but we did deploy a rah rah attitude, with signage and team building. There were all sorts of training for both supervisors and employees. Customer service training is now required as part of a new employee orientation and periodically, we have refresher courses.
It has been a boost to morale because employees have learned to take ownership in the success of our company.
Thanks for the questions. Now I have to get back to work on crafting my ambiguous and/or direct communications.
http://www.thezenith.com/claimcenter/wc/workers/findprovider/page43685.html
Megan, thanks for sharing this example from your own company. I particularly enjoyed your discussion of Zenith's use of strategic ambiguity. How did the wording of the new packet differ from the old packet? Is the phrase "was accepted" more open to interpretation? How do you think cultural differences might influence how the message was interpreted? Have you noted any instances of strategic ambiguity being used to deal with internal stakeholders?
ReplyDeleteLet me briefly explain the process to give you a better idea of what we established. First, when a person is injured on the job, it gets reported to my company, but that does not guarantee that their claim will be accepted. In the past, we did not send a communication to acknowledge that a claim had been received, we only responded when their claim was either accepted or denied. If this took some time, it was possible that the claimant was feeling neglected and seek legal advice. So we used the ambiguous language to comfort without committing to anything. Here’s how it opens: “Your employer purchased workers’ compensation insurance from Zenith to provide you with the necessary care in case of a workplace injury or illness. You are receiving this packet of information because your employer notified us that you reported a workplace injury.” Pretty ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteThen, when a claim was accepted, we used to send out a very dry, kind of terse letter. Remember, an injured worker can get an attorney at any time. The letter opened like this:
“Dear Employee: In order for us to handle your claim properly, please complete the enclosed as fully as possible and return in the enclosed envelope.”
Admittedly, the language in the new version of this letter isn’t as ambiguous as in the initial letter, but it’s much softer: “Zenith Insurance Company has accepted your workers’ compensation claim. If you haven’t done so already, please complete and return the forms that were sent to you when you first reported your workplace injury” and then it lists the forms.
The only instances when the company used ambiguity for internal purposes did not come from me or my department. It always came from the chairman’s. He was not big on transparency. Out of nowhere, he hired a well-known executive to come in and serve as our company’s president, which was very surprising to all of us including the incumbent president. She lasted about a year and a half, and she disappeared as quickly as she came. The communication on the subject stated that “her husband was not getting enough work as a carpenter and they decided to move back to Colorado”. She was making 7 figures. We could read into it what we wanted. The chairman, who had been with the company 31 years, retired in December.
Hi Megan,
ReplyDeleteIt's really great to see how your company recreated its communication process in order to really target your outreach, customer interaction and overall strategic goals.
Hi, Megan:
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post and, as always, I appreciate your witty and insightful writing.
Can you tell me if your company measured the effectiveness of the revised campaign? If so, how? I'd be interested in finding out via a survey how employees felt about it (you mentioned that they had an increased sense of ownership; how was that measured?).
I'd also like to see the results of a survey or market test on the new messaging materials.
Suddenly in my career, I am all about measureables!
Best,
Peggy