I love what Jo Ann Sweeney says about “natural communicators, resistors and the bulging middle” http://www.commsabilities.com/blog.asp In her experience she would say that just 10% of leaders are natural communicators; those who “have a passion for people, are respected by their peers and direct reports, know how to build rapport, listen with empathy, engage and motivate”.
I concur completely with this and would like to build on it, suggesting that this 10% rule also applies across the entire organisation. These communicators or ‘connectors’ have what I would describe as a ‘relational radar’. This inbuilt ability enables them to observe and interpret the relational dynamics of organisational life. They naturally seem to be able to grasp how to build relationship with all types of people, whether they are those who may attempt to block things or those who may be catalysts for change.
I have often reflected on the effect of for example placing Employee Communications under HR, Internal Communications under Marketing or perhaps Knowledge Management under IT. From experience I would suggest that the function of communications takes on the persona or culture of the department under which it sits. So in my example Employee Communications is dominated by information ‘needed’ by staff, Internal Communications plays second fiddle to external communications (in budget allocation and size of team) and Knowledge Management focuses on technology.
The issue of where communications should sit has been debated, without conclusion, for decades. I would like to consider the synergistic effect of connecting the connectors. Looking at how those who are naturally gifted in communications, networking and relationship building can be connected to help with the facilitation of Internal Communications.
I would suggest there is great potential in a network of communicators rather than a team under a department.
Just a thought…
I concur completely with this and would like to build on it, suggesting that this 10% rule also applies across the entire organisation. These communicators or ‘connectors’ have what I would describe as a ‘relational radar’. This inbuilt ability enables them to observe and interpret the relational dynamics of organisational life. They naturally seem to be able to grasp how to build relationship with all types of people, whether they are those who may attempt to block things or those who may be catalysts for change.
I have often reflected on the effect of for example placing Employee Communications under HR, Internal Communications under Marketing or perhaps Knowledge Management under IT. From experience I would suggest that the function of communications takes on the persona or culture of the department under which it sits. So in my example Employee Communications is dominated by information ‘needed’ by staff, Internal Communications plays second fiddle to external communications (in budget allocation and size of team) and Knowledge Management focuses on technology.
The issue of where communications should sit has been debated, without conclusion, for decades. I would like to consider the synergistic effect of connecting the connectors. Looking at how those who are naturally gifted in communications, networking and relationship building can be connected to help with the facilitation of Internal Communications.
I would suggest there is great potential in a network of communicators rather than a team under a department.
Just a thought…
RSS Feed