Comments on: From Bad to Worse: Finding Out About a Layoff Via E-Mail http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/09/03/trouble_via_email/ All about the issues that arise when workforce issues converge with business management. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:39:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.3-2.2.1 By: Nicki Artese http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/09/03/trouble_via_email/#comment-28468 Nicki Artese Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:12:00 +0000 http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/09/03/trouble_via_email/#comment-28468 The worst part about this situation is not the accidental misdirect of the layoff email. It's what that email revealed. I think it's shameful and totally deceitful that Carat is placing "blame" on its workers for the reassignment of accounts. “Mary Smith will be moving off your business. Now that we understand your business better, we are replacing her with someone whom we feel will be a better partner for you.” “Mary Smith will not (sic) longer be working on your business. In order to serve you better and provide greater innovation we have made a staffing change to your business.” Why should "Mary" take the fall for the company's failure to perform?? Seems quite slanderous to me. Then again, this statement makes Carat seem just as incapable as poor Mary: "Now that we understand your business better..." Looks like someone didn't do their homework or due diligence. What will the client think of the agency's service and competence prior to this "revelation?" Not much. I'd ask for a refund and find a new agency. If I were Mary, I’d seek legal action. This is a crisis communications train wreck on several levels, committed by a company that supposedly communicates for a living. Perhaps this is why Carat is not striking any gold. Is it any wonder agencies, especially PR firms, get such a bad rap for spin-doctoring everything (I’ve been in the industry 20 years)??? OMG just tell the story straight. Your clients, employees, and the media will have infinitely greater respect for you. And, they're all smart enough to figure out the truth anyway. How transparent and patronizing. Layoffs are an unfortunate fact of the current economy, any economy, really. The most successful companies have had to face them, too, in record numbers. Nothing so embarrassing that a company should feel the need to lie to its clients and make employees who already feel bad look bad, too. The HR person who pressed "send" should not be fired. The author/s of the terrible client "talk points" should. The worst part about this situation is not the accidental misdirect of the layoff email. It’s what that email revealed. I think it’s shameful and totally deceitful that Carat is placing “blame” on its workers for the reassignment of accounts.
“Mary Smith will be moving off your business. Now that we understand your business better, we are replacing her with someone whom we feel will be a better partner for you.”
“Mary Smith will not (sic) longer be working on your business. In order to serve you better and provide greater innovation we have made a staffing change to your business.”
Why should “Mary” take the fall for the company’s failure to perform?? Seems quite slanderous to me. Then again, this statement makes Carat seem just as incapable as poor Mary: “Now that we understand your business better…” Looks like someone didn’t do their homework or due diligence. What will the client think of the agency’s service and competence prior to this “revelation?” Not much. I’d ask for a refund and find a new agency. If I were Mary, I’d seek legal action.
This is a crisis communications train wreck on several levels, committed by a company that supposedly communicates for a living. Perhaps this is why Carat is not striking any gold. Is it any wonder agencies, especially PR firms, get such a bad rap for spin-doctoring everything (I’ve been in the industry 20 years)??? OMG just tell the story straight. Your clients, employees, and the media will have infinitely greater respect for you. And, they’re all smart enough to figure out the truth anyway. How transparent and patronizing.
Layoffs are an unfortunate fact of the current economy, any economy, really. The most successful companies have had to face them, too, in record numbers. Nothing so embarrassing that a company should feel the need to lie to its clients and make employees who already feel bad look bad, too.
The HR person who pressed “send” should not be fired. The author/s of the terrible client “talk points” should.

]]> By: ken thompson http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/09/03/trouble_via_email/#comment-28461 ken thompson Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:48:13 +0000 http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/09/03/trouble_via_email/#comment-28461 Great article. I think it illustrates that each type of work dialog has one or more appropriate communications channels and for sensitive HR stuff email and text message or instant message are not it. Also certain dialogues need to be private and others public. About a year ago I blogged some idea on a framework for this for networks but I think it applies to any organisation - http://www.bioteams.com/2008/08/06/making_virtual_communities.html As far as I can see there are 3 basic types of DIALOGUES humans have with each other: 1. TCB (Taking Care of Business) – getting things done 2. Grooming – Nurturing relationships through trivia and small talk 3. Emoting – Sharing how we feel – good and bad and there are 3 different ways they can do it (ENCOUNTERS) a. 1:1 (one to one) – a two party conversation b. 1:M (one to many) – one person is talking to a group c. M:M (many to many) – a group where all members are talking with each other and there are 3 different CHANNELS they can use There are 3 main channels we can use for these dialogues: x. Speech – over the phone or face to face y. eMail/Web – any form of asynchronous communications z. Messaging – any form of real-time communications via web or mobile phone You can then analyse the conversations which are happening in an organisation to see whats missing and whats inappropriate HOPE THIS HELPS Best Regards KEN THOMPSON BLOG: http://www.bioteams.com Great article.

I think it illustrates that each type of work dialog has one or more appropriate communications channels and for sensitive HR stuff email and text message or instant message are not it. Also certain dialogues need to be private and others public.

About a year ago I blogged some idea on a framework for this for networks but I think it applies to any organisation - http://www.bioteams.com/2008/08/06/making_virtual_communities.html

As far as I can see there are 3 basic types of DIALOGUES humans have with each other:

1. TCB (Taking Care of Business) – getting things done
2. Grooming – Nurturing relationships through trivia and small talk
3. Emoting – Sharing how we feel – good and bad

and there are 3 different ways they can do it (ENCOUNTERS)

a. 1:1 (one to one) – a two party conversation
b. 1:M (one to many) – one person is talking to a group
c. M:M (many to many) – a group where all members are talking with each other

and there are 3 different CHANNELS they can use

There are 3 main channels we can use for these dialogues:

x. Speech – over the phone or face to face
y. eMail/Web – any form of asynchronous communications
z. Messaging – any form of real-time communications via web or mobile phone

You can then analyse the conversations which are happening in an organisation to see whats missing and whats inappropriate

HOPE THIS HELPS

Best Regards

KEN THOMPSON
BLOG: http://www.bioteams.com

]]>