As per our Blog Policy - the comments and opinions in this article are those of the author and do not represent the organization.
When I was asked to pinch-hit in the Communications Department there were a couple of internal communication practices/policies that I was determined to improve; the most significant was based on comments from staff focus groups and surveys that indicated your frustration with the lack of communication following safety and facility service incidents within our hospital walls.
I swore that would not happen while Communications served you under my watch!
We had the incident where magnetic door locks failed. I communicated (on behalf of Sr. Leadership) our concern and response within 24 hours to all ROMHC staff.
More recently we had a security breach in the change rooms of the ROMHC Gymnasium. Again, we communicated within two days after getting the details and action plan developed.
Let me add that we also present Staff Forum audio in place of written summaries. You may remember that Communications was criticised for softening, often neglecting the comments in their post-forum documents. Now you hear them as they happened.
I have received very kind feedback on this change of communications culture. But on February 24th I saw my internal email comments in the Ottawa Citizen in an article entitled "A Royal Mess". Our internal communication efforts were used by anti-P3 lobbyists as ammunition to serve their cause toward embarrassing the organization.
Maybe it's just me - but I felt betrayed! Can someone tell me how I can continue being responsive to staff's request for open and responsive communication when we can't trust that our expressions of regret and concern won't end up in the public media?
It's a cultural practice I want to maintain. But if you support the position that anything published internally is public domain and can be re-purposed in the public media, there's no way Leadership can risk being open, sincere, and honest through written communication.
If you are like me and upset that our internal communications appear in public newspapers then I urge you to say so to your labour representatives. Trust involves two sides.
I agreed with staff about the lack of communication through the years. It makes me sad if we can't change that because we can't trust that someone will use it for alternative political exploitation.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Dirty Dance
The opinions and comments in this article represent those of the author and not the ROHCG.
Sitting on the inside of the Communications Department for the past six months has confirmed my worst fear about the dirty dance between Corporate Communications and the Media. It’s a very costly exercise that doesn’t contribute much value to the organization. In fact it drains resources and energy from the core mission of the ROHCG.
My example is a recent rash of stories and phone calls around the controversial P3 model of the ROHCG. We all know how divisive this issue has become. It has put our Communications Department in a continuous position of defense for months.
When asked to assist in Communications I did what I always do when embarking into the unknown; I consulted the works of Peter Drucker. It took just minutes before I agreed that the primary objective of a Communications Department is to serve the staff – to address all communication needs required to enable our employees to be their best. The trap many Communications departments fall into is when they serve the corporate image above and beyond the internal needs of the organization.
It’s not an oversight on our part. Our skeleton team has unfortunately had to relegate our services to our colleagues in IMHR and Foundation out of necessity until it can return to capacity. Instead we are forced into “image protection” by an external media campaign that is relentless in its mission to tattoo P3 hospitals (and we are one big target) as enemies of public healthcare.
Guess who pays – you and me. Here’s an example:
· The communications team is forced to spend more time gathering information and taking counter-positions in dealing with the media each time a reporter calls
· It almost always requires a Leadership Team member to drop their work to be the official spokesperson for the counter-message
· To counteract the negative news, the department is led to believe it needs to amplify other media campaigns to place positive messaging into the community to raise its image profile
These are important actions, no doubt. But our social responsibility to this community, to this region, is to help the people who enter our building with a mental illness leave the building a healthier person, and to support the people who will continue to support the client when they return to the community. In today’s health care system we need every dollar, every person who can help us do that.
When an external group chooses to use the media to point out our shortcomings, or to debate issues like P3 in the media it’s like opening the door in January. Dollars, energy and effort get sucked out the door to deal with the media problem – and the cost to services and programs is significant.
I’ve been a reporter. I can now see this dance from both sides. I hope that someday, someone has the courage to change the rules of engagement with the media to put an end to this nonsense.
Sitting on the inside of the Communications Department for the past six months has confirmed my worst fear about the dirty dance between Corporate Communications and the Media. It’s a very costly exercise that doesn’t contribute much value to the organization. In fact it drains resources and energy from the core mission of the ROHCG.
My example is a recent rash of stories and phone calls around the controversial P3 model of the ROHCG. We all know how divisive this issue has become. It has put our Communications Department in a continuous position of defense for months.
When asked to assist in Communications I did what I always do when embarking into the unknown; I consulted the works of Peter Drucker. It took just minutes before I agreed that the primary objective of a Communications Department is to serve the staff – to address all communication needs required to enable our employees to be their best. The trap many Communications departments fall into is when they serve the corporate image above and beyond the internal needs of the organization.
It’s not an oversight on our part. Our skeleton team has unfortunately had to relegate our services to our colleagues in IMHR and Foundation out of necessity until it can return to capacity. Instead we are forced into “image protection” by an external media campaign that is relentless in its mission to tattoo P3 hospitals (and we are one big target) as enemies of public healthcare.
Guess who pays – you and me. Here’s an example:
· The communications team is forced to spend more time gathering information and taking counter-positions in dealing with the media each time a reporter calls
· It almost always requires a Leadership Team member to drop their work to be the official spokesperson for the counter-message
· To counteract the negative news, the department is led to believe it needs to amplify other media campaigns to place positive messaging into the community to raise its image profile
These are important actions, no doubt. But our social responsibility to this community, to this region, is to help the people who enter our building with a mental illness leave the building a healthier person, and to support the people who will continue to support the client when they return to the community. In today’s health care system we need every dollar, every person who can help us do that.
When an external group chooses to use the media to point out our shortcomings, or to debate issues like P3 in the media it’s like opening the door in January. Dollars, energy and effort get sucked out the door to deal with the media problem – and the cost to services and programs is significant.
I’ve been a reporter. I can now see this dance from both sides. I hope that someday, someone has the courage to change the rules of engagement with the media to put an end to this nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
