Coworker Advocacy: How To Adjust Corporate Narratives

How do you approach cowork­er advocacy?

As a com­mu­nic­at­or, get­ting your col­leagues to under­stand, appre­ci­ate, and engage in cor­por­ate com­mu­nic­a­tion has always been a tall order. Forcing or coer­cing cowork­ers into promp­ted advocacy is often uneth­ic­al, some­times even illeg­al — and gen­er­ally a bad idea regard­ing the actu­al outcomes.

Settling for just explain­ing the value of com­mu­nic­a­tion to non-com­mu­nic­a­tion pro­fes­sion­als is often a vain pursuit.

There must be anoth­er way to encour­age cowork­er advocacy.

Here we go:

The Sales Analogy

In a com­pany, who is respons­ible for sales?

Of course, the “CEO” would be a per­fectly reas­on­able answer. If a busi­ness isn’t selling, the CEO must be held accountable.

The CEO, in turn, might look to the Head of Sales. The Head of Sales must pro­duce res­ults and report back to the CEO. The Head of Sales might ask the Sales Department to share the burden. 

But what if HR was respons­ible for recruit­ing the Head of Sales — and the whole sales team? Isn’t, then, HR respons­ible for sales per­form­ance as well? If HR does a lousy job recruit­ing, don’t they share at least a little responsibility? 

What about cowork­ers work­ing with order ful­fil­ment in some capa­city? The best sales pitch argu­ably involves a sat­is­fied cus­tom­er refer­ring new cus­tom­ers. So, isn’t product and ser­vice deliv­ery a cru­cial com­pon­ent of long-term sales suc­cess? Again, this is a per­fectly reas­on­able assumption.

What about cus­tom­er ser­vice? And what about all oth­er sup­port func­tions ensur­ing cus­tom­er sat­is­fac­tion and oper­a­tion­al excel­lence? What about research- and devel­op­ment? Aren’t R&D crit­ic­al to even hav­ing products or ser­vices worth selling?

The short answer is: Yes, they are. They all are. 

Communication and coworker advocacy

The logic seems clear. In any busi­ness ven­ture, every­one is respons­ible for sales. Each cowork­er car­ries the respons­ib­il­ity — albeit at vary­ing degrees and in dif­fer­ent ways! — but they all do. 

Most busi­ness-minded pro­fes­sion­als get this intu­it­ively. No mat­ter their role in the busi­ness, they under­stand that the com­pany must make money to make payroll. Some roles struggle with prov­ing their worth con­cern­ing the sales pro­cess, but even these people under­stand the import­ance of sales. 

Now, let’s flip the nar­rat­ive over to communication:

Oops.

Communication is typ­ic­ally one of those func­tions in an organ­isa­tion where it’s chal­len­ging to demon­strate a dir­ect effect on the bot­tom line. Still, the CEO is respons­ible for how the busi­ness com­mu­nic­ates, and the Head of Communication, as is the Communication Department, is typ­ic­ally held accountable.

But from here, the logic often breaks down.

Communication is Everyone’s Concern

Like everything in a busi­ness relat­ing to sales, everything a busi­ness does or says is com­mu­nic­a­tion. Selling is itself a highly spe­cif­ic and tar­geted form of com­mu­nic­a­tion. Leadership is a form of com­mu­nic­a­tion. Products or ser­vices are them­selves communication.

In short, com­mu­nic­a­tion con­cerns every­one and everything in a busi­ness. However, many cowork­ers can­not see their part in the com­mu­nic­a­tion process.

Whereas cowork­ers under­stand that a busi­ness must make money to make payroll, many think of com­mu­nic­a­tions as the sole respons­ib­il­ity of the Communication Department. This is a slip­pery slope. 

A few people, often near the top, might care greatly about com­mu­nic­a­tion, while the rest of the organ­isa­tion does­n’t. This unbal­ance might over-emphas­ise monophony.

The res­ult is top-down intern­al com­mu­nic­a­tion and con­flict­ing mes­sages extern­ally. This is a recipe for quickly erod­ing cowork­er trust. This is how busi­nesses become stale, and brand val­ues are giv­en a false echo. 

A Specific Communication Problem

Overall, this type of chal­lenge is unique to com­mu­nic­a­tions and HR. 

The leg­al depart­ment, for instance, does­n’t have this prob­lem; cowork­ers intu­it­ively under­stand that they are indi­vidu­ally respons­ible for com­ply­ing with laws and reg­u­la­tions. Most cowork­ers know they can­’t just dis­miss com­pli­ance with, “That’s some­thing for the leg­al depart­ment to deal with; it’s not my concern.” 

Marketing, too, gets a free pass due to its close rela­tion­ship to dir­ect sales.

What about non-profit organ­isa­tions, then? Communication is often the most cru­cial tool for non-profits to achieve organ­isa­tion­al suc­cess. In such set­tings, the nar­rat­ive that “com­mu­nic­a­tion is the sole respons­ib­il­ity of the com­mu­nic­a­tions depart­ment” becomes even more detrimental. 

So, how can com­mu­nic­a­tions address the issue of cowork­ers not see­ing them­selves as par­ti­cip­at­ory and respons­ible for the com­pany or organ­isa­tion’s over­all communication? 

Tenets of Coworker Advocacy

The first insight is often the most over­looked: Few cowork­ers have been briefed on their actu­al role in advocacy.

Because let’s face it — advocacy is rarely clear for any­one except the CEO. 

Is it about answer­ing emails promptly? Is it about respect­ing and par­ti­cip­at­ing in activ­it­ies cre­ated by the com­mu­nic­a­tion depart­ment? Is it about keep­ing up to date with the latest PowerPoint out­lining “core val­ues” and “elev­at­or pitches”? Is it about act­ively shar­ing the organ­isa­tion’s stor­ies on social media? Or is it about some infringe­ment on free­dom of speech to get every­one speak­ing in uni­son for the organ­isa­tion’s great­er good? 

Well, no. That’s not how cowork­er advocacy works.

Communication brings authen­ti­city to the table that oth­er organ­isa­tion­al func­tions can­not bring to the table.

Your cowork­ers might be at fault for not recog­nising their com­mu­nic­a­tion respons­ib­il­it­ies, but for­cing com­pli­ance will only make them less use­ful as advoc­ates for the organisation.

Without authen­ti­city, all com­mu­nic­a­tion breaks down. 

Coworker Advocacy = Culture and Leadership

It’s simple:

Coworkers must want to be great com­mu­nic­at­ors.
Coworkers must want to go the extra mile. 

They want to endorse their work­place, products, and ser­vices — not because they care about their employ­er, but because they care about their friends. 

“Communication is a skill that you can learn. It’s like rid­ing a bicycle or typ­ing. If you’re will­ing to work at it, you can rap­idly improve the qual­ity of every part of your life.”
— Brian Tracy

For authen­t­ic advocacy, cowork­ers must be invited, engaged, and promp­ted, but nev­er coerced or ordered. Establishing such a cul­ture is a lead­er­ship chal­lenge. This is the essence of the poly­phon­ic com­mu­nic­a­tion approach.

In con­crete terms, lead­ers and com­mu­nic­at­ors must give their cowork­ers an authen­t­ic and inspir­ing way of talk­ing about the organisation.

If cowork­ers neg­lect their advocacy respons­ib­il­it­ies, they’re not on board with the cur­rent narrative.

Adjusting the Cultural Narrative

To adjust these nar­rat­ives and pro­mote a more open mind­set towards com­mu­nic­a­tion, I’d sug­gest using this framework:

Authenticity > Culture > Collaboration > Accountability > Maturity

Authenticity: What’s the actu­al nar­rat­ive? The idea might be that com­mu­nic­a­tion is already a cost, and the rest of the organ­isa­tion should be shiel­ded from fur­ther waste. In a way, these cowork­ers are “pro­tect­ing” the organisation.

Culture: How do we change the nar­rat­ive? To replace an exist­ing nar­rat­ive, cowork­ers deserve a bet­ter nar­rat­ive that works bet­ter for them than the exist­ing one. “I am a sales­per­son and a bet­ter com­mu­nic­at­or than my competitors.”

Collaboration: How do we rein­force the nar­rat­ive? Coworkers must receive nar­rat­ive-spe­cif­ic train­ing, which is highly enga­ging and reward­ing and provides a safe space for prac­tic­al experimentation.

Accountability: How do you sup­port the nar­rat­ive? Coworkers must get pos­it­ive feed­back that is dir­ect and clear whenev­er the new nar­rat­ive is applied suc­cess­fully. Positive rein­force­ments typ­ic­ally work best.

Maturity: How well do our nar­rat­ives work? The organ­isa­tion must meas­ure com­mu­nic­a­tion matur­ity to meas­ure pro­gress and identi­fy new or emer­ging harm­ful narratives.

Thanks to Catrin Johansson, Professor in Organizational Communication at Mid Sweden University and Co-Founder of KIX Communication Index, for valu­able feed­back on this blog post.

PR Resource: Monophony and Polyphony

Monophony and Polyphony in Public Relations

The oth­er day, Professor Catrin Johansson invited me to an aca­dem­ic brief­ing at Mid Sweden University, where Associate Professor Rickard Andersson from Lunds University presen­ted new research stud­ies. The study invest­ig­ated how vari­ous pub­lic organ­isa­tions con­veyed their mes­sages stra­tegic­ally. ¹Andersson, R., Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2024). Slutrapport: Kommunikativa offent­liga organ­isa­tion­er –Strategisk kom­munika­tion som byg­ger rela­tion­er och förtroende. Institutionen för … Continue read­ing

I found one aspect of the ana­lys­is espe­cially intriguing:

The research­ers bor­rowed two terms from music­al com­pos­i­tion to aid their ana­lys­is: mono­phony and poly­phony. Note that poly­phony has also been used in lit­er­at­ure ana­lys­is. ²Polyphony (lit­er­at­ure). (2024, January 9). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​P​o​l​y​p​h​o​n​y​_​(​l​i​t​e​r​a​t​ure) ³Mikhail Bakhtin. (2024, February 19). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​M​i​k​h​a​i​l​_​B​a​k​h​tin

Based on my under­stand­ing of these con­cepts, here’s how I would define them:

Monophony = when an organ­isa­tion con­veys stra­tegic mes­saging with one voice. The mono­phon­ic approach offers numer­ous bene­fits, includ­ing nar­rat­ive focus and stra­tegic consistency.

Polyphony = when an organ­isa­tion con­veys stra­tegic mes­saging with mul­tiple voices. The poly­phon­ic approach offers numer­ous bene­fits, offer­ing authen­ti­city mul­ti­plied through many con­tact surfaces.

The strengths of one approach can be char­ac­ter­ised as the weak­nesses of the oth­er, and vice versa. At first glance, the mono­phon­ic and poly­phon­ic approaches to pub­lic rela­tions seem inversely cor­rel­ated — at least theoretically. 

In prac­tice, the poten­tial dicho­tomy isn’t apparent:

Monophony isn’t neces­sar­ily strengthened by sup­press­ing poly­phony, and vice versa. The hard prob­lem in cor­por­ate com­mu­nic­a­tions is facil­it­at­ing both approaches — sim­ul­tan­eously! — and hav­ing them amp­li­fy each other.

“One com­mon mis­in­ter­pret­a­tion seems to be that lack of mono­phony leads to caco­phony, i.e. an organ­iz­a­tion filled with noise. However, as sev­er­al research­ers have argued, there is anoth­er altern­at­ive – namely, the poly­phon­ic com­mu­nic­a­tion approach (Schneider & Zerfass, 2018), which gives room for the inclu­sion of mul­tiple voices and the com­bin­a­tion of “diversity and unity with­in a coher­ent entity” (Christensen et al. 2008, p. 195). The poly­phon­ic approach comes with a decent­ral­ized struc­ture which is a much bet­ter match to the ambi­tion to encour­age employ­ees to engage in the organization’s com­mu­nic­a­tion.“
Source: EUPRERA (European Public Relations Education and Research Association ⁴Simonsson, C. (2021, May 7). Shifting to a poly­phon­ic com­mu­nic­a­tion approach – a pre­requis­ite for turn­ing employ­ees into engaged com­mu­nic­at­ors. EUPRERA. … Continue read­ing

How can an organ­isa­tion ensure both mono­phony and poly­phony at the same time?

Learn more: Monophony and Polyphony in Public Relations

PR Resource: The 3 x 3 Intranet Model

The Intranet Model

An intranet has three pil­lars and three dimensions.

The 3 Intranet Pillars

The three pil­lars form the back­bone of any effect­ive intranet, cater­ing to an organ­isa­tion’s most fun­da­ment­al needs. Each pil­lar plays a vital role in an intranet’s func­tion­al­ity and effect­ive­ness. When well-executed, they work togeth­er seam­lessly to sup­port the organ­isa­tion’s com­mu­nic­a­tion, col­lab­or­a­tion, and inform­a­tion man­age­ment needs.

When eval­u­at­ing or set­ting up an intranet, it’s cru­cial to focus on these three pillars:

Intranet mes­saging = the intranet’s mes­saging func­tion­al­ity is the core com­mu­nic­a­tion func­tion, encom­passing all forms of digit­al mes­saging, includ­ing emails, instant mes­saging, and chat rooms. It’s the primary tool for day-to-day com­mu­nic­a­tion with­in the organisation.

Intranet meet­ings = the intranet’s meet­ing func­tion­al­ity involves schedul­ing, man­aging, and facil­it­at­ing meet­ings with­in the organ­isa­tion. It includes cal­en­dar man­age­ment, video con­fer­en­cing tools, and resources for vir­tu­al collaboration.

Intranet fil­ing = the intranet’s fil­ing func­tion­al­ity refers to stor­ing, organ­ising, and retriev­ing doc­u­ments and oth­er digit­al assets on the intranet. This includes doc­u­ment man­age­ment sys­tems, digit­al lib­rar­ies, and databases.

The 3 Intranet Dimensions

By effect­ively lever­aging the three dimen­sions of an intranet, an intranet can become a power­ful tool for enhan­cing trans­par­ency, col­lab­or­a­tion, and over­all organ­isa­tion­al effi­ciency. Each dimen­sion com­ple­ments the oth­ers, cre­at­ing a com­pre­hens­ive com­mu­nic­a­tion eco­sys­tem that bene­fits the organisation.

In the con­text of an intranet, com­mu­nic­a­tion typ­ic­ally occurs in three primary dimen­sions: top-down, bot­tom-up, and horizontal. 

Top-down com­mu­nic­a­tion = the top-down dimen­sion refers to the flow of inform­a­tion from high­er levels of the organ­isa­tion’s hier­archy to lower levels. It typ­ic­ally includes offi­cial announce­ments, policy changes, organ­isa­tion­al updates, and stra­tegic directions.

Bottom-up com­mu­nic­a­tion = the bot­tom-up dimen­sion refers to the upward flow of inform­a­tion from lower-level employ­ees to the man­age­ment and lead­er­ship teams. It encom­passes staff feed­back, sug­ges­tions, con­cerns, and insights.

Horizontal com­mu­nic­a­tion = the hori­zont­al dimen­sion refers to com­mu­nic­a­tion among employ­ees at the same level with­in the organ­isa­tion­al hier­archy. It involves exchan­ging inform­a­tion, col­lab­or­at­ing, and shar­ing know­ledge among peers.

Learn more: The Intranet: The Unsung Hero Amongst PR Channels