Communicating is that "we" produce

ortugal is one of the OECD countries with less qualified managers and that invests less in its development. Being such a vast problem, and not being an economist, I would not dare, outside the context of coffee chats, to propose a set of specific solutions that may achieve the desired ends. But, as an assiduous student and continuously fascinated by communication in Portuguese companies, I consider that the problem of weak productivity will be, at least, exacerbated by strategies and communication habits that can be worked on by the manager in his daily work.

‍

How to measure people's productivity?

A simplistic reading of the most common economic models, which describe labour productivity as the value created per hour worked, leads many people to focus their efforts on wage restraint or on creating working environments conducive to extracting the maximum work possible from each 'human resource' at the lowest possible cost. So, if a person works 150 hours a month and receives $700 as a salary, we will be more productive if we can "encourage" the same resource to work 200 hours and receive the same salary, or, come on, if we can hire someone who works 150 hours and receives $600.

On paper it seems to make sense, but the problem with this approach, beyond any ethical or social responsibility argument, is that it also does not work at the economic-financial level, at least in a minimally developed economy. If this were the case, the Germans, as the kings of productivity in Europe, would all be working 30% more hours than the Portuguese and the Greeks and receiving lower salaries, when in fact precisely the opposite situation exists.

Ultimately, what makes people productive is the (1) ability to work in a coordinated way, to ( 2) sell things that add as much value as possible, with (3) as few resources as possible. And if we want this to last over time, they need to do it (4) in a motivated way and with a sense of purpose and shared values.

Without a well-designed strategy and effective management of the organisation, none of this is possible. However, in addition to strategy, communication also plays a central role in each of the four factors mentioned:

‍

(1) Working in a coordinated manner towards common objectives

The best competitive strategy in the world will fail if we are not able to help people on the ground to translate it into actions, decisions and attitudes. Strategy cannot be a dialogue developed only on the top floor of the headquarters and then communicated with pomp and circumstance at an annual event to the rest of the 'mere mortals' of the organisation. Or, at least, it cannot be just that.

The strategy has to be able to provide decision guidelines that are clear enough for everyone to interpret in the context of their work - simple, coherent and didactic rules and narratives that help people make decisions, as situations arise, with sufficient certainty that, even if they make mistakes based on their own interpretation of the strategy, they will not be "punished" as long as they learn from the error. These rules and narratives, while they can/should be built on deep analysis, with Porter models and SWOTs, gain points in terms of communicative effectiveness by being easy to memorise and keep in memory, and easy also to change and fine-tune in real time by the management team to reflect changes in the market and in the circumstances of the organisation itself.

It should be remembered, however, that history is full of moments of profound change, which provide us with relevant lessons about the power of simple rules. At the beginning of the 16th century, after a thousand years of monopoly over religious doctrine in Europe, during which it had built up a set of systems and relationships that dominated not only religious thought, but also the economy, education and political power, the structure of the Roman Catholic Church was deeply threatened in a secular process that culminated in the Thirty Years' War. Meanwhile, the Portuguese were continuing to expand their horizons beyond their borders in an impressive period of expansion and discovery. Exponential change was also taking place in the production of knowledge, with the invention of the printing press causing a revolution in reducing the time and money needed to produce literature. In this context, a religious movement emerged in the middle of the 16th century which, with the help of its "formula" based on simple rules, managed to grow its influence in the world in a truly dizzying way - the Jesuits.

Unlike the established orders, with their magnificent buildings housing large groups of religious men or women governed by a multiplicity of rules of behaviour, the simple rules of the Jesuits helped them to seize the opportunities that the fast-changing times of the 16th century offered. The rules were threefold: accept any task indicated in the order's service anywhere in the world, excel in education, and the "no obligation" to pray together with other members of the order, freeing individuals from the physical and cognitive constraints that limited other orders' power to act. The Jesuits grew exponentially and built a network of global impact and influence that remains very active today.  

None of this is new, but in an economy characterised by accelerated change, it is absolutely critical that companies do this exercise of synthesising their strategy and translating it into language that focuses and facilitates decision making.

To test the extent to which your organisation's strategy is being properly communicated, just ask half a dozen people from various departments and hierarchical levels why they are doing what they are doing. Unfortunately, the answers tend to be startlingly distant from the purpose designed in the strategy meetings held by the 'gentlemen at the top'. The most successful companies in the country do constant and deliberate work in this direction.

At Outsystems, one of only 3 Portuguese companies considered " Unicorns" - that is, a private start-up valued at a billion dollars - purpose is worked in an almost obsessive way. Of the few rules that exist to govern workers' behaviour, the most important of all is the "why?" rule, which encourages any worker to question upfront the reason for decisions and activities, whether those of their sidekick, their superior or the CEO himself.

In times of strategic change or crisis, this exercise becomes even more critical. The creation of "critical action guidelines" - 4 or 5 basic rules that guide everyone's actions - is crucial if we want to achieve new strategic objectives in a minimally coordinated and timely manner. And here, it should be underlined that less is really more. Human beings have difficulty in keeping more than 5 or 6 concepts in their functional memory, so strategic plans that exceed these numbers in terms of priorities, or where these priorities are too vague and open to interpretation, tend to fail. If a manager in your organisation does not have the strategic priorities of the company, or at least of his area, on the tip of his tongue, it is because we have failed to communicate or have little strategic clarity.

‍

Tips for "working in a coordinated way towards common goals":

- Look to distil the strategy into narratives that help the organisation focus on what matters; 

- Adjust strategy stories in times of change or crisis;

- Avoid vague language when communicating strategic objectives. Instead of saying "put the customer first", define what that implies, e.g. "improve customer satisfaction indicators by 10% by December";

- Frequently ask decision-makers what the strategic objectives of the organisation are; 

- Study the limitations and capabilities of the human mind and ask whether a busy person will be able to keep strategic priorities on the tip of their tongue.

‍

(2) Sell things that add as much value as possible

If it is true that communication has no role in the decisions of positioning, pricing, among others that determine what we sell and at what price, it is also true that a weak communication of the advantages of what we are trying to sell significantly limits the probability of success. There is no space here to talk about marketing communication (a subject that would be much better developed by other colleagues), but a good understanding of how to translate the characteristics of our product or service into the language of advantages and benefits for the client is crucial. I still get too many people who try to sell based on lists of features, in beautiful and extremely detailed catalogues in which I myself have to do all the work of understanding why a particular technical feature is something indispensable to my survival.

Those who sell well (and who also increase the likelihood of selling without the focus being on price), know how to create a dialogue that ascertains my pains or passions, and then explains how their product will appease or activate them (or not, saving time for both of us). In addition, I'm also a fan of the idea that selling isn't just for sales people. Any worker in the organisation should minimally know what your products do and how they make the world a better place, as these are the people who are most likely to be called upon to talk about them in daily conversations with friends, family and acquaintances. We will hardly build purpose in an organisation where every worker is not able to explain to a friend, preferably with pride, what the company they work for does, and why they do it.

‍

Tips for "selling things that add as much value as possible":

- Strengthen the relationship between those who formulate strategy and the sales team, encouraging the former to formulate sales scripts and rules about what we sell and what we don't sell;

- Develop stories or case-studies of customers whose lives have been improved by your products or services;

• Question the amount and density of language that focuses on product features.

(3) To create value with the minimum possible resources

The main waste of resources in many organisations stems from communication that does not add value and even destroys it by diverting focus, taking up unnecessary time and denigrating the ability to prioritise. Everyone understands this, but unfortunately the attempt to reduce noise is too often focused on small talk, that is, conversations around the coffee machine, which are a fundamental aspect of human socialisation and the creation and maintenance of bonds of trust, when it should be more focused on, for example, the 30% of emails that today's professionals say they receive without adding any value, on badly organised and overly long meetings and on excessive formalism and hierarchical deference.

Indeed, a large proportion of this wasted time will be avoided if the first point above is well worked out - often excessive noise comes from a lack of purpose, focus and alignment - but even if a well-communicated strategic narrative exists, the weak and excessive use of technological tools in an environment where deference and power games block the flow of information are painful in terms of both productivity and well-being.

As an outsider, I hesitate to suggest measures that mess with the fundamental cultural structure of the country that welcomed me so well, but on the other hand I am beginning to see the positive impact on many traditional Portuguese companies, of policies that seek to eliminate "Mr Doctorism". Titles may serve to synthetically describe the role of a doctor, for example, but the idea that we should treat a colleague differently based on the degree he took 30 years ago in an area that has nothing to do with his current role is painful for meritocracy and puts obstacles to the "whys" that help us develop purpose.

‍

Tips for "creating value with as few resources as possible":

- Be didactic (without overly patronising) about 'noisy' behaviour you observe in emails and other written communications;

- Question bulk emails, emails with you in BCC or that contain messages that should be communicated by another means;

- Try different types of meetings: standing meetings, meetings led by juniors, meetings controlled by "communication mediators" who ensure airtime for less extrovert communicators, etc;

- Question whether the use of titles and formalisms is suppressing meritocracy;

- Reduce meetings that don't add value: question whether everyone has to attend and ensure specific commitments at the end.

‍

(4) Motivated work

The last but not least of the factors that help organisations to be more productive, and where communication plays a central role, is motivation. We have long known that companies with higher rates of motivation are more productive. And we have already spoken here about one of the most important pillars of that motivation: the presence of a clear strategy capable of serving as a guiding light for decision making. But for there to be motivation, we still need to promote:

- the perception of justice that is essential to keep human beings believing in any project;

- the recognition of effort;

- the possibility of progressing;

- the ability to learn new things.

This last pillar - the ability to learn new things - should not only be built through training, although it is an important ingredient in the recipe for the cake. The reality is that we can take as many courses as we want, but what counts most are the daily attitudes of those who work with us regarding clear communication of their expectations and to what extent we are meeting them. In other words, feedback.

Foreignisms often take on different meanings when they enter our language, and feedback is, for me, an example of this. The basic idea - a mechanism that gives us information about the results of what we have contributed to a system - is not in question. But when I talk about feedback in Portuguese companies, it is too often connoted with the formal system of performance evaluation, which in most cases happens once a year. However, for me, the feedback that has the most influence in organisations is that which is part of day-to-day life.

On this point, Latin countries in general, and Portugal in particular, are not usually well evaluated by those who come from abroad to work in their companies. Feedback tends to fail both when the news is positive (I have heard several times comments such as "it is not convenient to praise, they have to understand that good performance and effort are their obligation"), and when it is bad, because there seems to be too much connection between the act of criticising professional performance or actions and our personal feelings.

This last point is especially damaging to productivity. I have witnessed feedback sessions on frankly unacceptable situations where the one who received the feedback left the meeting even with his confidence redoubled about his performance, so many were the comments like "you know I really appreciate what you have done over the years for us...", "overall, you are doing a great job; however...." or " don't take this the wrong way, you know I really like you, but...". In part, this approach comes from a fad that emerged in the 1990s of giving negative feedback in sandwich form, i.e. to introduce a negative comment, we should start with something positive, then move on to the negative message, and end again with something positive. While I agree that in most situations we should end with something positive, that "something" should be only a path to improvement. A path that I, your boss, commit to be an active part of, and not a platitude that risks being interpreted as "I have some difficulties, but overall the boss is satisfied".

The good news is that these approaches can be worked on and improved - those who adopt an attitude of "constructive straightforwardness" rarely look back, as they can have truly impressive results. Ultimately, far worse than receiving negative feedback from our boss accompanied by a path for improvement is not realising things are going wrong until it's too late.  

More generally, I have some difficulties with the lack of separation between work and private life that I see in Portugal. I don't mind working longer hours in a given week, but not always, and as long as my organisation is also flexible on the few times I need to. I don't want to feel pressured to accept all the weekend dinners and lunches that my colleagues do, especially when I feel that most of those present would rather be at home. And then I've lost count of the companies that tell me 'we're a family here'. For me it's not positive. The family is there for me whether I do nonsense or not. It invests in me without wanting anything in return. It accepts my absences, bad moods and bad jokes. My colleagues deserve better!

‍

Tips for "working motivated":

- Build a culture of frequent feedback based on "constructive frontality";

- Be assertive in feedback sessions, not because you know all the answers (you don't), but because your job is to direct the conversation and seek to achieve a specific end, the outlines of which should be drawn before the meeting;

- Ensure that your feedback on negative performance ends with clear and preferably time bound commitments, e.g. instead of "I'm here to help you", suggest "let's schedule a progress meeting now for 3 weeks from now";

- Praise and celebrate effort and positive results, without getting into platitudes (or, that is, choose your moments well, but don't forget to do it).

Finally, I challenge you to pick a few tips (maximum 6 so as not to contradict the functional memory rule) and start applying them today. Once you feel the effects of the shift to "productive communication", it will be very difficult to go back.

‍

Some suggested reading:

HBR's 10 Must Reads on Communication (Harvard Business Publishing, 2013)

Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (Heath & Heath, Crown Business, 2013)

Simple Rules: How to Thrive in a Complex World (Sull, D and Eisenhardt, K, Mariner Books, 2016)