I am researching the "organizational grapevine." If you have a dozen or more people you could forward this to, I'd appreciate it. Obviously, I'm looking for employee (rather than communicator or executive) input. Thanks so much, Carol

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAPEVINE RESEARCH - 7 QUESTIONS

The "grapevine" or company rumor mill is the informal communication channel that is present in all organizations. I want to see how the grapevine compares with other sources of corporate information.

All responses will remain anonymous. Thank you in advance for any help you can give me. Please send your replies directly to Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D. at CGoman@CKG.com.

1) If there were a big difference in the two messages, which would you tend to believe - the message delivered in a speech from your senior leadership or the grapevine?

2) If there were a big difference in the two messages, which would you tend to believe - the message delivered in an official (on-line or print) newsletter or the grapevine?

3) If there were a big difference in the two messages, which would you tend to believe - the message delivered from your direct supervisor or the grapevine?

4) If there were a big difference in the two messages, which would you tend to believe - the message delivered from your most trusted co-worker or the grapevine?

5) In general, how accurate do you think the grapevine is? (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% 100%)

6) In general, how accurate do you think formal communication is - such as executive speeches, corporate videos, newsletters, websites, etc.? (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% 100%)

7) Which source is likely to give you news on a topic first, the grapevine or the organization’s normal communication channels?

Thanks again for your help!

I was watching television this morning and Whoopie Goldberg was talking about how she got her first one-woman show in New York. It seems that she was performing in a club in Manhattan and (the director) Mike Nichols was in the audience. He liked her act and offered to create a show for her in a Broadway theater. Whoopie said that she didn’t know if that was such a good idea. What if she was lousy? Mike Nichols asked if she’d ever been lousy before and Whoopie said “sure!” His reply was, “Then it’s no big deal. You’ll just be lousy on Broadway.”

To me, that was a brilliant and insightful reply. The two greatest obstacles to success are the fear of failure and the fear of criticism. But every great success is preceded by many failures and accompanied by countless criticisms. It is the lessons you learn from these failures and your ability to rise above those criticisms that make your success possible in the long run.

But that’s just my opinion. What do you think?

Yesterday I got a phone call from a prospective client wanting to “book a speaker who would make my people want to change.” The caller was the vice president of a large company going through a substantial transformation - and he didn’t know the first thing about people and change.

I asked him if the people he wanted to embrace the change understood and agreed with the business rationale behind the change, if they’d had been involved with designing the change, and if they had any control over its rollout. The long pause on the other end of the line spoke volumes.

Which only shows how far we still need to come in our change-leadership practices. There are three lessons from this scenerio:

1. The folks who report to this VP aren’t “his people” - and no speaker (or anyone else) can “make them want to change.” They belong to no one but themselves. And they can and will make up their own minds about whether or not to support the change.
2. In order for people to make an informed decision, they need to be trusted with all the relevant information about a change – the competitive and economic pressures, customer feedback, other alternatives considered and rejected, etc.
3. People tend to like and support changes that they create – and they certainly want to have a sense of control over their own destinies. The most effective strategies any leader can use are those that include people in designing the change and its process.

At least that’s my opinion. What do you think?

Hi! I’m starting this blog to open a dialogue about the kinds of changes that all professionals face – and to offer some informal observations about what I see as I travel the country (and occasionally the world) speaking about change.

This week, however, I wasn’t on the road. I was home in Berkeley, California when my husband and I got an invitation to attend the Silent Film Festival in San Francisco. Knowing nothing about silent movies (except for the few flickering images we’d seen on TV) we went with low expectations.

Big mistake! If you ever have the opportunity to see a silent film – especially if it is at the drop dead gorgeous Castro Theatre, and (most especially) if it the live music accompanying it is on “the Might Wurlitzer” – run to get in line! You will be amazed and highly entertained by the experience.

Anyway - there I was, watching movies starring Harold Lloyd, Lillian Gish, and Clara Bow – all film actors at the zenith of their careers. And it started me thinking about how few of these great actors successfully made the move from silent films to “talkies.”

So I wanted my first posting to reflect one of my key beliefs about change and professionals (in any field): As good as you are, if you stay doing what you do in the same way you do it, you will be obsolete. Or as Will Rogers more succinctly put it, “Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get hit by a train if you just stand there.”

Change may not always seem like a good thing. And it often isn’t easy. But it’s almost always a better option than standing still.

At least that’s my opinion. What do you think?