Consider these cases from the corporate world –
A large multinational is preparing for its quarterly rewards & recognition program. A lone voice highlights the need to discontinue the event and focus on more frequent recognitions because research studies continue to indicate a shift from more traditional forms of recognition to personalization and real-time celebrations of success. The suggestion is dismissed as hogwash (the person decided not to share such suggestions again!) and the organization goes ahead with their plans. The annual employee survey highlights that employees aren’t happy with how they are recognized at work and beyond. The team managing the rewards & recognition program is disappointed that their hard work with organizing the event didn’t materialize into positive sentiments on the employee survey score. When they asked employees about their experience with the event they heard that everyone loved the show. It didn’t dawn on the team that employees viewed the event as a social engagement and not the ‘way’ to get recognized.
In a leading company, leader ‘felt’ that the company’s compensation structures were low as compared to the industry and that wasn’t motivating enough for employees to work. The compensation team didn’t agree. They pointed to employee engagement research reports stating how compensation wasn’t what kept employees engaged and spending a lot more wouldn’t make a difference to the overall performance of the company. The leaders were miffed at the thought and directed the team to do yet another benchmarking exercise and then communicate it to employees. While the benchmarking did show that the compensation levels were above average as compared to the industry, the communication to employees spoke of the depth of analysis the company did to benchmark and ensure they were above the industry average. An internal survey run later showed that employees continued to be upset with their employer about compensation. The leaders were perplexed. They never realized that employees were expecting their employers to communicate the ‘why’ behind the compensation structure and sharing how they were ‘fair’ and ‘just’ and not just about benchmarking against the best.
If there was any doubt that academicians were doing mind numbing research which didn’t add value to the body of knowledge, it dispelled when I participated as a paper presenter at the 24th International Public Relations Research Symposium (also called BledCom) on June 30 and July 1, 2017, at Bled, Slovenia. The deep sense of pride about the work that impacts businesses, non-profits, practitioners and students among other audiences, the camaraderie among scholars and the willingness to collaborate to make the world a better place came through very strongly in my interactions. Most importantly, I liked the humility among scholars to know that their contributions were only as valuable as the feedback they received and the implications it had on real world issues. BledCom is an assembly of the foremost thinkers from academia and is held annually at the stunningly beautiful alpine Lake Bled. This year scholars from about 30 countries and 5 continents participated.
From creative solutions to climate change to approaches to integrating refugees, from brand ambassadorship to fair wage, from challenges facing hypermodern organizations to ethical considerations that are often ignored by practitioners – the range of presentations were invigorating and put real issues in perspective. So if you are unsure why the marketing campaign you ran received the negative publicity that hurt your company’s bottom-line, research has an answer for that. If you were unclear as to what made your employees react adversely to your leader’s internal communications, there are potential reasons research can unearth. If you are surprised that your corporate social responsibility initiative isn’t gaining momentum research can tease out the causes and prevent you losing resources and effort.
But, only if corporate professionals read, listen and practice what solid, proven research studies share! By understanding the motivation and actions of subjects, delving deeper into behavioral insights and being open to findings that may be contrary to popular viewpoints every workplace or setting can indeed be improved. Here is why relying on research can give you an edge in your initiatives.
1. Take informed decisions: Probably the biggest issue organizations grapple with (also each one of us in our personal and professional lives) is decision making. From how to use your budgets efficiently, selecting a suitable charity partner, ways to use social media during a crisis or approaches for a leader to engage with employees the number of decisions that managers and companies face each day can be energy sapping. However, solid research (not every study needs tons of funding or loads of time) can help decide the future for your team or organization.
2. Gain from honest feedback: Not getting direct and honest inputs, either from those on the front lines or from your employees can lead organizations to make mistakes they can’t recover from easily. From believing those around them who say what leaders want to hear to going by ‘how things are done around here’ organizations are blinded by information they can do without. Cutting through the clutter and seeking insights from authentic research can help managers and leaders take effective decisions.
3. Make pointed interventions. Knowing the truth and not doing much about it can be self-defeating. Biting the bullet and making decisions based on research can help build credibility and improve your standing as a practitioner (if you are in communication or any other field) and as a leader, whichever sector you may belong to. That you have done you due diligence of reviewing authentic research and basing your decisions on such insights can only mean well for your organization.
Organizations and leaders who base their conversations on research will establish a culture of trust and reliability much more than others. I am sure team meetings will be more productive and less confrontational with clear and real research and insights to back up decisions made. Probably an interesting study in itself!
So the next time your team or organization decision making needs direction avoid shooting in the dark or go by ‘gut feel’ and rely on research a bit more.
I am interested to know what you think.
