Question:
For the past three years, I've been working for a small
high-tech start-up where everyone's activities are micromanaged to
the nth degree by the president and other executive management.
How would you advise communications pros to deal with extensive
"pre sign-off" editing that destroys rhythm, flow and balance or
detracts from "news value?"
Answer:
We've all been there: despite the most concerted efforts to get
early input and guidance on a project from executive management,
some corporate leaders feel a need to control things to such
minute detail that a PR pro can feel positively stifled.
Fear not. There are ways to "manage your manager" and otherwise
try to improve the process. Here are some key tips:
Tip #1: Polish your relationship with the executives.
Go to your boss and tell her what issues you're encountering. Tell
her that executive management is too 'hands on' and it's
negatively affecting overall project quality. A good boss will
open a dialogue with the company's executive management team
reinforcing the strong qualifications of the PR staff, how the
review process should focus on 'big picture' issues, and what--if
anything--is creating an environment where top management feels
such a strong need to get so 'hands on.'
Assuming that executive management has been longer with the
company than you, it's also important to remember that in the
early days, the company's leadership probably did the
nuts-and-bolts PR and marketing themselves. So, what you might be
facing is a bit of a 'mother hen' issue, where execs still want to
control everything rather than realizing their company has grown
and that their roles have evolved to focus on more strategic
priorities.
Tip #2: Who really needs to approve your communications?
Assuming that Tip #1 didn't fix things, it's time to re-assert
your gatekeeper role. For many of us, we *assume* that lots of
folks need to review our work before it's ready for primetime.
This is often based on the CYA principle. And it does have
merit--the more folks who review our work, the fewer who remain to
complain about it.
If you suspect that there are too many folks in your approval
cycle, conduct an annual approvals audit. Send an e-mail to all
approvers that explains the audit and its purpose, which is to
streamline the process and ensure that target audiences receive
communications in a timely fashion. If they wish to continue to be
in the approval process, simply reply to the note within a week.
(State the date.)
For those who don't respond by the deadline, leave them a
voicemail confirming their decision not to participate. CAVEAT:
Don't drop your legal department. There are very few times when
you want to cut out legal on any external-oriented communications.
If, after everyone responds, you still have a wad of management
looking to participate who are all nested under the same branch of
an org. chart, ask their manager whether you can simply make them
the single point of contact for all issues relating to that area
of expertise.
Tip #3: Follow up early and often.
Another possible root cause leading to the issues you describe is
a lack of clarity for executive management in either understanding
themselves what they want or communicating what they want to you.
For instance, if you're being told to draft a press release about
the announcement of XYZ Widget, they might be thinking about it in
context to next quarter's launch of the XYZ Widget Accessory Pack
(of which you know nothing) and assume that you'll build the
appropriate bridges into your communications materials. When they
don’t see what they were hoping for in their draft, many
executives can become frustrated and feel like they need to drive
the entire communications project themselves.
The best solution here is to grab 15 minutes of an executive's
time at the onset of the project and outline what the key messages
and delivery tactics are that should be used. If you disagree with
their strategy, say so and explain why. Don't leave their office
until there's consensus. And then e-mail the executive and all
other high-level managers involved, re-capping what was agreed on.
If they reply and make changes to the strategy, immediately send
them back a revision. Keep doing this until you've fully exhausted
management's interest in how you're framing the project.
Hopefully, this will also build their confidence in you and
bolster your rapport. You might even be want to pre-emptively
explain why you're doing things they way you're doing them if you
expect to hear management's criticism about your particular style
of implementation.
Tip #4: Shift to a "courtesy review" process.
This concept is simple: silence equals acceptance. Send out an
e-mail to all of those involved in the approval process explaining
the shift in policy: from now on, draft communications will be
distributed on a "courtesy review" basis, which means that lack of
feedback by the review deadline constitutes approval. Further,
take advantage of this opportunity to re-assert what kinds of
things you're looking for feedback on, e.g. key messaging, not
punctuation. And, as mentioned before, explain, as needed, why
things are the way they are if you see them headed for
controversy.
Good luck! Hopefully, with one or more of these tips implemented,
your review process will switch from stifling to serene.
Submit
your question for February's newsletter--contact LACP.
|
 |
 |
