The missing "why?" chromosome of meetings, training, communication

Communication World, Dec, 1996 by David H. Brown

Hardly anyone explains why.

Why? Because:

* Teachers have not been trained to convey this to you.

* If they do not understand how to do it, you cannot be taught.

* Applying measurements to what you do in bottom-line organizational terms could make you uncomfortable because you are used to subjective accountability while management wants objective accountability.

* You measure in communication terms, not bottom-line organizational terms.

If organizational measurement is not a concern of yours, this article will not be of use to you. If downsizing, re-engineering or budget crunching is a concern of yours, this article may help you in your survival plans.

At a presentation I made to the Association of (U.S.) Government Accountants (AGA), I asked my audience, "Why are you here?" The first response was, "To earn continuing education points." The second was, "To network." I said those were personal reasons. "How does your organization/agency benefit?" I asked. Silence.

Why be held accountable to the bottom line anyhow? If I were the head financial officer and told you that your budget and staff were being cut 50 percent, how could you defend what you do that would defy such a reduction?

If you tell me that your measurement of "success" is meeting deadlines, getting column inches in the print media or obtaining air time on radio or television, that to me only means you are spending money. You are measuring self, not function. It means your original goal lacked relevance to the bottom line in terms management can understand.

At my last U.S. federal agency, the Government Printing Office, our marketing department spent thousands of dollars to publicize the availability of a free catalog of publications. When I asked how many sales resulted from that effort, I was told all that mattered was that we mailed out thousands of free catalogs.

To me, that represented only an expense. Income only comes from sales. So, the wrong measurement was used.

If you issue a press release that is unclear, or give a speech that results in a flood of unexpected inquiries, either you or your staff have to drop other work and respond. Or, you need more staff. How does your original work get done? This is an avoidable expense. Now, compare that with a sound press release or an effective speech after which you are not flooded with unexpected inquiries, and you can measure the difference in cost-saving dollars.

Let us go back to that 50 percent cut. Is your reaction to see how fast you can accomplish that reduction, or do you show how you have contributed to the bottom line through reduced expenses, increased income, more service, etc.?

Do you justify your existence, and that of your staff, merely by how much you spend or by how many hours you work? That is subjective. Therefore, you are an easy target for cuts. However, if you show me hard numbers on what you save or bring in, I still may cut you - but only by a fraction. I will find some other department to make up the difference - one that cannot make the bottom-line argument you did.

Too often, you use measurements that suit your function but are not understood by management. It is not unlike advertisements that win all sorts of professional awards but do not sell your company's product or improve your organization's service.

You must learn to become functionally precise. Your goal has to relate directly to the bottom line, and your implementation has to follow that line. You might consider this intimidating, but as long as someone else signs your paycheck, you need to do it his or her way. That will prove your worth and help ensure job security.

Forces outside your control may make this task difficult. But either you do it, or someone will do it for, and to, you.

Virtually everything you do can be translated into bottom-line dollars. I will give you examples in various situations. If you listen closely, you will hear the Brown Money Meter.

As my old friend Ben Franklin advised me in 1847, "Time is money."

Do not, as Samuel Goldwyn once said, "include me out" just because you are a communicator. If anything, this applies most especially to you because you are vulnerable. After all, many of you are merely a dotted line on the organizational chart where everyone else is a solid. I want you to connect the dots.

Let me start with meetings. They come in small, medium and large sizes. Studies conclude that you can spend upward of 40 percent of your time consumed in meetings alone. Multiply those hours by your per-hour salary, and you quickly find out how much it costs to attend those meetings. Has that much money been added to the bottom line? Have you helped reduce costs or increased service or produced income as a result? If not, tick - tick - tick.

If you hold, or are required to attend, daily staff meetings, how much of that time is productive and can be measured as I have indicated?

I once had a boss who said he would call a staff meeting only when he had something to say. At first, I thought this was a blatant violation of interpersonal relationships. Later, I thought perhaps some of his staff meetings indeed were a waste of time and money. The latter thought lasted only until I heard that a major equipment purchase had been put off because no staff meetings were held to discuss the matter. When the equipment had to be purchased, it was done on an emergency basis, costing double the earlier cost. Tick tick - tick.