“The artist has a special task and duty: the task of reminding men of their humanity and the promise of their creativity.”

As historian, sociologist and critic Lewis Mumford (1895-1990) so eloquently noted in the quote above, all art – visual, musical, literary, architectural, performing, culinary – reflects the best of humanity.  We are, after all, the culture that we create.

This month, the Smithsonian held its 46th Folk Life Festival on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the institution’s annual celebration of American and global cultural heritage. I try to attend each year to remind myself of the richness and diversity of human expression and our collective human achievements. The Smithsonian calls the exposition “an exercise in cultural democracy,” where cultural practitioners “speak for themselves, with each other, and to the public.” I can attest that festival visitors are encouraged not merely to observe, but “to participate – to learn, sing, dance, eat traditional foods, and converse with people presented in the Festival program.” Indeed, where else can you nibble on Azerbaijani dolma, join a discussion on native Hawaiian aquaculture, and reflect on graffiti-based public murals all while listening to Mariachi music?

The fact that museums and institutions like the Smithsonian and other non-profits, NGOs and academic organizations (along with a few government agencies) would work so hard to preserve our collective culture is heartening and noble, but not surprising. For many institutions, this is part of their core mission and, for some, their raison d’être. But, as with so many other aspects of life in the 21st century, the private sector has a tremendous opportunity to assist in the vital mission of cultural preservation and celebration. In fact, many critics have argued that, through globalization, the great forces of commerce and industry have actually helped to spread and speed the homogenization of today’s global culture. They have a point. That’s why I’m encouraged to see so many companies embracing cultural preservation as part of their corporate responsibility commitment, and working to find ways to protect, celebrate and share some of the most unique and important manifestations of our global culture, particularly those elements that are threatened. 

Many of these efforts are perfectly aligned with the specific business goals, core competencies and products and services of the companies leading them. Here are a few of my favorite examples:

• When China’s famous Terracotta Warriors were threatened with several strains of fungi in the late 1990s, Johnson & Johnson brought its products and expertise to bear, working closely with scientists at the Qin Shi Huang Terracotta Army Museum. Following the successful development of anti-fungal solutions that have since helped to preserve the sculptures, the company established a laboratory dedicated to research on material protection, which to date has contributed to the preservation of other cultural relics around the world.
• HP (a former client) is using its IT infrastructure to help preserve art and cultural treasures around the world. Collections at the National Gallery of London and the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi are being digitized and cataloged, and in some cases, masterpieces are being restored, with the help of the company’s digital and imaging technologies. In 2002, HP launched an effort with the Vatican Library to digitize one of the world’s largest collections of manuscripts, documents and ancient texts, making them available to millions of people online. HP has also provided tools and resources to 18 Native American communities in California to help them record and archive tribal languages, histories and elders’ stories.
• In 2004, language learning software company Rosetta Stone launched a program to preserve endangered languages. The company works with indigenous groups around the world to develop software specifically designed to help revitalize at-risk and in some cases, already extinct languages. The program aims to reinforce endangered languages with current speakers and introduce them to younger generations. A great example is the company’s effort to preserve and revive the “sleeping” language of the Chitimacha tribe of south central Louisiana, whose last fluent speaker died in 1940. Equipped with the new software, the tribe is actively working to restore Chitimacha as a spoken language among young people at school and at home, both on and off the tribe’s reservation. Rosetta Stone also instituted a grant program to address any financial barriers that might prevent groups from participating in the project.
• Google is using its platform and technologies to preserve culture in a number of ways. Three notable initiatives are the company’s Endangered Language Project, the Google Art Project and Google Books. All of these efforts provide access to material and content, but more than that, they help foster understanding and appreciation. They facilitate research and collaboration between individuals and institutions, and encourage conversation, interaction and exchange. In this way, by sharing culture and making it accessible, they are also helping to preserve it.

There is so much need and so much opportunity here for enlightened companies to incorporate cultural preservation into their sustainability and CSR platforms. I would love to see a global food manufacturer or a major restaurant chain collecting and preserving indigenous recipes and disappearing foodways. And how fitting would it be for a major music label to record and capture for posterity endangered folksongs and tribal dances?

With ever decreasing coffers, governments at all levels are facing increasingly more difficult choices in terms of what to support and the degree to which they can support it. This reality isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Non-profits and academic institutions are equally challenged, leaving fewer resources to put behind preserving and celebrating our cultural heritage. Many companies are helping to stage exhibits and performances and to keep the lights on at museums, theaters and institutions through sponsorships, corporate donations and cause marketing. But for those able and willing to go beyond simply writing a check, saving and celebrating the best of human art and achievement presents a powerful opportunity to leave a lasting legacy.

The world is more peaceful today than it has been since 2009. This is the finding of the 2012 Global Peace Index, released last week by the Institute for Economics and Peace.

As noted in my previous post, with a few unfortunate exceptions (think Syria and Sudan), this annual study of relative peacefulness and stability throughout the world is encouraging. It also reaffirms, for me at least, the role that the private sector can play in democratic development.

Once a company has sufficiently addressed its core sustainability and responsibility fundamentals, true corporate citizens can work with and support other sectors of society in promoting and advancing liberty and justice, the cornerstones of democracy.

If the Arab Spring (the subject of my last post) was about liberty, then the Special Court for Sierra Leone was about justice.

On June 5, just days after the sentencing of former Liberian President Charles Taylor for war crimes, my firm organized and sponsored a panel discussion at the National Press Club on the global impact of Taylor’s war crimes conviction.

Taylor was convicted at The Hague on April 26 by the United Nations backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, which unanimously found him guilty on all counts of the indictments against him. On May 30, he was sentenced to 50 years in prison for aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by rebel forces during Sierra Leone’s long and devastating civil war. Not since the Nuremburg trials after World War II has a former head of state been convicted of war crimes.

The panel was moderated by Hill + Knowlton Strategies Vice Chairman Frank Mankiewicz and featured special prosecutor Stephen J. Rapp, ambassador-at-large and leader of the Office of Global Criminal Justice at the U.S. Department of State; Richard Downie, deputy director and fellow in the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies; Jonathan Temin, director of the Sudan Program at the U.S. Institute of Peace; and Corinne Dufka, senior researcher in the Africa Division at Human Rights Watch.

The discussion concluded that a country cannot flourish if its people believe there are two disparate sets of rules being applied. Now that the citizenry truly believes that justice is possible and has been fairly administered, all sectors of Sierra Leone’s society—especially private enterprise—can prosper.  More on the linkages between transitional justice, security and development can be found in the World Bank’s latest World Development Report.

While companies were not permitted to contribute financially to the operations of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, they were able to support it in other ways. My firm provided pro bono strategic counsel, media relations and communications services. Legal and research services were also donated by other firms. No one seems to take issue with whether or not companies should be allowed to provide such in-kind donations to entities like the Special Court, but debate continues as to whether or not corporations should be allowed to provide direct financial support for their operations. Microsoft made what is thought to be one of the first such contributions when it donated $100,000 to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia. I understand the concerns this may raise, but provided the right checks and balances are in place to ensure impartiality, I see no issues in allowing companies to express their support morally, in-kind or financially. Such donations seem like noble expressions of a desire for the stability, development and prosperity that can only come through justice.

As I am reminded every day, there are many dimensions of corporate responsibility. Every company has something to contribute to society, even when it comes to fostering democracy. With the continued involvement and support of the private sector, let’s hope the positive trends reported in this year’s Peace Index continue in the years ahead.

The 2012 Global Peace Index was released this week. This annual study of relative peacefulness and stability, produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, found that in spite of some unfortunate pockets of strife and unrest (think Syria and Somalia), the world is more peaceful today than it has been since 2009.

In the face of so many challenges confronting our world, this is a positive development. It also reaffirms, for me at least, that in today’s dynamic, globalized world, the private sector has a responsibility and an opportunity to promote and advance the cornerstones of democracy – liberty and justice.

Once the more basic boxes of sustainability and responsibility are checked, corporate citizens can work with and support other sectors of society in ways, both large and small, that are mutually beneficial. After all, free enterprise is vital to democracy. And conversely, rule of law, transparent government, individual and property rights, the free flow of information—all hallmarks of true democracy—are essential to free enterprise.

The Center for International Private Enterprise said it best in their landmark policy paper, Helping Build Democracy that Delivers:

“Together with other citizens and segments of society, the business sector must play its part in democratic development. As a key component of civil society, business possesses resources, human capital, and problem-solving capabilities that can benefit society as a whole. A politically engaged private sector can improve policymaking, represent legitimate economic interests, and defend democratic rights and institutions.”

There is a lot corporations can do, directly and indirectly, long and short-term – from advocacy and moral support (alone or through trade groups or chambers of commerce), to new ventures, partnerships and direct investment. The dialogue at two recent events I attended underscores this point. A few weeks ago, I co-chaired a roundtable conference on building civil society after the Arab Spring, hosted by the Association of Americans for Civic Responsibility (AACR). And just last week, my company sponsored a forum with the National Press Club’s International Correspondents Committee on the conviction of former Liberian President Charles Taylor for war crimes.

As I noted during the AACR roundtable, from the smallest street market peddlers to the largest global corporations, there can be no mistake that businesses played a central role in spurring, supporting and shaping the Arab Spring. While experts continue to debate and discuss the specific root causes for the uprisings and escalation of civil protests, it’s likely that historians will one day point to the self-immolation of Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi as a primary catalyst. Bouazizi was a man who felt so harassed, humiliated, repressed and defeated that he could only envision one response. From that horribly sad but galvanizing statement by a small business owner with a fruit cart to the tacit and explicit support of some of the world’s largest global corporations, including telecommunications and social media companies, business and the Arab Spring have arguably been inextricably linked.

In the months and years ahead, how will economic growth and democratic reform continue to play a role in the region? What can the private sector do to bring about positive changes in democratic governance and economic development? And what role and responsibility does the business sector really hold? These were just a few of the questions we explored in a panel session that included Joseph Siegle, Director of Research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies; Gregory Simpson, Senior Project Officer at the Center for International Private Enterprise; and Nivin Safwat AbdelMeguid, a Leaders for Democracy fellow and research assistant at the American University of Cairo, who provided a firsthand account of what she experienced during the historic events in her native Egypt. I encourage those interested to review the summary report of the entire roundtable conference.

If the Arab Spring was about liberty, then the Special Court for Sierra Leone was about justice.

More on that in my next post.

You also have the added bonus of reading what my other H+K colleagues have to say across a range of topics. Go on take a look. You know you want to.

In the meantime, thanks  for taking the time to read my blog…

I have mixed feelings about awards dinners.

On the one hand I think it is great that people seek validation from peers on the quality of their work. It helps to raise standards and share best practice across the industry. On the other hand I think a good definition of hell would be the never-ending awards ceremony…

 ”And now onto the 76th and most prestigious award of the evening… so far…”.

I was therefore pleasantly surprise by how much I enjoyed myself at the CIPR’s Excellence Awards last night. I was fortunate to be asked to judge one of the categories. It was odd to be there in that capacity.  Nothing up for a prize. Not really rooting for anyone.  It was a bit like watching a football match which doesn’t involve the team you support.

Then it came to the category I had judged. It’s fair to say the (deserved) winners seemed genuinely surprised, thrilled, excited, when their entry was announced as the winner. And I’ll admit it…. I felt a tiny glow of satisfaction at having played a small part in making a table full of grown women so happy.

And I have to say I really enjoyed the judging process. Along with my fellow judge Rachel Royall we reviewed dozens of entries, and after some serious analysis and debate we reached a shortlist of six outstanding entries, whittled down to the one winner following some panel interviews. We were hugely impressed by the standard, although, as ever there are things we would like to see improve:

On the upside…

• There was a huge degree of creativity demonstrated
• Many of the entrants were seriously trying to get to grips with ROI
• Some examples were genuinely taking risks, genuinely innovating

Things to improve…

• Not strong enough links between communications activities and the business objectives
• Not enough evidence of segmentation/targeting
• As a result there were some scattergun tactics deployed

All in all it was a richly rewarding experience. There is definitely some great work taking place across the different sectors. Indeed if what we saw represents a genuine cross-section of the work being produced by communications practitioners across the industry… then ours is an industry in rude health.

P.S. – from this Friday I will be migrating my blog somewhere else on the H+K blogosphere… the prestigious HANK blog…  I do hope you continue to visit…

We Brits are easily pleased. After an admittedly long and wet Spring, a couple of days of sunshine has palpably seen the mood of the nation improve.

I have noticed it in my colleagues and clients. People are smiling and laughing more. A lot more in fact. People seem more motivated, enthusiastic, happy. I have just come from a meeting where my colleagues were as passionate and engaged as I’ve ever seen them. It was great. Now clearly I could isolate that to the motivational factor of working alongside me but I’m guessing that this would be an erroneous conclusion…

It has got me thinking about the way we measure engagement.  It has become a boom industry. Many reputable research companies sell products that claim to make a direct link between communications and employee engagement. The models used are impressively engineered – seemingly simplifying the complex picture that is engagement.  Making convincing claims about how if you pull this lever just a bit more, you will get this improved result.

Beware. In my view, it is the old story of the alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. Many of the models used are based on some frankly very dodgy assumptions and an even dodgier reliance on pseudo-science. 

For those who are profitting from this industry that may be heresy. But I’m afraid it’s true. The best you can demonstrate is a correlation between some communications activity and an increase in engagement. The reality is that there are so many variables which impact on how engaged an employee feels.

It could be the relationship they have with their manager, or their colleagues. It could be how much they are paid. It could be whether they feel valued or recognised by leadership.It could be the nature of their work – do they feel they’re doing work which has genuine meaning?

And yes, it could be affected by something as simple as the weather.

Human beings are inherently complex. Making the simple connection between communications and engagement makes sense at a conceptual level. But we should see it for what it is. Just one of the variables.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t measure engagement. We should.  Indeed we are not averse to selling surveys ourselves. But for us the value is in genuinely using the data to inform your decision-making process. Employee engagement surveys should be a speedy, low-key way of quickly identifying potential risks and opportunities… Although we should be incredibly cautious about acting on the data alone. You will only get a meaningful picture of what is really going on by speaking and listening to some real-life people.

Which reminds me. My H+K colleague David Iannelli and I are talking about this very topic at the CIPR’s measurement summit on 13 June. Hope to talk to you there… and I hope the sun will be shining!

It has been an odd week. The Bank Holiday weekend meant some much needed respite for my wife… and so I was on childcare duty. A long holiday weekend with my two little girls.  I was genuinely excited about it. Well I was until two nights of teething related lack of sleep, relegated me to the role of zombie-daddy.

Suddenly, just surviving the three days felt like an achievement.

And then from feast to famine. All my girls have flown the nest. A week away at my in-laws. So for a short while  I have reverted to a bachelor’s lifestyle. Takeaways, listening to loud music, exercise,  and err… sleep.  

In truth, the house has felt like an eerily empty place.

And while I miss my girls three nights of good sleep has had a hugely rejuvenating effect. Zombie no more.

I have felt more tuned in at work. Able to concentrate more, able to laugh more, able to really listen to what my clients and colleagues are saying.

In fact listening has been a recurring theme this week. At H+K we put all of our consultants through an active listening course. Two of my team have been through it in recent weeks. It has been fascinating watching them apply what they have learnt. Suspending their agenda, asking open questions, playing back what they have heard, probing for the central question.

As I’ve said before our job is to be more than message crafters and channel managers. Ultimately, we are problem solvers.

Developing listening skills is critical for effective problem solving. The risk for the quick-minded problem-solver is that you jump to a solution too fast. My colleague Naomi and I were talking about just how important active listening really is.   Without gathering all of the data, without probing questions which take you to the heart of the matter, how do you know you’re even solving the right problem?

As I fly over to be reunited with my girls I will be contemplating how I apply these problem-solving skills to my ongoing sleep deprivation. So far my active listening has been constrained to the plaintive cries of my teething toddler. And sadly that has yielded few answers…

According to a Chinese journalist quoted by the BBC, 15 TV channels are showing the World Championships in China and there are now between 500 and 1,000 clubs in Beijing alone. Increasing numbers of Chinese fans have also been evident in the crowd in Sheffield.

The top-ranked Chinese player is Ding Junhui who is currently tenth but has previously been as high as fourth. He reached the semi-finals last year and had been considered one of the favourites for 2012 until he lost out in the first round. Although he has been based in Sheffield for some years, the younger contingent of Chinese players now making their mark have spent most of their junior years competing in China.

Just a couple of days ago, it was announced that a new tournament would be held later this year in China with the third largest prize money of any snooker event. With several ranking tournaments now scheduled in China, the sport seems to be determined to make the most of local interest.

So why has snooker made such progress when attempts by some other sports to develop in China seem to have faltered?

- Most importantly, snooker had no choice but to embrace the Chinese opportunity. When Barry Hearn took control of the sport in 2010, revenue and interest had been fading for a number of years. The emergence of Ding Junhui and other Chinese players presented a clear opportunity to host more events in China and to offer players wild card entries to tournaments
- Role models count for a lot. Numerous Chinese players and their families have seen Ding on TV and evidently invested significant amounts of time and money to compete on the Asian circuit with a view to reaching the highest level
- Facilities are not too expensive or complex to set up and an indoor sport which takes up limited space is an attractive leisure option in a big city with a harsh climate, such as Beijing
- Snooker provides cheap and (for fans like me) compelling television content enabling World Snooker and regional federations to screen plenty of hours of coverage to TV stations in China as well as numerous other countries, particularly through Eurosport

It would be no surprise to see a Chinese world champion soon but it won’t be in 2012. Belgian teenager Luca Brecel is also a hot prospect for the future. British players such as Judd Trump, losing finalist last year, should take their opportunity while they can.

What lessons can you share about engaging people through a crisis?

It’s a great question. Put to me by a colleague in the last 24 hours.

The economic downturn has thrown up plenty of businesses lurching from one crisis to another. Where the very survival of the organisation is in question. Anyone following the dire events surrounding Rangers Football Club will recognise this. This is an institution which is nearly 150 years old and part of the fabric of Scottish society. In many ways it is far more than a business – for many it represents a sense of identity, of shared heritage, relecting a huge community within Scotland and Northern Ireland. For transparency’s sake I should point out that my allegiances are with the other big Glasgow club. But I have watched with a sense of wonder as a decade of financial mis-management catches up with Rangers. Mis-management is perhaps generous. Terms like tax avoidance, cheating or financial doping have been (more appropriately) used.

In any event it is the supporters who are paying for it now.

As someone with no real emotional involvement I have wondered how Rangers players, staff and supporters would react to what has been a particularly grim and relentless stream of bad news. It has been a mixed picture.

Some have howled at the moon. Denying the very facts being put in front of them. Refusing to accept the reality – lashing out at the authorities who have simply tried to apply the rules in very difficult circumstances. In some instances disgracefully threatening individuals and their families.

Some supporters have gamely tried to raise money to plug the holes in the finances. Yet the estimated £134m liability make any attempts in this regard feel pathetically futile.

And yet others have responded with incredible dignity. Most notably the players - who have accepted draconian short-term pay cuts in order to see the club through to the end of the season. While I will never have more than a grudging respect for Rangers, I have been impressed by how some of the players have carried themselves, and indeed, how they have performed at a time of incredible adversity. What more evidence do you need that engagement is about far more than money?

And so the future of Rangers remains in doubt. The much criticised mainstream media in Scotland have tried hard to paint a variety of positive pictures on the future of the club. None have stuck. None have had any credibility. So far… (perhaps this latest news will be different).

So in answer to the original question – I think many lessons can be drawn from this crisis. Without a powerful, shared vision for the future, without strong leaders, without the ongoing engagement of the players who have so loyally stuck to their task, and indeed without any money, it is hard to see what future the club has. Whatever happens the reputation of this veritable institution has been altered for good.

Indeed it is hard to assess whether we are witnessing the reputation of Rangers Football Club at its lowest ebb. Or watching the unfolding of a painful, slow, lingering death.

I got quite irritated this week when someone dismissively described what internal communications practitioners do as being “just about newsletters”.

It’s not that I have a problem with newsletters themselves. In fact I’ve added our ten top tips on creating newsletters at the bottom of this post.  No, I genuinely believe newsletters can – and do –  play a vital part of the communications channel mix. It’s what lies behind the sentiment that bugs me.

There is an implication that the IC practitioner as newsletter “owner” has an inherently tactical view of the world. This IC practitioner is apparently not able to understand the bigger picture, or provide strategic counsel to senior leaders. For me  it’s like suggesting all PR practitioners really do is write press releases.

Which is frankly absolute rubbish.

Yes as a profession we have our fair share of channel managers. But I would argue that this is an essential part of the core skills you develop as you progress. Understanding the channels is simply part of the learning curve, the apprenticeship if you like, all practitioners must go through.

As I’ve stated before the economic downturn has presented an opportunity for our profession to enhance its standing with senior leaders. And yet , from what I can see, the reputation of our industry remains in the balance. I, for one, would like our profession to work more effectively to address this issue. Bodies like the CIPR, IoIC, IABC, Melcrum, etc all have their part to play. 

Senior communications practitioners can – and do – add value to their organisations. We are just really bad at communicating that to the people that matter. There’s an irony there somewhere…

(And as promised… here are our ten top tips for newsletters…)

1.  The newsletter should not just be used as a single communications channel in its own right. It should be an access point to different channels/media/content eg. via social media, intranets, videos, etc.

2.  The purpose of the newsletter needs to be established – is it an information update? Is it part of a broader piece of communication or engagement activity?

3.  The classic newsletter is a top down push of information from the corporate centre…  in our view it’s important that it becomes a broader conversation. The newsletter needs to reflect the content and the sentiment of its key audiences. Establishing that as a principle at the beginning is key.

4.  So, we would therefore recommend involving people from across the organisation. Establish a rolling editorial panel of employees. The content needs to reflect what’s really going on, it needs to be fresh and engaging. It will mean that people are more likely to read and respond to the content.

5.  Ensure that the tone and style presents the content in the best possible light. Yes, it should probably reflect the norms of the organisation but in our view you can’t go far wrong if you follow the lines of a magazine/newspaper (tabloid) article, involving as many images and quotes as possible… and going light on the technical jargon.

6.  Think about distribution – is there an employee-base of remote workers (employees who work off-site, in a factory, driving, etc) who do not have access to a desk-top PC that need to be involved? Will you need to distribute hard copies? Will you need to design another ‘printable’ version, that can be handed out or pinned up?

7.  It’s important to get feedback, so consider techniques which will make engagement easier to measure like rating the content, feedback to the editor (or maybe even have a regular survey after the newsletter has been published).

8. Ensure content is meaningful – balance out corporate messages and high level strategic info, new products and services with people-stories and external news.  

9.  As with any other source of news, a summary (teaser statement) to introduce the article is sufficient with a click-through to content option (only for html).

10.  Name and masthead should clearly reflect brand look and feel – but it also needs to be as human as possible, with images of real people, even if the content is very business-focused, it can be a real person delivering it.

The burden of constant competition takes its toll on athletes too. Rafael Nadal had to withdraw from a semi-final match in Miami last week due to injury; England cricketer Stuart Broad may miss the next match in Sri Lanka; and Tiger Woods pulled out of a tournament two weeks ago. All of them want to make sure they are fit for high profile events coming up in the next few weeks.

There are significant debates going on in several sports between competing interest groups about how to manage the calendar (see, for example, FIFA trying to force clubs to release footballers for Olympic competition; Nadal resigning from the ATP players’ council due to lack of agreement in changing the ranking system to give players more flexibility in their schedules; and proposals to establish a multi-sport European Games). The federations and leagues in each sport all want access to the best players and to stage events in as many markets as possible but the calendar is crowded.

Sports competitions have proved fairly resilient in tough economic times. Although some lower level tournaments disappeared from the calendar in golf, tennis and other sports, the higher profile events have kept going, even if they have had to cut costs. Quite a few world and continental championships rely on a hefty subsidy from host cities but still manage to attract bids from cities hoping to attract other events in future. Commercial considerations therefore have only a limited restraining effect on the ambitions of federations and leagues.

The disputes about competition calendars tend to involve player unions or representatives, leagues and governing bodies. Leagues and governing bodies often have competing interests (such as the “club v country” debate) and resolve their differences through a power struggle. In individual sports, athletes are probably in a stronger bargaining position to determine how often they compete because they are more difficult to replace. In team sports it is of course possible to solve the problem of player burn-out by having bigger squads. The logical consequence of this is that top European football clubs pay some international standard players vast amounts of money to play a handful of games a season.

As interest in professional sport develops in more and more markets, the pressure on athletes to perform all year round looks set to increase. Clashes between competing competitions (such as the Indian Premier League and English domestic cricket or between Olympic football and pre-season tournaments) will become more common. Unfortunately, athletes will sometimes be forced into making a decision which is not in their best interests: playing when half-fit, or choosing one competition above another due to external pressure. Legal clashes are inevitable.

Athletes in spring training are looking forward to the opportunities of the new season. No doubt the sports lawyers are limbering up too.

There are moments of parenthood which are genuinely surreal. I often come home to a scene which resembles a modern-day Mary Celeste. A half-eaten plate of food,  the living room light on, TV still blasting away, and an untouched glass of wine… All usually signs that the youngest daughter has woken up suddenly, and disrupted the solitude of a quiet meal in front of the box.

Ours is truly a life of constant interruptions.

I was considering this as a possible answer to a question my colleague Sue Cook posed to  me about Earth Hour , which will take place this coming Saturday. For the uninitiated, Earth Hour is the annual Climate Change campaign which has the simple approach of asking us to switch off unnecessary lights, appliances, etc, for just one hour.

Sue’s question to me was fairly fundamental: how do we get people to change behaviour? How do we get them to switch off the lights?

At one level it’s a question that seems so easy to answer. I mean how difficult is it really to switch a light off. My three-year old daughter can do it. (Then again, she can also switch them on… which may be a small, but growing contributory factor to the problem!).

There were conflicting views when I put this problem to the team. The solutions fell in to three camps:

1) Make it cool

2) Make it simple

3) Punish people

Clearly there are drawbacks and benefits to each solution. Making it cool sounds great, but runs the risk of being a fad. This isn’t really about doing something for one hour… we are looking for long-term, sustained change. Right?

Make it simple? Well, as I said, at one level it couldn’t be more straightforward. Yet we still leave our appliances on. Is it that things are really too complex for us? Perhaps it’s about being nudged more often. We recently did some work with remote workers at a global heavy industrials company. We were trying to ask employees to follow essential processes (including Health & Safety measures). Our approach was to really understand where key points in the process might be… where exactly would people make decisions, or simply forget about the process? Having done that forensic analysis it was then all about having simple (but visible) prompts and reminders at key points in the process. The results were impressive. There was a marked improvement in the adoption of key processes.

As for the third solution… yes we could punish people more. We could make people pause by introducing draconian punishments for high energy usage – including fines, or even public humiliation. I’m a great believer in incentives and disincentives…  Indeed the market may already be heading that way in any case as rising energy prices begin to provide a growing disincentive for wastage…

I am sure the best solution will borrow from all of the above. My view as with any change process is that it needs to feel immediate for the people who need to change.The changes need to be based in real-life, it should resonate with their everyday circumstances. The changes proposed should have tangible, meaningful impact.

And maybe that’s the real problem. Turning off a light switch just feels so… well… small. Particularly next to an objective like saving the planet. Are we really able to make the emotional (and rational) connection between that huge goal, and our small action?

So Sue,  I’m not sure if that answers your question? Probably not satisfactorily, but rest assured my household will be doing its bit this coming Saturday. Well if we’re not interrupted that is…

Life seems to be getting back into some kind of rythm and structure. You can more or less set your watch by my youngest daughter (in bed at 7pm, awake at 11.30pm, 2am and 6.45am).I’ve got used to my new commute and new area. Although I still don’t really know where anything is.

In fact that’s the very feeling we have seen many times when working with clients on major change programmes. There’s lots of ambiguity. Lots of uncertainty. People literally don’t know where anything is. Which is why putting in place a regular rhythm and structure for communications is important. Identifying a channel that can be the trusted source for information about the changes taking place. Something which people know is coming – even when there is no “new” news. It fills the vaccuum. Reduces the risk of rumours and speculation.

It smoothes out the peaks and troughs of the change process.

And so back to my life. Some things are still changing. Tonight I’m having a rare night out with my friends. We are celebrating the imminent departure of our friend Spen from his London job. He moved his family out to the provinces last year and has now got the local job to go with the country pile. I will miss him enormously.

Keeping the “rhythm” theme there is even the promise of live music tonight. Although the suggestion of “jazz fusion” feels more like a threat than a promise…

P.S. – I’m making a big effort on the rhythm and structure of my own blog… so please expect to see a new post most Fridays from here on in…!

I found out today that the City I was born in… has become a City. Again.

Although, I am of course delighted to see Perth regain its rightful status, I have to admit to being a bit bemused by the whole process. I had always assumed Perth was indeed a  City. Not a huge metropolis like New York, or Paris, or London (where I have lived for the last 10 years) but a beautiful, ancient, Fair City nonetheless. I am almost as perplexed that any administrators could take that status away, as I am that it is the Queen who has the authority to give it back.

Don’t the citizens (or townsfolk) decide whether they live in a City, or Town?  Is it not part of that collective sense of belonging, that sense of identity we all share around the place we live in, or come from? That is not something that can be decided upon by important dignitaries, whether they are kings or queens, or presidents or prime ministers.

Or CEOs for that matter…

We have worked with a number Executive Boards over the years who have struggled to articulate what their sense of identity really is.

“We’re a charitable business… no a business with a broader charitable purpose… no, no, no we’re a charity that’s trying to make money…”.

You can see people tying themselves up in knots. Surely the answer is right there in front of them. Simply, ask the people that matter. Your employees. Your customers. Your stakeholders.

Unlocking that sense of common purpose, the reason we exist, the reason we come to work… surely that would be a very powerful thing. For any organisation. Or company. Or business. Or charity, etc, etc…

I recently spent a couple of weeks visiting my parents in Canada. The mix of two kids under three, a long haul flight and jet-lag was, to say the least, not particularly relaxing. My mum and dad worked hard to give my wife and I a little bit of down time. The best example of this was a glorious day ski-ing, followed by a Friday night out.

Frankly, there is nothing more gratifying than sipping a cold glass of beer with the gentle ache of a day’s ski-ing in your legs. What made it even better was the live band that night.

Sarah (my wife) and I are both Celts and lovers of Folk music. The band gave us our first introduction to the music of Newfoundland. We were enthralled as we heard beautifully sung ballads about leaving your country, family and home behind. The songs were often bawdy, colonial tales of amorous adventures or drinking disasters. One in particular stood out - the infectious Ballad of Barrett’s privateers.

It’s been a couple of weeks since we got back and I still find myself humming it, or singing parts of the (very catchy) refrain in the shower…

It has made me reflect once again on the importance of storytelling. Humanity has had an oral/aural tradition of telling and re-telling stories for millenia. It is where many of our common myths and legends were born. As corporate storytellers we often focus on the rational. The facts and figures. These are important indicators. People want to know whether we are we up, or down.

But do we invest enough time getting behind the emotional elements of the story? The bits that really resonate. The bits that are sticky, memorable, easy-to-repeat. The bits that have you singing in the shower?

P.S. – we are really looking forward to hosting the next LCEG event here at H+K on the 20th March…

More jobs and cheaper energy. In the lead up to this week’s Super Tuesday primaries, these have been constant refrains from the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. They have also been central messages from President Obama.  No doubt, they will continue to be among the key themes repeated between now and November 6.

Almost as if on cue, comes a new study by Deutsche Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. The report suggests that a renewed emphasis on energy efficiency retrofits across the country could save Americans $1 trillion over the next ten years and help create 3 million jobs, all while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 600 million metric tons, roughly 10% of current levels.

It is an exciting and compelling prospect. But aside from how well this narrative plays into election year campaign themes, it underscores the connection between sustainability and a company’s financial performance. And this is only the latest of several recent studies that show increasingly stronger connections between environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and business performance and success.

Take a look at the new study by researchers at Harvard Business School and London Business School  – The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance, the KPMG study – Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World, and the third annual Sustainability & Innovation Global Executive Study by MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group.

More evidence of this connection is found in Responsible Investment: Creating Value from Environmental, Social and Governance issues, a new study of the private equity sector by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The research found that 94 percent of respondents believe ESG activities can create value.

For years, my firm has provided counsel to companies around the world, big and small, on how to embrace corporate responsibility and sustainability, and how to communicate effectively about that commitment.  Increasingly, as more companies are seeing the connection between financial and non-financial performance, they recognize the need to integrate their communications and reporting – to tell the whole story.

To help provide this guidance, we’ve partnered with Harvard Business School Professor Robert G. Eccles, one of the world’s foremost experts on integrated reporting, and one of the authors of the aforementioned HBS study. Research by Professor Eccles finds that companies with a long, consistent track record of engaging in and disclosing efforts to operate with ESG policies in mind significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, both in terms of financial performance and rate of return for investors.

As the size, reach and influence of global corporations continues to grow, so too does the public’s demand for transparency and accountability.  According to new H+K Strategies research, more than two-thirds of Americans hold corporations directly accountable for their actions.  But the same holds true for the positive impact a company can have.  A new Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu Limited study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit finds that 76% of respondents believe that the value of a company should be measured not only by its profits, but by the positive contributions its core business makes to society.

For business – whatever the product, whatever the sector – it seems there’s never been a better time to tell the whole story.

On 3 March the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which sets the rules of football worldwide, approved two types of goal-line technology for further testing. The technology determines whether or not the ball has crossed the line into the goal, ending refereeing mistakes which occur several times a season. Trials will take place between now and June with possible implementation to be approved at the start of July, probably too late for the 2012/13 season.

As goals are what really matter in football and because the location of the ball is an objective measurement, it makes sense for this specific technology to be tested before any others. However, once the principle has been accepted, there is scope to do much more.

One of the companies being evaluated, Hawk-Eye, will be familiar to cricket and tennis fans. Only the most staunchly traditional would argue that Hawk-Eye’s introduction has not had a positive effect on the umpiring of those sports. In addition, the technology has opened up various new types of analysis which are interesting for spectators and useful for coaches. In both cricket and tennis Hawk-Eye has reduced the number of disputes between players and umpires. Players are quickly learning when it is worth using one of a limited number of appeals to review an umpire’s call and when to accept the original decision. While video reviews do cause a short delay, they add to the drama. Technology admittedly reduces the role of the on-field referee or umpire but almost everybody accepts that increased accuracy is more important.

In football many of the important refereeing decisions are subjective, such as the awarding of a penalty. There are often claimed to be differences in the interpretation between individual referees and between leagues in different countries. While this may be partially true, with some sensible statistical analysis and sufficient political will it would be possible to use technology to improve the consistency of decisions significantly.

Eventually, players and managers should learn that their repeated and tiresome attempts to influence almost every decision will not work and they should devote their energy to playing more effectively instead.

There are those who argue that goal-line technology is expensive, that it is unproven and that not everybody will be able to use it at first. I remember citing similar reasons for not buying a mobile phone some years ago. I soon changed my mind.

Since its inception in late 2008, the Hill+Knowlton Strategies Green Team has made a concerted effort to be responsible environmental citizens. From new silverware to new energy efficient light bulbs, we’ve placed a strong emphasis on recycling and energy conservation. This exercise culminated in an extremely successful e-waste campaign with our client, United Cerebral Palsy, where we collected nearly 1,000 lbs.

On Thursday, the General Services Administration made a very important declaration that all federal agencies are now banned from disposing used electronics in landfills or incinerators. Instead, a bulletin from the GSA offered agencies explicit instructions on where to send electronics for recycling. While some agencies have been doing this for years, the mandate is critical to ensure the rest follow suit. It’s a move that probably should have been made long ago, but I’m both pleased and proud to see action taking place.

Not all e-waste recycling is created equal. Recycling electronics in one place doesn’t always offer the environmental return you’re looking for. There are operations that offer e-waste recycling, only to dump and burn it later on down the line. But there ARE credible third party recycling organizations that take great care in both the materials, and their employees. Agencies, companies and consumers MUST do their due diligence in selecting the right company.

We all need to take a page out of the GSA’s book and look for ways to recycle our old phones, computers and TVs. In the weeks ahead, H+K plans to drive another e-waste recycling program with United Cerebral Palsy. We’ll be sharing information on how you can make a difference as well.

For now, congratulations to the GSA and the Federal Government. Great move. Let’s keep it rolling!

As USA Today reports, there were rumours about Houston’s drug abuse and other serious personal problems as early as the mid 1990s, although her success continued. In recent years the decline of her health and singing voice were apparent in her public appearances and an attempted comeback in 2009 resulted in disappointment for her fans.

Unfortunately, Whitney Houston joins a lengthy list of entertainers whose excesses have contributed to their own demise. Sportsmen too have suffered the same fate: George Best and Alex Higgins are two examples familiar to British sports fans.

While plenty of people who are not in the public eye also abuse drugs and alcohol or self-destruct in other ways, it does seem to be a more regular occurrence for those whose talent brings stardom and  great wealth at a young age.

The character of young stars is probably the biggest factor determining their level of risk but families and friends can of course play an important role in keeping them under control. However, young stars of sport and entertainment tend to spend a lot of time away from home with their management teams. Sports coaches or managers often become surrogate parents while agents advise on financial matters. Friends are likely to comprise people in the same sport or industry, who are under the same pressures.

The trouble is, the top priority for managers and agents may well be keeping themselves in a job rather than considering the long-term interests of the individual they are working for.

As the Huffington Post and others reported, Whitney Houston’s entourage took up “a fair portion” of the large hotel where she was staying. How many make-up artists and bodyguards does one person need?

The physical demands of sport with constant training and competition probably have a moderating effect on athletes during the competitive careers: plenty drink too much and some may abuse recreational drugs but there’s a limit to what you can get away with if you want to continue performing at the top level.

When it comes to behaviour, however, there is little to restrict star footballers. Club managers tend to earn less money than top players and may well stay for a shorter time at a club than many of their team. It is not in their interests to alienate big players, who are much more popular than them, by telling them that their conduct is unacceptable. Agents fear being fired more than the reputational damage to players in their care.

While real talent is a scarce resource which fans will pay for, those same fans are capable of recognising when bad behaviour is spiralling out of control. If public opinion turns, sponsors and promoters pull out and the money dries up.

The really scarce resource seems to be the supply of agents and managers with natural authority who can give good advice and inspire respect. Now that really would be worth paying for.

What really got me thinking in the article though was a story of the creation of the glass screen for the iPhone.  Steve Jobs wasn’t happy with the prototype’s plastic screen, and demanded a glass alternative that wouldn’t scratch. Famously uncompromising, his insistence demanded the flexibility and instant change of manufacturing capacity and capability that could only be accommodated in another jurisdiction (China) primarily because of working expectations (both written and unwritten) that are no longer legal, expected or accepted in many other countries.

The article quotes a current Apple executive, saying “we shouldn’t be criticized for using Chinese workers. The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need.” In this case, however, what Apple needed, was workers who could be roused from their dormitory beds in the middle of the night for a 12 hour shift (Apple does monitor and publish an audit report of their suppliers). Obviously, Apple is only one of many companies choosing more “flexible” and “capable” locations for their manufacturing needs.

What does it say about our society that expediency and efficiency – valuable and real requirements of business today – have a trump card over how we treat and cooperate with other societies? I know many brilliant people have tackled this question, with few palatable answers – and the cynical among us might learn towards the idea of corporate activity as inherently pathological.

I am caught – ultimately, our corporations, our institutions, our interactions are defined by someone –and how these “someones” charged with the responsibility of directing organizations choose to  interact and collaborate with the world are an example set for the people around them.  I fall more with John Locke if only that I cannot bear the idea of Thomas Hobbes’ society that puts so little faith in its members. The question remains, in our global economy, is it possible to be a healthy, ethical corporation? How do we realize a global social contract – or are we simply unable to think beyond our immediate world and consider the reality of others?