sgusers4的部落格

The public sector may gain from learning how private companies ensure they are constantly alert to the mood of the market.迷你倉將軍澳 By Basskaran NairTHERE is quite a difference in the style and substance of communication in the private and public sectors. Both can learn from each other, but the private sector may have more lessons to impart.In the private sector, it makes a difference in implementation and impact when the communication head reports directly to the chief executive. It is not as critical whether the department is centralised in structure (that is, public realtions (PR), corporate marketing, advertising and promotions are centralised) or decentralised (where respective communication and marketing heads report directly to the business unit CEOs, but the message management is centralised).Reporting directly to top management defines the communication strategy, execution and message management in terms of content, consistency and outcome. It also ensures that top management owns the messages, and shapes the brand and the reputation of the company.In the public sector, the government information structure went through roughly three phases: First, the transition from colonial government to independent Singapore covering the periods after World War II till the early 1970s. During this phase, government communication was managed with a political focus, centralised around political secretaries (now a defunct post) responsible for groundswell reactions.Politicians and public servants ensured acceptance even when the policies were difficult to grasp or went against the social grain (for example national service and "Stop at Two" policies). It was a strong "survival mode" messaging, and hence even senior civil servants made a point of knowing personally the groundswell towards their respective policies.The second phase was from the late 70s till the late 90s. During this phase, the country was surging confidently forward in economic terms. There was no compelling need for strong alternative views, and against the backdrop of "government knows best" given its proven track record, communication was relatively easy. A commercially focused mainstream media was generally supportive of the government messages. But in terms of communication structure, everybody and nobody was really the "owner" of the communication of policies.ComplacencyComplacency set in as both senior civil servants and politicians, in an echo chamber, congratulated themselves on Singapore's undoubtedly remarkable achievements as a first world nation.In the third phase, starting from the 21st Century till now, we saw technologies gradually re-defining the government-electorate relationship. Policies came under intense scrutiny, especially by netizens armed with technology that empowered and emboldened. The online groundswell developed viral value, reaching a large number people who in the past depended on mainstream media for their information.The policy planners, unfortunately still living in the second phase of easy communication and confident execution, had lost the capacity to understand the groundswell created and abetted by new social media. They lost the reflexes to communicate difficult and complex policies the way the founding leadership managed the "survival mode" communication. Policy formulation and execution seemed very "ivory-towerish".Consequently they were amazed at the intensity of hostile ground reactions to their respective policies, for example, the Population Paper.But now, there is change. Government seems to have a more focused communication structure. One notices better coordinated communication. Policy formulations have been related to public consultations. Policy announcements are better attuned to management of ground sentiment. Messages are more people-oriented with clear articulation of benefit statements, reinforcing that the government has the nation's interests as the paramount policy objective. Netizens have become less hostile in their comments for the time being.In the private sector, our psyche is to be constantly alert to the mood of the market. There is accountability and cost to be paid, as errors, mismanagement, poor execution and missed profit targets are seen by all and reported extensively. Top management may even lose their jobs for failures.There is a constant review of the channels of communication tha倉 deliver the messages to the right segments of the public. Our reflex is to communicate regularly, even more so if we are listed companies, which are required to do quarterly reporting.When communicating to the market and the investing community, especially during major transactions (akin to the public sector's announcement of major policies), a great deal of management time is invested in getting the messages right.We ask questions throughout the planning process on how our products or transactions will be perceived and received. It is not uncommon to have 25 to 50 questions on the transaction and then we go through the answers one by one with top management, who ultimately are responsible for the messages. We in fact view messages as products that represent the company's reputation.All these lead to the third observation: Sharpen reflexes to communicate.In June 2013, after US Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's announcement signalling monetary easing, the Federal Reserve had to employ a full court press to end the rout of the bond market. Officials complained about the "feral hogs" of Wall Street trading desks who, it seemed, were taken aback by his announcement. According to the Financial Times, "their over-reaction was driven by poorly understood feedback loops in fixed income markets and by changes to the structure of the market". We are talking of US$6.4 trillion US government-backed mortgage securities!One trader commented: "It is not that the markets misunderstood Ben Bernanke; it is that Ben Bernanke misunderstood the markets." This is a pertinent and incisive comment. Reactions to the series of national public policy announcements in 2012 and early 2013 would also seem to suggest this: "It is not that the people misunderstood the policies. It is the government that has misunderstood its people."Government, "ivory-towerish", complacent and comfortable with mainstream media, had developed the reflexes that they should not spend a lot more time engaged with the public, in particular online "feral hogs" making comments with excessive crudeness and rudeness. The environment has changed. Online "feral hogs" are increasingly the omnicompetent citizens who research, write reviews, and spread information widely and virally through informal networks that undercut the monopoly of traditional media channels.Sharpening reflexesHere are some suggestions to sharpen reflexes:Government needs to have a better grasp of novel processes of communication. Three suggestions: First, the highest level government policy planners, not just politicians, should hear and know the ground. This is not intended to change policy but to have their reflexes honed to knowing and understanding ground reactions.In addition, to hone this reflex, as done in the private sector and among Singapore's pioneer leadership, develop a team of "experts" (previously political secretaries) whose focus is to list all the possible objections and questions that surround a policy, even as the policy is being formulated. This is particularly salient when we are dealing with omnicompetent citizens who can create online communities and online channels of communication beyond mainstream media.Second, develop "champion administrators" for policy issues that are long dated to ensure consistency and planned completion of the policy project based on public interest. A "champion" would have a watching brief on the policy and manage the groundswell of affected parties throughout the period. Again it is not to derail or pander to public opinion but to take note of these reactions and work around them.Finally, develop the reflexes to counter, not control. In the private sector we do not have the capacity to control news flow. We anticipate and think hard on how to "manufacture" news and manage consent. We are sensitive to criticism and, in the case of listed companies, to negative reactions from investors. We are in a "voting" mindset throughout the year, for example, during quarterly reporting or the announcement of major transactions. That is the core thought process in the private sector. It is something from which the public sector can learn.The writer teaches Marketing Public Policies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He previously headed the Singapore government's press division and subsequently the communication departments at DBS Bank and CapitaLand.24小時迷你倉