Rethinking Business Communications Blog

In  this insightful post, I established a correlation between a good communications strategy and (in broad terms), organisational effectiveness. The link, albeit advantageous, was crucial for two reasons. Firstly, there was empirical proof in organisational behavioural science to support the premise that various elements of communications could impact the attitudes and behaviours of employees. Secondly, I determined that a communications strategy also had practical implications for sustaining a healthy corporate image.

A definition for a communications strategy was also coined. I decided that a communications strategy could loosely be defined as a standardised system of information flow disseminated to relevant stakeholders.

In order for a good communications strategy to be effective and relevant in ‘Corporateville’ and beyond, it is necessary that it comprises six components:

1) The “What”.

2) The “Why”.

3) The “Who”.

4) The “How”.

5) The “When/How long”.

6) The “Crisis-Mode Plan”.

I shall examine each component in detail to ascertain its importance in the overall communications strategy. Let’s begin our analysis with the “What”.

1) The “What”

This refers to the “desired good” and may often be used interchangeably with ‘project’ or ‘initiative’. It is usually the key plan an organisation seeks to highlight throughout the year and may vary each year depending on the organisation’s priorities. (Please note that ‘organisation’ covers any organised entity i.e. companies, institutions, associations, NGOs, etc.).

As easy as it may seem to decide on the “desired good” on which to focus for a stated period, some organisations struggle with the following:

A) Choosing the “desired good” to benefit the organisation.

B) Choosing the “desired good” to benefit  external stakeholders.

Before discussing the options mentioned above, let us take an overview of the telecommunications sector in a country with huge potential – Nigeria.

An overview of the telecommunications sector

Since the return to democracy in recent times, (after decades of military rule),  beginning with the Olusegun Obasanjo administration, (May 29, 1999 – May 29, 2007), the telecommunications sector in Nigeria has  witnessed a rapid development. The deregulation of the mobile phone market led to the introduction of network providers for the Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications. NIgeria’s  telecommunications regulator, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), introduced the Unified Licencing Regime in 2001, at the heels of the expiration of the exclusivity period of the main GSM network providers. This paved the way for the provision of fixed and mobile telephony capabilities, Internet access, as well as many other communications services.

However, it was the ‘explosion’ of new technology in 2003 which ushered in the following ‘firsts’, that revolutionised the industry, bringing along the following:

• Per second billing

• Roll out of 2.5 G network in Nigeria

• 3G capabilities

• GPRS Internet access

• MMS

• Blackberry solutions

• International prepaid roaming services

• Voice SMS

• Mobile banking services

Furthermore, the country’s teeming population, (estimated at 158.3 million in 2010 by the Trading Economies website), translates to a huge subscriber base. Mobile penetration in Nigeria has also seen a fast growth. In fact, in April 2011, the number of mobile phone users crossed the 90 millionth mark*. Below is a table listing the top 20 rankings for mobile phone usage, as provided by the Wikipedia website, showing Nigeria in tenth position. (For the complete list, please view the Wikipedia website). The country’s industry statistics and subscriber data, which were supplied by the NCC on April 18, 2011, were based on a (rather conservative) population estimate of 140 million.

List of countries by mobile phones in use

Rank	Country or Region	Number of mobile phones	Population	% of population	Last updated date
	World	Over 5.6 billion	7,012,000,000	79.86	2011
1	China	1,020,000,000	1,341,000,000	75.32	March 2012
2	India	919,170,000	1,210,193,422	76.00	March 2012
3	United States	327,577,529	310,866,000	103.9	June  2011
4	Brazil	250,800,000	192,379,287	130.36	April 2012
5	Indonesia	250,100,000	237,556,363	105.28	May 2009
6	Russia	224,260,000	142,905,200	154.5	July 2011
7	Japan	121,246,700	127,628,095	95.1	June 2011
8	Pakistan	114,610,000	178,854,781	66.5	January  2012
9	Germany	107,000,000	81,882,342	130.1	2009
10	Nigeria	90,583,306	140,000,000	64.7	February 2011
11	Mexico	88,797,186	112,322,757	79.8	September 2010
12	Italy	88,580,000	60,090,400	147.4	Dec. 2008
13	Bangladesh	86,550,000	148,090,000	58.5	April  2012
14	Philippines	86,000,000	94,013,200	91.5	October  2011
15	United Kingdom	75,750,000	61,612,300	122.9	December 2008
16	Vietnam	72,300,000	90,549,390	79	October  2010
17	Egypt	71,460,000	78,300,000	91.3	February 2011
18	Turkey	66,000,000	71,517,100	92.2	2009
19	France	58,730,000	65,073,842	90.2	Dec. 2008
20	Thailand	69,000,000	65,001,021	105	2010

Improved technology in the industry also paved the way for greater opportunities vis-à-vis collaborations in the private sector. An example of  this could be a partnership between a Nigerian mobile operator and a foreign firm.

Choosing the “desired good” to benefit the organisation

Against this backdrop of an empowered sector, let us assume  that  an organisation, Firm T, a multinational mobile operator in the telecommunications sector in Nigeria, is in a joint partnership with a foreign firm based in the United Kingdom, with the latter owning a 60% equity stake. Firm T’s local branch is situated in Lagos and its headquarters, London.

It becomes difficult to ‘zero in’ on the initiative which would benefit the organisation if both partners have different priorities. Moreover, if Firm T’s organisational structure is complex or if it has multiple decision makers, getting a consensus could become problematic. The issue is exacerbated if organisational cultures of both partners are grossly different.

For example, the Nigerian partner, constantly aware of changing patterns in the sector and aware of competitors’ projects, may suggest that the company, in order to optimise service, should focus on greater monitoring of different parameters impacting ‘dropped calls’. Its technical team lists potential causes as:

• Lack of radio coverage (either in the downlink or the uplink sections)

• Radio interference between different subscribers

• Imperfections in the functioning of the network, (such as failed handover or cell-reselection attempts)

• Overload of the different elements of the network such as cells etc.**

Measures proposed to combat the problem  include:  improving radio coverage, expanding the capacity of the network and optimising the performance of its elements**. Although the Nigerian partner acknowledges that these solutions may require considerable effort and significant investments, it is believed that focussing on significantly reducing the rate of ‘dropped calls’ to an almost-negligible state would position Firm T as an industry pioneer in that aspect.

The foreign partner however, may differ in its views and may prefer, as the “desired good” to adopt,  the re-training and certification of technical staff in Nigeria, in alignment with its regional strategy of the uniformity of technical expertise.

Without an effective ‘buy-in’ from its Nigerian partner, problems would ensue. Despite the fact that the foreign partner might be able to use its majority stake to ensure that its “desired good”, (the re-skilling of technical staff in Nigeria), is adopted, there may be disinterest and a lack of commitment from the local crew, which could hamper the success of the initiative. At the very least, this development may result in negative attitudinal tendencies in the Nigerian managers who may feel that their viewpoints are neither respected nor given sufficient consideration. Should the Nigerian partner believe that it is habitually being overruled in decisions impacting its local operations, in the long term the relationship between the two parties could erode to such an extent that dissolution of the partnership could become a reality.

Choosing the “desired good” to benefit external stakeholders

It is interesting to note that it may actually be easier for both partners in Firm T to decide on the “desired good” to adopt which would benefit external stakeholders. This is because this decision is closely linked to its corporate social responsibility which generally is championed by local partners.

It makes more sense for the Nigerian partner to identify the deserving initiative and to drive it towards completion. This would be due to its local knowledge, its branding expertise and experience in reputation management. The Nigerian partner’s pulse on expectations, (implied or stated), of external stakeholders such as subscribers, the community, media, governmental parastatals etc. would be helpful in persuading its foreign partners about the benefits, for example, of offering full university scholarships to students passionate about science and technology.

The foreign partner, without much ado, obtains approval from  its Board after convincing it that the “desired good” would be instrumental in boosting Firm T’s external reputation.  

Conclusion

It becomes evident that the “desired good” is the foundation of a good communications strategy. Without the “What” component, the communications strategy lacks depth.

One should note that the “What” does not necessarily need to be a project. It could be a message, an idea or a new way of doing things. Examples might be:

• Requesting for feedback about internal mentorships

• Seeking new ideas for improving morale in the organisation in the wake of  operational losses

• Encouraging an ‘open door’ policy in specific departments

The organisation needs to be certain of the “desired good” to convey before seeking to achieve it. Once it has been identified and unanimously chosen, the “Why” becomes the next logical step on which to proceed.

————————–

* Nigeria Communications Commission

**Based on suggestions/recommendations from engineers working in mobile operators in Nigeria

N.B – Image courtesy of  freedigitalphotos.net