By Bill Jensen

How To Do Less

Scan the communication for two bits of information:

• Action you must take
• Date or deadline for that action, within the next two to three weeks (e.g., Your benefits enrollment forms must be returned by November 30.
• Or: You're invited to attend a company-wide meeting on April 1 to learn about the new strategy.)

If the communication does not contain an action and a short-term date, ignore it Hit Delete. Don't go to the meeting. Run away, as if your life depended on it.

This applies no matter who sends you this communication, and no matter where they are on the totem pole. If hitting Delete makes you feel guilty or worried that you're missing something, don't worry, the sender will most likely waste your time once again.

• There is a 69% chance you'll get this exact communication a second time.
• There is a 48% chance you'll get it a third time.
• There is a 36% chance you'll have to show up at a meeting, event, or training to review it anyway.

So why not just wait until then?

What's Behind Doing Less

Early in our ongoing study, The Search for a Simpler Way, the Jensen Group found that most work complexity actually originates from within our companies. More than a decade later, certain findings, truths, and predictable behaviors keep popping up. How We Communicate was originally among the top three sources of work complexity. It still is. And it's getting worse.

While it's important to recognize how things have improved -- not long ago, companies were slammed for not communicating enough -- mostly what has changed is quantity, not utility. Companies are communicating a lot more, but little of it truly helps employees make informed decisions.

We are now seeing a widening chasm between communication-savvy companies (...with greatly improved ability to capture attention, and stay "on message"...) and communication-savvy employees (...with greatly improved BS-radar, and the ability to filter out anything that's not immediately relevant and important to them).

There is both good and bad news within this communication chasm.

On the dark side: At the very time when we need to be learning more from the people who do the work, most firms are focused on perfecting how to talk at them.

It is disheartening to see how few companies work backwards from the needs of their employees. For example: It took one multi-national bank almost ten years to redesign their hour-long Meetings-In-A-Box for branch managers who -- according to the bank's own performance management system -- had less than ten minutes available to communicate what was in the box. Result: Thousands of managers struggled, blamed themselves, worked harder, grew more tense and pressured, or simply learned to ignore 83% of what they were sent -- (the other 50 minutes' worth).

This is representative of what I'm finding most everywhere. Almost none of the utility and usefulness of corporate communication is driven by employee needs. It's almost entirely based upon senior executive's views of what's needed. (See Devilish Details.)

There is a silver lining, though! During 2002-2003, we asked over 400 people questions like:

• "Which communication do you regularly ignore?"
• "Why?"
• "What do you gain by ignoring that communication?"
• "What's in it for you?"

Employees who use a proactive strategy to reduce what they pay attention to* report an increased ability to work on what matters with no significant decrease in loyalty or understanding of company priorities. Once they understood their company's or department's priorities -- (many described that understanding as just "the gist of the overall direction") -- they felt comfortable ignoring a lot of company emails, notices, broadcasts -- even skipping mandatory all-hands meetings. They made their decisions by selectively scanning for information that was:

1. Specifically designed to help them get their work done
2. Organized so they can make a fully-informed, and independent decision

Employees who let their manager decide what is important, what isn't, and guide them in what to pay attention to -- such as interpreting what the latest edict from Corporate means to their specific department -- report greater confusion and frustration in keeping up with change.

If you rely mainly on your manager and your company to filter noise for you, and direct you to what's important, you will pay attention to more, not less.

Bottom line: It pays to ignore more.

1992-1997
Only 9% of senior managers defined communication as "organizing and delivering useful information that people need to do their work."¹ Exec quote: "That's management, not communication!"

Only 6% believed strategic communication included "the design of information people could use to make decisions," while 89% defined it as "delivering our strategic plan."

Employee quote: "Enough with the 'why we're changing' crap.
I want solid info I can use to make real decisions. Not just 'context setting.'"

2002-2003
9% (above) had only improved to 14% ²
The stand-out firms can be found on most any Best Place to Work list.
But they are the exceptions, not the rule.

Interviewed/surveyed:
1. 426
2. 186