Newsletter: CI: improving corporate culture one employee at a time.



	Thursday, August 7, 2008	ISSUE 33

HOME

CI: improving corporate culture one employee at a time.

Ryan Dunn, Idaho State University

A synergistic effect is created when individuals are molded into a smooth functioning whole with a common goal. A company can create synergy and enjoy various collateral benefits when it involves employees at all levels in the competitive intelligence (CI) process.

Aside from the expected informational and intelligence benefits CI offers companies for making strategic decisions, a wide variety of unforeseen benefits arise as CI is successfully woven into the fabric of the company. The organizational and communication changes required by the implementation of an enterprise-wide CI program have a plethora of possibly unexpected positive benefits which combine to create a dramatic synergistic effect on the overall corporate culture.

Eventually, this greater sense of involvement positively affects employees’ attitudes, alertness, satisfaction, interest, competitiveness, loyalty, and sense of community. The adoption of an enterprise-wide CI program can instill an increased feeling of employee empowerment which in turn creates positive change in corporate culture and effect a sustainable competitive advantage.

Implementing organizational change

An organizational change with a clear payoff for those it affects becomes more like a challenge than an inconvenience. According to some researchers, being included in the information dissemination process may be the payoff necessary to garner acceptance and participation from employees (Garvin, 1993; Leonard-Barton, 1995). Those who contribute to the process would naturally be curious to hear the outcome, and receiving feedback fuels the communication cycle.

The best approach for implementing change is to apply it to a primary business unit first. This will create awareness for the rest of the company and credibility for the change program (Kilmann, 1995). Next, employees new to CI need to be educated about the process and ultimately the value of information they hold. For example, an employee on the assembly line may be aware of differences between the current assembly process and the method used by a previous employer or friends’ employer. That individuals’ attitude toward the company is likely to improve when he or she discovers their knowledge of a competitors’ assembly process is a valuable asset and the company would like to learn more about what he or she knows.

Barriers to information flow

Various barriers can break down the flow of internal information. A firm’s communication structure, organizational hierarchy, formal rules and regulations can act as a barrier (Kilmann, 1990). Employees are frustrated when they do not know where to take the competitive information they have. If employees contribute blindly to an existing process and get nothing in return, this incomplete communication cycle may dissuade their continuing participation.

Initially, employees may be less apt to verbally volunteer information in front of co-workers and managers if they are uncertain if their information is really worth anything. By offering more discreet methods of contribution, employees will more likely participate. As the company and the new CI program become more trusted, such contributions will come more freely. Disseminating intelligence back to the workforce allows employees to see their contributions in action.

Acceptance of the benefits of CI and the willingness to participate can establish positive and productive changes in employee beliefs and behaviors. “As individuals process new information, they begin to modify their beliefs and encode them into their own mental models for guiding behavior” (Pole, Madsen & Dishman, 2000). This new mental model begins to shift the corporation towards adopting a CI culture. Employees become information agents. Their involvement is no longer isolated and finite; they are now a bigger piece of the puzzle, with a clearer view of the picture. As the CI program develops, employees learn more about their company and the industry as a whole.

Protecting proprietary information

During the CI program’s implementation, a vulnerability analysis can determine how much information about itself the company inadvertently gives away: the marketing department at a trade show, the HR department writing a help wanted ad, or an open-book web site. “Protecting proprietary information as it is processed, stored and communicated requires a comprehensive approach that reduces all risks of loss” (Fine, 2002). Employee education on what information should be protected is a critical aspect of an effective information loss prevention plan.

As the CI training continues, employees will gain a greater understanding of just how valuable their knowledge is and how many people may be out to get it. Disciplined information sharing behavior will have a dramatic impact on the protection of intellectual property. A greater awareness will heighten employee sensitivities to the information-collection tactics of their competitors (Kahaner 1996; Fine 2002). Awareness may also help an employee distinguish between someone with a conversational interest in their work and someone fishing for particular bits of information. It is entirely possible that certain employees may eventually receive counterintelligence training, in a further effort to avoid potential information leaks.

An awareness of CI processes also makes employees more attuned to the information around them. They will be less likely to share inappropriate information. And, they become more likely to pay attention to industry matters, mentally record any pertinent information and pass it along to the CI team. A delivery driver may notice a competitor’s service vehicle parked at a prospect’s facility quite often. The alert driver then passes that information along to the CI department. This involvement creates a team atmosphere, and a feeling of pride in corporate victories.

Knowledge sharing and hoarding.

A successful CI program must shift from knowledge hoarding to knowledge sharing (Fraser, Marcella, & Middleton, 2000). Opening the channels of communication promotes improved employee attitude and involvement. A study of over 5,500 individuals in 29 firms found that the most financially successful firms rated highest had a management who listened and valued input (Maister, 2001). Improved communication and the flow of information can help to eliminate the departmental silo effect and internal competition while heightening the focus on external competition. (Pole, Madsen, & Dishman, 2000).

Overcoming compartmentalization is indeed another indirect benefit of employing corporate wide CI. The open flow of information can lead to reflective communication and speedier product development. Employees in all departments become aligned and attuned to the major tasks at hand and focus on a total solution rather than a departmental one. This single unified force stands a much greater chance of achieving goals through synergistic CI corporate culture than would a stratified group of independent departments.

The CI process innately has all the unique characteristics of an employee empowerment program. As employees at all levels learn more about their company and their industry, they become more intrinsically involved. When employees realize they are trusted with valuable information, they gain a sense of trust for and loyalty towards their employer. When members from at all levels of the corporate hierarchy contribute to achieve a common goal, and are notified of the accomplishment, a sense of teamwork and pride are inevitable.

Likewise when various departments overcome an obstacle through interdepartmental communication, a sense of community and connectedness develops. A properly deployed enterprise wide CI program will dynamically increase trust, pride, loyalty, enthusiasm and a sense of community for the employees who embrace it. These qualities, when maintained, can establish a sustainable competitive advantage in terms of employee satisfaction, retention and loyalty.

About the author

Ryan Dunn is a Organizational Communication Graduate Assistant at Idaho State University. Before returning for a Master’s degree, he spent 5 years selling high-end computer equipment and mass data storage hardware. His interest in CI began before he was aware CI existed; when gathering, maintaining and sharing information on the competition increased sales and morale alike. His interest is in Marketing Communication and specifically, CI. He may be contacted at Idaho State University, PO Box 8115,Pocatello, ID 83209; dunnchar@isu.edu.

References
Fine, N. A World-Class Confidential Information and Intellectual Property Protection Strategy.Retrieved November 17,2002 from http://www.protecdata.com/articles/competitive.html
Fraser. V., Marcella. R., & Middleton I. (2000). Employee perceptions of knowledge sharing: Employment threat or synergy for the greater good. Competitive Intelligence Review. Vol. 11(2) 39-52.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 78-91.
Kahaner, L. (1996). Competitive Intelligence: how to gather, analyze, and use information to move your business to the top. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Kilmann, R. (1990). A completely integrated program for creating and maintaining organizational success. Organizational Dynamics. Fall, 5-19.
Kilmann, R. (1995). A Holistic Program and Critical Success Factors of Corporate Transformation. European Management Journal, Volume 13, Number 2 (1995), 175-186.
Leonard-Barton D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
Maister, D. (2001) Employee attitudes affect a company’s financial success. Employment Relations Today. Autumn 17-21.
xPole. J, Madsen, E. & Dishman, P. (2000). Competitive intelligence as a construct for organization change. Competitive Intelligence Review. Vol. 11 (4) 25-31.

scip.online, issue 33, June 10, 2003
[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]

There are no letters available.

[POST]