Cascading will never die. Here’s what you can do about it.

by Mike Klein:

One of the best posts I’ve seen on @LinkedIn so far this year was this piece from Ann Melinger. 

Ann is one of the truly smart people in the #internalcomms field, and one comment of hers – about how “traditional messaging cascade approaches will need rethinking”-  sparked an interesting exchange between myself and Dr. Leandro Herrero, arguably the world’s leading advocate for “viral change” – and for organizations to acknowledge, nurture and engage their informal organizations.

Dr. Herrero doesn’t like cascading much.  

He said: 

“Comms should be the Curators of the informal organization, understanding, nurturing and using peer-to-peer networks. Not Information Traffic Wardens. Maybe it’s time to abandon hope in the power of top-down cascade information/broadcasting. Why Comms people (who usually understand this very well) persist in ‘improving’ (‘faster horses’?) instead of rethinking completely, is beyond my understanding.”

I share Dr. Herrero’s dislike of cascading.  

I also still have burn marks from my last in-house role, where my boss remarked “we should call the function ‘internal communication and cascading’.”  

But in that otherwise ill-fated role, I also learned why cascading will never die.

Cascades are lousy ways to communicate information.  

Information gets lost from level to level.

As the remaining information trickles further and further down, the managers tasked with it often either edit it to fit their own agendas, or at least vary their tones to denote their enthusiasm – or lack thereof – for the remaining bits of the content.

But even though cascades are poor at delivering information, they are fantastic at reinforcing the continuing importance of hierarchy.  

Senior leaders love cascading because it reminds those below of where the top is.

Middle managers are fine with cascading because it reinforces their official connection with “above” – while giving them cover to selectively emphasize those points most compatible with their own KPIs.

And even organizations that have taken the time and energy to identify their internal influencers and who acknowledge the existence and value of their informal networks have not abandoned the use of hierarchical cascading.

So cascading is not something that’s going away.

But how can you make cascading less ineffective?

• If you’ve identified your internal influencers, don’t blindside them.  Give them the same information (to the maximum legal extent) that you are giving those who are doing the cascading
  
• Don’t make your managers the main conduit for feedback.  Doing so creates bottlenecks at best, and potentially allows managers to dilute or downplay what they are hearing if it conflicts with their own agendas.
  
• Do create supplemental opportunities for conversation to reinforce key messages and to ensure common understanding of the priorities being laid out and of the rationale for that prioritization. 
  
  These opportunities don’t have to be a massive town hall exercise – they can instead involve identified influencers or small mixed groups of employees at a select number of locations. The content of those conversations can then be amplified through other media and channels.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m with Dr. Herrero 100% on this.

But the top-down optics of cascading make it irresistible to organizations that want to reinforce hierarchical power. 

There are some ways to make it less counterproductive.  Use them.

+++

Mike Klein is Editor-in-Chief of Strategic and the founder of #WeLeadComms.  His consulting practice focuses on internal and social communication, with an emphasis on identifying, connecting and mobilizing supporters and influencers to drive change and alignment.  He is a Fellow of the Institute of Internal Communication and the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence, and holds an MBA from London Business School.

Written by: Editor