Communication, both ways, bridges the ethics gap

by ELLEN BARISH

I can’t help you if you don’t tell me what it is you want. I’m not a mind reader.” The phrase was one of my mother’s most used, with “Put that down before you break it,” coming in a close second. I hadn’t thought of that phrase for years until I recently sat in a meeting with a unique group and discussed a not-so-unique problem.

I was invited to a weekly meeting of the Ethics Task Team, which includes volunteers from across Y-12 and from all pay categories. The team’s purpose is to provide the president of Energy Systems with recommendations to improve the ethics environment. Our discussion soon revealed that the team had peeled back the surface layers of the ethics problem and revealed the core obstacles. Turns out, they don’t deal with just ethics, but that’s a good place to start.

Every Energy Systems employee received a copy of the corporate ethics survey last year and was asked to fill it out candidly. The results were similar to the 1995 survey results in that they exemplified employees’ mistrust of management and perceived lack of communication. I remember writing an article expressing then-President Fee’s concern about these problems and his desire to overcome them.

Energy Systems’ current president, Bob Van Hook, has expressed similar concern about the survey results and has taken steps to continue alleviating the problems.

“We have a mission to become a premier defense programs site while cultivating advanced technology work that complements our core purpose,” he said. “Only by having informed employees who have developed trust in each other can this mission be achieved.”

He asked Butch Clements of Non-Nuclear Operations to take a cross section of the company’s population and find out specifics about the mistrust and noncommunications perceptions.

“I wanted to get people together from every aspect of this company’s operations—engineers, chemical operators, accountants, guards, secretaries—and find out how they saw Y-12 as a company. The responses were frank, and many had suggestions about how to improve situations,” said Clements.

The comments collected from the six groups of exempt, non-exempt and hourly employees filled more than a couple of pages and spelled out clearly what kind of environment employees want at work. Basically, they said they wanted to be informed about what’s going on in the company: where the company is headed, what our mission is and how their job fits into the big picture. They also said they want their voices to be heard back up the line of management.

All of this began to sound familiar to me. I know comments similar to these have been gathered in previous surveys and focus groups held by the Employee Communications group in Public Affairs, but I knew I’d heard this long before then. So, I went home and pulled out some of my college public relations textbooks, and there it was.

“Communication with employees has special significance because employees are the key to an organization’s performance. Among employees, good communication and performance are highly correlated. Trust develops a climate of openness in which there is effective two-way communication and, in turn, better performance.”

Sounds good. Seems reasonable and logical. But, when some 6,000 employees all come together, trying to communicate effectively can sometimes resemble the running of the bulls in Pamplona. Everyone is moving so fast to keep ahead of the horn tips and rough hooves of milestones, deadlines and all the other“must do” items that it seems no one can stop to discuss what it is they’re doing. As the Energy Systems editor of Ridgelines, I often feel that if employees tell me they read at least one article per issue, then I’ve performed something this side of a miracle.

The ethics task team took the information they received from the focus groups, compiled a strategy for better communications (which we know from my textbook to directly relate to increased trust) and presented it to Van Hook. Many of the strategy’s solutions involve developing what team members term a culture change within the company.

“Managers and supervisors should be trained to be leaders,” said Clements. “And those leaders should empower their work force by keeping them informed, listening to feedback and building relationships to develop a team spirit.

“When the team presented these ideas to Van Hook, he was very receptive to them. I think just the fact that the president of the company would commission a team like this is a positive sign.”

Senior management wants it, hourlies, weeklies and monthlies want it and myself and the rest of the Public Affairs crew strive for it constantly—a good system of internal communication that flows in both directions. So, it looks as if you have something to say, your chance is here. Like my great and wise mother said, no one is a mind reader.

If you have suggestions, comments or questions about the Ethics Task Team, you can contact Clements (241-1461, wiy), or team members Terry Carpenter (574-2484, tv7), Mitch Evans (576-3280, evz), Everett Rausin (574-9963, rau), Dan Reichert (241-1774, d87) or Beverly Shontz (576-2527, bjy).

If you have suggestions, comments or questions about Y-12’s Employee Communications group of Public Affairs, contact me, Ellen Barish (574-1643, eb8).