Sections Syndication |
Home : The Manager Guide : Improving Internal Attitudes toward CI
Improving Internal Attitudes toward CIImproving Internal Attitudes toward CIMerely because management has approved the creation of a CI unit does not mean that the unit or, more properly, the concept of CI will automatically be accepted throughout the enterprise. Anecdotal information unfortunately indicates that today, CI practitioners are more likely to be labeled as "spies" or "spooks" or as being engaged in some form of "espionage" than in the recent past. In fact, it seems that the CI profession has lost some of the ground gained in this area in the past decade. A Positive Approach. What is important is to learn how to promote CI positively. The word positively is important because the most frequent comment that CI professionals make in response to a remark such as, "Oh that means being a corporate spy, doesn't it?" is to rapidly reply, "CI is not spying!" While that is a response, and technically a correct one, it should never be enough. Negatives never work on their own. Recall statements like "Well, I'm not a crook" [2] or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." [3] You remember them because you often associate denials, not with innocence, but rather with attempts to conceal the truth. People tend to believe assertions that are more positive. That means that if someone says, "This is what I did" and then says, "and I did not do that," listeners tend to give the statement more credibility than for a mere denial. For CI, it means that, when you handle questions and comments about CI, above all, you should say what it is, at least first, before you say what it is not. That means you must learn to say what CI is simply. Exactly what is it? As we noted (on page 40), your mission statement could start with a definition of CI. While the definition at the bottom page 40 is not a short, easily remembered statement, it does contain all the key elements you must communicate. That is, it tells others that CI is public, not clandestine; legal, not criminal; and ethical, not questionable. So you can also use it to describe CI to those who do not understand it. Comparisons. In talking about CI, you may—in fact, almost certainly will—be reminded of stories about corporate spies and theft of trade secrets and then asked, "Well isn't that CI?" Your short answer should be: "No. CI is legal and ethical. What you described was not." If you can, try to push back, gently, with a longer response, such as this:
If you are going to use a comparison like this, try and pick an example with some sensitivity to the critic so you do not provoke a negative response. By doing that, not only are you reinforcing the notion that these "spooks" are a minority, you are also reminding the critic that such (literally) outlaw actions unfairly tar the majority of CI professionals. When you talk about those outlaws (and that is what some call themselves) you should continually use predicate terms like outlaw, extra-legal, and renegade minority. Language is powerful. Use these terms to continually remind the listener of the difference between what you are doing and what they have done. Humor. CI professionals hurt their own case when they joke about being "spies" or "spooks," even among coworkers. That means no more jokes, even within the CI unit, about corporate spies or handing out "junior spy kits" at staff meetings. Do not let cuteness come back to haunt you. For example, don't call your internal "flash" intelligence service the "Competitive Intelligence Alert" (with CIA in bold letters). Finally, you must omit the almost mandatory cartoon figure with the spyglass from your presentations. Terminology. This is an area where you must also exercise a great deal of care. You must avoid leaving even the slightest trace that someone can point to (or rely on) that says you think of what you and your staff as "spies" or of CI as some form of "espionage." In particular, try to think about the terms you use in discussing what you are doing and work to avoid direct and indirect allusions that damage CI's luster. The most common ways these occur is when you use military or political terms in the context of CI. Examples of this include the following:
In general, it is best to drop the use of military or warfare analogies entirely and use other analogies. While the use of such analogies can be superficially attractive, they not only carry unnecessary baggage for CI, they are also intellectually flawed. The goal of being competitive is much closer to winning (using a sports analogy) or growing and surviving (an analogy from nature) than it is to "killing people and breaking things" (the underlying purpose of military operations). [4] Finally, you should eliminate (or at least minimize greatly) use of case studies and stories taken from military or political espionage when advocating the effectiveness of CI. While this may seem to be excessive, it is not. After almost twenty years treating CI as a professional discipline, there are more than enough case studies and examples to call upon without using those from the military or politics. [2]Former President Richard M. Nixon, http://steadfast.tripod.com/nixon.html (May 19, 2003). [3]Former President William J. Clinton, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/26/clinton.main (audio accessed June 26, 2003). [4]"War is about killing people and breaking things." Variously attributed to World War II General George S. Patton and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. 211
times read
|
|||
|
Did you enjoy this article?
(total 0 votes)
|
||
Comments (0 posted) Please Comment On This Article
