When I first encountered the Philadelphia-based organizational communication consultancy CRA through a series of job interviews at their suburban offices, one of their principals told me “We’re going to reshape the profession.” 

At the time, I was skeptical.  Indeed, the raging egotist in me thought I was going to somehow beat them to it.  But when CRA’s Jeff Grimshaw and Barry Mike appeared on today’s Hot Topics Webinar hosted by the Council of Communication Management (CCM) to discuss their “Accountability Matrix”, I knew within minutes that CRA had cracked something huge.

What CRA has done is identify five elements key to the success of any organizational initiative:  credibility, perceived reasonableness, positive consequences, negative consequences and leadership, and used the ensuing matrix to evaluate not only communications initiatives, but the other organizational priorities and activities that form the context into which communications are injected. 

The matrix itself is a brilliant tool in that it provides a quick and defensible way to defuse ambiguity in organizational situations, and that it allows a common vehicle for comparing the viability of communication interventions to the viability of alternative approaches (like process changes or adjustments of financial reward and recognition programs) to achieve organizational outcomes,  But what I particularly love about it is that the matrix blends well with other models and approaches, including my own.

My approach, as often stated on these pages, is based on the fact that organizational relationships are essentially voluntary, which makes organizations fundamentally democratic even if they are organized hierarchically. 

So in focusing on the impact of positive of negative consequences for individuals CRA can advise a particular strategy for adjusting those consequences.  What I would do, based on my approach, is recognize that for certain individuals, the overall net positive consequences for opposing a change may be greater than what the organization proposes as positive consequences of compliance, and that such individuals may spread resistance through the company.  The CRA model gives me the ability to identify consequences that can provide leverage; my approach gives me the foundation to contain and engage the resistance.

Amazingly, in a world where publishers and membership organizations charge considerable sums for webinars, today’s CCM webinar was offered to members for Free ($0, EUR 0, GBP 0) as part of CCM’s $300 membership dues.  I’ve damn well gotten my money’s worth already.