World War II, the cornerstone of the creation of the European Union. To prevent another war on European soil, the Dutch, Germans, Brits, Belgians, Luxembourgers, French and Italians decided to join forces and formed an economic and political union since 1945. Today, the Dutch WO II Memorial Committee is of the opinion that the German ambassador, who would like to attend Memorial Day this year, is not welcome on May 4th. Somehow, I feel strongly that logic is not present here.

The expert discussion on the Dutch news channel NRC, triggered 61 responses. I did not read them all yet, but when I came to response 35, only one person had agreed with the committee not allow the German ambassador present at Memorial Day. All others were strongly in favor of the German ambassador to be present. One of the best responses comes from Eddy oude Voshaar, who lives in a small village at the border with Germany (I know it well as I grew up in the village Denekamp, very close to his). His response:

‘Bij ons in Losser tijdens 4 en 5 mei worden gezamenlijk met onze Duitse buren deze herdenking gehouden.
De meeste Duitsers wisten niets af van de slachtingen die zich hebben afgespeeld in de concentratiekampen
natuurlijk is dit een van de grootste misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. We zijn nu 65 jaar later, we mogen het nooit vergeten maar om de Duitse ambassadeur te weigeren getuigt van burgerlijke kortzichtigheid. Ook de Nederlanders hebben grote slachtingen verricht in Indonesië. Israel heeft alle Palastijnen ingekapseld ze zijn gevangen in hun eigen land! Gevoelig? Nee zum kotsen.’

says, first, that many Dutch in the border villages are used to remember WOII on Memorial Day together with their German neighbours already. It is indeed unbelievable how (political) committees or platforms can be so blind to what is actually happening around them. It is always important to regularly review reasons for existing in a continuous changing society. Today’s society and its needs are not the same as those when the Memorial Committee was erected.

Secondly, he points out that a Dutch superior and haughty behavior cannot be justified because of its nasty history with Indonesia. In fact, no country or person can justify a superior behavior as it always lacks the principal building block of a peaceful society: respect for one another.

Just another sad example where EU citizens are navel gazing and not listening to each other. I think for the Dutch WO II Memorial Committee it is time to enter into dialogue with people outside their committee. I bet the majority of Dutch are happy for the German ambassador to join on May 4th. Exactly how the founders of the EU had it in mind.

Since 1445…, that is what the Hoegaarden advertisement said to me from the side of the busshelter, when I walked to the supermarket in the green residential outskirts of Brussels. Hoegaarden is a well known Belgian beer, though I was surprised to read that it exists since 1445. That is a much older brand than I thought. Imagine how many stories this company can tell. It must have hunderds, no thousants of corporate stories. Funny ones, sad ones, ones about making profit, losing money, employees marrying eachother, two wars, ecomic crisises, and quite a few ones about its CEOs!

So, which stories do I know about Hoegaarden? I know my own one ofcourse. I never forget the ultimate feeling of happiness when I was sitting after work at a Belgian terras, during my first traineeship, sipping a cold pint of Hoegaarden. It was during one of Belgium’s best Summers and I was dating my husband. I even remember what I wore. Do I know anybody elses Hoegaarden-stories? No. What do I know about the beer realy? Not very much, actually. I only know that the beer is Belgian and that it is produced in a small Belgian village in Vlaanders. I certainly did not know that it exists since 1445. Who the maker is and how it came to these flavours and colours? I do not know.

A missed opportunity from Hoegaarden in terms of communication and engagement towards its clients, I would think. Stories add so much to the flavour of the drink. See for example the You Tube video of the Story of Johnnie Walker.

So, what about the EU. It existence straces back to 1957 (or 0arguably to 1951), but where are the people- stories? Can anyone recall the story of the first encounter betwee these famous politicians starting the making of the EU? Can anyone bring back the atmosphere from then in todays communication activities? The spirit? The flavour? Take the Europa web page ‘Celebrating Europe!’, where are the pictures and stories of its founding fathers? And where are the pictures of the people who are cementing the new visions and future? Since 1945….. I think the EU has more to tell than it does today!

The economic crisis forces businesses to think harder and listen better to consumers and clients to stop their sales falling. Companies have to get all employees to imagine, create and innovate their products and services. Outsourcing to expensive consultancies is no longer an answer when budgets are cut. Funnily enough, this may have an unexpected positive side when it shows that using more inhouse knowledge and creativity gives better results, because of natural employee commitment to an organisation and their close contact with clients. To achieve this organizational change, it requires the introduction of Democratic Innovation: The right for everyone to innovate. Not just for special groups or units only.

But does this situation only apply to businesses? What about public bodies? What about the EU institutions? Would they too not benefit from fostering creativity and innovative ideas among their own employees?

Last month, I attended the seminar “Imagine. Create. Innovate. What can I do? What can you do? What can we do?”, a cooperation between one of the European Parliament parties and the European Commission (DG EAC), with among others two very inspiring speakers: Dr. Liisa Välikangas of the Helsinki School of Economics and Dr. Charles Hampden-Turner from the University of Cambridge.

Strikingly, Vladimir Sucha, Director for Culture, Multilingualism and Communication at the European Commission, opend the seminar with saying that being allowed to imagine, be creative and innovative would give more personality in what we are doing. Well, that sounds like kicking in an open door: more and better personality is certainly someting the EU insitutions could benefit from to get citizens engaged. How?

First, let’s get in the mood: \”Imagine\” by John Lennon

Secondly, let’s get to work:

1. Introduce the principle of Democratic Innovation in the EU institutions: inspire and allow everyone to come forward with imaginitive, creative and innovative ideas, just like in the beginning days of the EU.

2. Let the Principle of Subsidiarity be the guiding thought: not only EU employees should have a right to imagine and innovate, but also the people in the Member States. (In practice, every EU employee should have the Principle of Subsidarity explained and posted on their desk!)

3. Look through the lens of ideas, rather than people. Let ideas rule, not managers/directors.

4. Get top managers/directors to listen. There is a shortage of people willing to listen, not a shortage of ideas.

5. Do not ‘tidy up’ knowledge and innovative ideas into institutional language. Instead, pass on the logic of discovery. Just because (some of) the EU incrowd in Brussels knows why a new regulation or directive is needed, does not mean that everyone else or the citizens in the Member States understand. Explain through dialogue, annecdotes and storytelling.

Good luck and have fun!

Yesterday, I attended a debate organised by Open Europe, questioning whether EU regulation has gone out of control? Are we suffering from overregulation by the EU, or is it getting better? Is the costs-benefit balance of EU regulations in order?

According to the Open Europe report “Out of Control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation” are the cumulative costs of regulation introduced between 1998 and 2008 for all 27 member states 1,4 trillion EUR. Of this, 66%, or 928 billion, is EU-sourced.

Jens Hedström of Business Europe pointed out that the costs of regulation for SME’s can cause a serious burden on competitiveness on national and EU level. As long as the benefits outweigh the costs of applying to regulations, business do not complain. But often businesses do not understand why certain regulations are introduced. There is a clear lack of transparency about the benefits and the Impact Assesments, where answers are given to questions like: Is new regluation realy needed? Do the benefits outweigh the costs of implementation? Can it not better be dealth with at national level (Subsidiarity check)?

Quite rightly, a sollution discussed at the debate is Culture Change. To make sure that the EU regulators do not get out of control and overregulate the European market, Impact Assesements should not only be an instrument, but also a mind set. This means that employees of all EU institutions involved in proposing and writing regulations should unconsiously and every time do an Impact Assessment. This requires a change in their internal culture where topmanagers (Directors and General-Directors) should take the lead.

The European Commission has started with providing trainings on Impact Assessement. I just hope that this is not only a bottom up and volunatarily affair, like most trainings, but that it includes support and presure of the General-Directors to make sure that all key employees follow the training. Only through setting an example by top management, employees will follow and culture change can be achieved.

Hopefully, there will (soon) be Best Case Practices and Benchmarks in Impact Assessment of the European Commission which can be communicated internally and to the other regulatory institutions, in particular the EP and Council. Only this way, by solving the problem at the roots, i.e. employee’s mind set and behavior, EU regulation will stay in control.

If then more transparency can be given to businesses and the public about the new regulations, by giving contextual information and communicating in a conversational way, rather than only with the current old fashion, static and hardly readable reports, the mission for the EU to control its regulation flow may not be so impossible.

This morning, a very good friend of my husband was visiting us. He works as a senior counsel for a big international oil company. While enjoying a coffee and a croissant, I recieved an update on the major going-on’s in the oil business within just one hour. Not by hearing strategic or confidential information, but just by listening to his personal stories. Since personal stories always go hand in hand with examples and methaphores, it is a pleasure to listen to work related stories coming from employees and so much easier to understand than information coming from CEO’s or The Economist.

I am not the only one that feels that way it seems. The Edelman PR Trust Barometer 2009, which survey sampled 4,475 informed and educated publics in two age groups (25-34 and 35-64), shows that information coming from employees and peers are most trusted at the moment, while information coming from CEO’s and media is least trusted! 

While listening to my husbands friend, I got engaged in the subject. His stories reminded me of my own work stories, in particular those about my work and life in Russia, an important oil country and ’business relation’ to his company. We started to exchange experiences. It was clear that by giving him a listening ear, he automatically listened to me. I got engaged into the business just by listening to him.

Hence the question, do the EU institutions understand well enough the importance of the role of their employees in engaging (or not) its public? Do they appreciate well enough the importance of Internal Communications to inspire their personell and to give them the right and trustworthy tools to tell engaging stories?

Just by being called bureaucrates, does not mean that they sit 24 hours behind their desk without talking to anyone. The EU personell and Members of the European Parliament are a enormous source of information, which can and should be optimized and managed strategically by the leadership of the EU institutions. Expecially in this time of economic crisis and EP elections, their is a lot of engagement and reputation from EU voters and (non)believers to gain!

According to the Edelman Trustbarometer 2009, which has just come out, globally only 29% trust information about a company comming from a CEO. In the US only 17% said they trust information from a company’s CEO. Shocking low levels, even in the current situation with bad financial news and economic downfall. Seems to me that CEO’s have not build up much of their trust levels in good times. Missed opportunity, but a good lesson for the future?

Why is trust in companies and their leaders so important? Respondents to the Edelman survey say being able to “trust a company” is one of the most important factors in determining a company’s reputation, ranking just below the quality of a product and treatment of employees, but more important than financial future, job creation, giving back to the community and innovation. By the by, the survey also shows that transparency, defined as frequent and honest communication, also outranks those attributes!

Knowing this about business, what can be said about the EU and its leaders? While it is a downturn in business, govenements and EU leades can benifit hugely from this situation. They now have the opportunity to build their trust levels. Businesses and citizens are extremely dependent on them and their policies just now. But, will EU leaders and politicians be able to give the economy the right stimulation and, more importantly, are they able to stage as trustworthy role models and benchmarks both within their organisations and outside?

Both business and political leaders face simular leadership problems, but what can be done? In a media-rich world in which technology and social change is shifting control from the broadcaster to the audience, it’s more and more difficult to cut through and reach increasingly demanding and cynical audiences. Today’s people, increasingly want the whole story and are intolerant of leadership that appears to lack openeness, authenticity and credibility. So, to include strategic dialogue and a more conversational approach in communications programmes and strategies, is more important than ever. “Bringing together storytelling, visual imagery, conversations and coaching creates processes that lead to greater understanding and engagement.”, says Mike Pounsford, MD of Couravel Ltd, in an article of scm, April/May 2007.

Finally, I would like to stress the importance of the role of employees. According to the Edelman survey, employees and peers are considered credible sources of information about a company, with 47% trusting what they hear from “a person like yourself” and 40% trusting conversations they have with employees. This means that for any organisation it is of immense importance to have employees who are positively engaged in the vision and activities of the organisation and are communicating this to the ouside world. Hence the question: how positively engaged are people working in the EU institutions? In the advance of the elections, I wonder how the European Parliament, with it’s EU critics and internal disagreements, would score on this item…..