Friday, February 27, 2009

The One-Two Punch of Communication

All of us have talked with someone with whom we disagree. We may even have had experiences where the person is so adamant about a particular issue or in explaining their point of view that they are loud and do not give us an opportunity to express our opinion. We may even had had occasion to be in a situation where the other person resorts to name-calling and other verbally abusive behavior. Hopefully, for all our sake, those times are rare. And if they do occur, the best thing to do is disengage yourself from that encounter as quickly as possible. But short of that, how can communication help us deal with those situations?

The answer is in one word: listen. In boxing, it is standard to lead with a jab and then look for the right moment to follow with a right or left cross. Rarely, if ever, do you see a boxer do otherwise. It's called the "one-two" punch. In a conversation, the equivalent is listen and then speak. We should lead with our ear rather than our mouth. This is true in a heated conversation or one that is more calm. Listening is a great strategy for disarming the other person, showing respect, and helping us collect information on what it is the other person thinks, feels and knows. With this knowledge, it helps us formulate our own thoughts.

It is human nature to want to be heard. But with that comes a desire to be heard.
We want those around us actually hear what it is we have to say. When that happens we feel empowered and are filled with a sense of self-satisfaction. It also helps make us feel more receptive to hearing out the person with whom we are speaking. Thus, by utilizing good listening skills, we are laying the ground work for a healthy exchange that could lead to something really wild and crazy like consensus or agreement or mutual understanding. Whether it is conflict between two people at home or two nations, the first step toward resolution begins with listening. Always.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Addressing Dissent

Conversations are so much easier when we are talking with people who agree with us. No awkward moments. No disagreements. No skirting around sticky points. No holding back. Is there anything more relaxing than to wax philosophic with others with whom we are on the same page? I think not. However, having these kind of non-challenging exchanges day after day, encounter after encounter, conversation after conversation is like eating way too much ice cream: it is unhealthy, makes one lazy, rarely, if ever, contributes to anything meaningful, and places one inside a bubble that is counter to any acts of intellectual or even physical growth or betterment.

Disagreements, while not always fun, are essential to our advancement as a society and as individuals. Whether one is president of the United States, a parent in suburbia, or a teacher dealing with rowdy students, we all need to have our thoughts, perspectives, biases and ideas challenged. Being asked what it is we are talking about or being told we are wrong forces us to regroup, review our notions, and devise better ways to communicate them. All of that, of course, is challenging, frustrating and, at times, most humbling. But like the air we breath, I view them to be essential to our survival.

In terms of communication, the challenge is how best to disagree so that it leads to a fruitful exchange, enhanced relationships, and better ideas. One of the earmarks of effective communication is being able to create an environment where healthy exchanges are deemed to be safe and acceptable. Strategic communication based on establishing trust, mutual respect, and credibility can help make this happen. It comes from communicating with the intention of inclusion and building ties. These can be achieved by organizations with other organizations and individuals with other individuals. If done well and sincerely, then, disagreement evolves into discussion into food for thought and, finally, into sparks for more ideas and better actions.

Friday, February 20, 2009

LOOKING AT PERSUASION

Not too long ago I was involved in a discussion about whether the act of persuasion is unethical. What triggered this initially was an earlier conversation over the ultimate purpose of public relations: persuasion or partnership. Currently, two schools of thought dominate perceptions of public relations. One is that it is a process designed to persuade a public or publics into supporting a belief or taking action that they previously have or had not taken. The other is that public relations is more geared toward creating a partnership between different publics to support an issue in which they agree. An example of this would two groups that come together to support and work on behalf of a particular candidate.

The person with whom I was talking viewed the process of persuasion as being unethical by the mere fact it involves premeditated efforts to manipulate others. Therefore, it is dishonest and, by extension, reinforces the notion some have that public relations is not a good form of communication. I disagree. While I do agree there are plenty examples of deceit being used to manipulate others, I think it is fundamentally unfair to automatically assume that speaking out on behalf of a product, a cause or a candidate, for instance, is in and of itself dishonest. Those who seek to rally greater support to combat global warming are not guilty of dishonest communication unless the facts they use are purposefully twisted.

One thing that makes this a gray rather than a black-or-white question revolves around the information one chooses to include and omit when they speak out of behalf of something or someone. Understandably, people use information and/or data that supports their position. Is this dishonest? After all, you and I often purposefully leave out information that might give others a more complete perspective of an issue we feel strongly about. Are we being deceitful in this case? I do not believe so. But at the same time, we and everyone else who attempts to persuade others, should be diligent in presenting what facts they do us in a honest and open manner. Having said all that, acknowledging other perspectives while attempting to persuade others greatly adds to one's credibility and, interestingly, makes they even more persuasive.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Staging Communication

This year marks the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of the Species" in which he introduced his theory on evolution. To this day, the theory he set forth continues to generate debate and emotion. Though its evolution has not had nearly the thunder-clap reaction as Darwin's theory about the human species, the social science of public relations nevertheless triggers a great deal of attention as people from all walks of life deal with the day-to-day challenge of communicating effectively with others. One aspect of communication that continues to fascinate is the periodic need we all feel to stage what it is we want to say. One of the earliest examples of communication via a staged or media event was the Boston Tea Party. It was staged by the American Rebels as a way of showcasing their attitude about the so-called British tax policies. This historic event, of course, has become legendary in the telling and retelling of it.The rebels felt it was not enough to simply state their protest and reasons for it. This had been tried and did not elicit the public or British reaction they had hoped for. A staged event was the next strategy. A handful of men, some dressed as Indians, gathered, dumped tea into the Boston Harbor, and jump-started a national uprising the likes of which has never been seen before.

It is not, of course, governments or their leaders or even Hollywood publicists who also recognize the significant role staged events can play in showcasing a particular message or facilitating communication. All of us on a personal level stage events to better communicate with others all the time. Guys take gals to a fancy restaurant to propose marriage. People set candles at private dinners to help accent the serving and create a more intimate atmosphere. Young kids act all the time to showcase their feelings about something they disagree with or take exception to. There are, to reference a cliche, as many examples as there are stars in the sky.

All this is to say that staged events are not necessarily bad things if done well and produced with honest intent. They help communicate information in an effective and visually pleasing manner that can and often does resonate with audiences for a long time. Unfortunately, they can used to mislead and deceive. This is why they must be carried out with the utmost respect and regard for all to whom they are intended. Staged events, as it is with all vehicles of communication, can not and should take the place of the truth. They must be designed to showcase reality, not invent it.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Implementing Change

There is no doubt that change is very much in the air in Washington, D.C. In part, it is because we have a new set of leaders. But also, it is due to the wide range and depth of serious problems our nation currently faces. The new leaders campaigned on it and the problems demand it. Nevertheless, the many of the old guard still on the playing field are having trouble recognizing this reality and making the necessary adjustments in their thinking, perceptions and action. This change is already underway, particularly in terms of how policies and actions are being communicated. President Obama is the primary change agent and he has been working hard at reaching out to members of both parties in ways we have not seen in far too long. The results have been mixed, at best, as he is facing resistance and criticism for his efforts.

He must not stop. Further, he needs to direct others on his team and in his cabinet to continue reaching out to the opposition in big ways and small. Consulting with them. Sharing information with them. Including them in fact finding trips. Inviting them to socials. All of this and other bridge building efforts must be done and, most importantly, it must be done in a highly visible way for several reasons: (1) It is good for our country to see our elected officials working together in a transparent manner, even if they disagree on particular issues. Visibility helps ensure accountability and it increases the chances of good solutions being put forth when more people are involved in the deliberation process; and (2) The voters like it. After eight years of needless bickering, sneaking around and strong-arming people, voters hunger to see our leaders working together for the great good of the nation. Ideally, it is supposed to be what are country is about.

Good communicating is great to see even though doing so does not guarantee it will always result in a desired outcome. However, the mere act of open and honest communication in and of itself is success because it ensures stability and forward movement. We are lucky that President Obama understands this. In terms of working to create a more bipartisan environment in Washington, he may seem like a lonely guy right now. But good communication has a way of breaking down barriers and leading to the kind of change the times demand. So far so good.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Initiating Change

Implementing change is not easy. In fact, it is as difficult as it is frustrating and time consuming as it is, at times, thankless. Nevertheless, it is something that all of us are called upon to do on almost a daily basis. We may need to take a different route to the doctor's because of unexpectedly bad traffic. We may get a new boss and have our responsibilities adjusted. We arrange a fun picnic only to be hit with a heavy rain as we begin loading up the car. The examples go on and on. In the case of our country's government, change is banging on the door because the array of problems facing us demands we face these realities in ways that are different than we have in the past. More than anyone else, President Obama is currently leading the charge to try and motivate his fellow public servants to alter their behavior and perspectives. Thus far, the results of his efforts have been less than stellar.

Lots of people, including political pundits and politicians, have been offerings up comments left and right on Obama's efforts. Some have questioned his motives. Some have said he should stop trying to encourage non-partisan involvement. And some have even suggested his outreach efforts have been disingenuous. But others have praised his efforts. This is the camp in which I fall. For as long as he is president, Obama needs to keep reaching out to his political opponents. Doing so reinforces the ideal that the president is the president of all the people. It places Obama and his administration on the side of building bridges. And it is this kind of activity that depicts communication at its best.

For the past eight years this kind of outreach was rare. Communication was largely one-way. For communication to work, it needs to be two-way where the pertinent parties are in a constant stage of engagement and interaction. This is the most fundamental challenge that Obama and all who represent him face. Day in and day out. AS it happening with the current debate over the proposed economic stimulus package, it does not mean they will always be successful. Nor does it mean there won't always be those who second-guess or mock their efforts. Genuine and honest communication represent the best of us as a people and the best of us as a nation. The eventual pay will eventually happen and it will be most positive.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Change: The Inconvenient Truth

With so much talk of "an inconvenient truth," change has to be included as being such a creature. We go along doing things the way we always have. Thinking the same thoughts with few reasons to alter our perspectives. Suddenly, something happens and we have to change. Yikes. Outwardly, we nod and agree that keeping an open mind is important and good and even go so far as to describe ourselves as being open minded. And maybe we are - to a certain point. Yet inwardly, our brains are screaming, "No way! I am very comfortable with the way I view things and the manner in which I deal the world, thank you very much." Ah, change. Nevertheless, much like the monthly rent. It can not be ignored, nor should it. In fact, just the opposite: whether we like it nor, it must be embraced.

Right now, we are witnessing many elected officials and Washington pundits going through the ordeal of being forced to change. The enormous economic crisis. Climate change. Rising unemployment. Weakening infrastructure. These and other major problems are knocking at the door and the reality is they can no longer be addressed with band-aide solutions. Change in behavior and change in perspective are needed if they are finally going to be addressed in a lasting and meaningful way. Otherwise, an irreversible collapse is almost certain.

Resting on the shoulders of President Obama right now is the unenviable and oh-so heavy burden of being the change agent. Unlike any president we have had since since FDR, he has to get everyone to face the inconvenient truth of change and then embrace it. The bad news is that this great burden falls on the shoulders of one individual. But the good news is he seems to understand it and is actually working hard to get his fellow public servants and even the Washington media to follow suit. He's communicating through this through word and deed. Yes, it's tough. And, yes, he has run into some bumps in the road - not to mention resistance. But we can all take heart that we finally seem to have a commander in chief who understands that in order to adequately confront our many challenges, that change is the first order of business. In future entires I will be talking more about this dynamic and the communication steps and strategies that Obama needs to continue making in order to ultimately set our nation back on the right track.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Two-Way Symmetrical Model

A public relations model in which collaboration is identified as a primary goal was introduced over 25 years ago. Called a two-way symmetrical model, it was the creation of two communication scholars named James Grunig and Todd Hunt. Many practitioners embraced the premise of this model because it represented public relations in its best light: encouraging collegiality and publics to work together for a common purpose. Prior to the introduction of this model, public relations had largely been viewed as a practice designed to persuade. In this regard, the public relations pioneer Edward Bernays viewed it as "engineering consent."


Over the past 25 years scholars and practitioners have continued largely singing the praises of the Grunig-Hunt model and using it to defend the benefits that public relations, at its best, brings to society. After all, they have said, how bad can any practice that promotes genuine harmony be? Exactly. At the same time, however, there is also the matter of reality. Over the past 25 years, the two-way symmetrical model has been the least-practiced style of public relations. Instead, the style that attempts to persuade or motivate others into taking positions or actions they would not previously have taken continues to dominate by far. How could it not? Organizations do not hire public relations practitioners to represent both sides of an issue. Instead, they want a competent professional who will be a creative advocate for them.

Is there, then, a place for the two-way symmetrical model? My attitude is "yes," but that needs to be qualified. If the fundamental purpose of public relations is to build and maintain relations between different publics, then the question arises what is the best way to achieve that? The first step has to fall under the umbrella of persuasion. One public or group of people will not align themselves with another group unless they recognize that group to be of good standing. That will not occur until some persuasive measures are conducted. After that, if things go well, then the two publics are more inclined to become partners. First comes persuasion and then comes partnership. The two-way symmetrical model remains viable. The trick is knowing when to implement it.