If there is one thing you can say about life is that is it full of teachable moments. Big things and little things happen in our lives or happen around us from which we can learn and apply in some way to ourselves. Recently, one such moment - a high profile one - occurred involving one of our country's most respected scholars, Dr. Henry Louis Gates of Harvard University. A passer-by saw this individual fiddling at the front door of a house and was not sure what this person's intentions were. So, she called in her suspicions to the Cambridge, MASS police. They promptly dispatched an officer to investigate. When the officer, Sgt. James Crowley, arrived he immediately saw that that individual was inside the house. The individual turned out to be Gates who had forgotten his house keys and was actually trying to break into his own house when the pass-by noticed him. Sgt. Crowley confronted Gates who became agitated about why he was being questioned by a police officer for being in his own home. The so-called discussion between Gates and Crowley then went from bad to worse. It led to Gates being arrested for disturbing the peace, handcuffed and taken down to the police station. Charges against him were dropped.
Soon afterward, President Obama was criticized for characterizing the actions of the Cambridge police as being "stupid." He later backed-off a bit from his initial reaction. Since then, the President has described this entire episode as having the potential of being a "teachable moment" for the nation. I agree. The question, then, is what is it are we supposed to learn from this?
For starters, it is easy to see how untapped emotions can get in the way effective communication. Under cooler circumstances, Dr. Gates could simply have explained what he had been doing, Sgt. Crowley could have replied that he was simply doing his job, and the two would have gone on with the rest of their day. But what transpired was not a calm situation. My guess is the two were blinded by anger and frustration and were not of a mind to be reasonable, to listen or to think all that clearly. As a result, two-way communication was replaced by yelling, force and ego.
It is not difficult to understand why Dr. Gates was angry. Nor is it a stretch to see how Sgt. Crowley felt his authority was being challenged. In an ideal situation, however, neither individual should have let these feelings over power their more rational thoughts. While there is nothing wrong with being emotional, it should not be to the extent that one stops thinking in a rational manner. Emotions and rationality should work in tandem. One result is clear thinking, good listening and respectful and wise behavior.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Baby Steps
Recently, the United States celebrated the 40th anniversary of when Neil Armstrong, one of our country's brave astronauts, first stepped onto the moon. He called it a "giant leap." But was it? Upon first glance, it is easy to understand why Armstrong gave it the label he did. After all, this was a definite first for mankind. But as stunning, riveting and historic this one actual moment was, the reality is it was the result of many many far less spectacular steps that had been taken for nearly a decade prior to that. As a result, Armstrong's unforgettable step was really one in a long series of incremental advances. Effective communication works in much the same way, particularly when the goal is to solidify ties that bind.
Decisions, for example, are not always once-and-for-all moments even though it may seem like it at times. A family may decide to go bowling but half way there change their mind and opt to take in a movie instead. On a broader level, the heads of two countries may agree to the terms of a treaty but then circumstances change and suddenly determine the terms of that planned agreement should either be amended or scrapped. Thus, as things evolve, it is vital to keep lines of communication open. If nothing else, we humans are often transient, not just in the fact we are mobile but in our perspectives, information we gather or forget, and experiences. It is only through communication these constant changes be best understood and facilitated.
Thus, what seem like abrupt changes are often the result of an evolution of steps. Baby steps. Stops and starts. Wrong doors and right doors. The transition from one to another is made easier by communication, particularly if that communication is carried out with a sense of openness and inclusion. Generally, people made better choices when they have more information and when they believe their input is welcomed. Effective communication is a key to making this happen so the baby or incremental steps we all take from one point to another has greater chance of being in the right direction.
Decisions, for example, are not always once-and-for-all moments even though it may seem like it at times. A family may decide to go bowling but half way there change their mind and opt to take in a movie instead. On a broader level, the heads of two countries may agree to the terms of a treaty but then circumstances change and suddenly determine the terms of that planned agreement should either be amended or scrapped. Thus, as things evolve, it is vital to keep lines of communication open. If nothing else, we humans are often transient, not just in the fact we are mobile but in our perspectives, information we gather or forget, and experiences. It is only through communication these constant changes be best understood and facilitated.
Thus, what seem like abrupt changes are often the result of an evolution of steps. Baby steps. Stops and starts. Wrong doors and right doors. The transition from one to another is made easier by communication, particularly if that communication is carried out with a sense of openness and inclusion. Generally, people made better choices when they have more information and when they believe their input is welcomed. Effective communication is a key to making this happen so the baby or incremental steps we all take from one point to another has greater chance of being in the right direction.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Nothing In Common
Over the years I have had friends talk about past relationships in which they have been involved or considered only to report nothing came of them because they and the other person did not have anything in common. I always nod when told this, but the truth is it is hogwash. All of us have things in common no matter our where we live, our socio-economic background or current station in life. We all like to laugh, be productive, be safe, and stay healthy. What could be more fundamentally in-common than that?
Do not get me wrong. I understand some people like vanilla while others prefer chocolate. Some people say "tomato" while others say "tomata." And so it goes. But aren't vanilla and chocolate both ice cream flavors? There's the common connection! My point is there is really no such thing as not having things in-common with others. The problem is found in the different perspectives people bring to those commonalities. For instance, two people may want to be together and create a happy home environment, but they may disagree over they want children. One may feel children would add to that happiness while the other may disagree. The commonality is the shared desire for a happy home life. The difference is found in their perceptions on what would make that happen.
The point is commonality is all around us even though, at times, different perspectives may be enough to scuttle any kind of lasting connection. Nevertheless, it is my contention that all of us have a lot more in-common than not. If two people or two publics are able to identify their many commonalities, then it can often make those differences seem less imposing and insurmountable. (I'm talking to you leaders in the Middle East!) Well thought out, patient, sustained communication efforts can help do that. Cynics may call this naive, but I prefer thinking of it as the best kind of building block.
Do not get me wrong. I understand some people like vanilla while others prefer chocolate. Some people say "tomato" while others say "tomata." And so it goes. But aren't vanilla and chocolate both ice cream flavors? There's the common connection! My point is there is really no such thing as not having things in-common with others. The problem is found in the different perspectives people bring to those commonalities. For instance, two people may want to be together and create a happy home environment, but they may disagree over they want children. One may feel children would add to that happiness while the other may disagree. The commonality is the shared desire for a happy home life. The difference is found in their perceptions on what would make that happen.
The point is commonality is all around us even though, at times, different perspectives may be enough to scuttle any kind of lasting connection. Nevertheless, it is my contention that all of us have a lot more in-common than not. If two people or two publics are able to identify their many commonalities, then it can often make those differences seem less imposing and insurmountable. (I'm talking to you leaders in the Middle East!) Well thought out, patient, sustained communication efforts can help do that. Cynics may call this naive, but I prefer thinking of it as the best kind of building block.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Walter Cronkite
Walter Cronkite, the great broadcaster and journalist, passed away two days ago as of this writing. By all indications, his life was a good one. It was certainly inspirational to millions of people, including me. As it was and is for many iconic figures, Cronkite had a number of nicknames bestowed on him by the public. One was "Uncle Walter," which demonstrated the feelings of reassurance and comfort people took from Cronkite's presence, manner and voice on his nightly broadcasts and many specials. Another was "Mister Believability." For a broadcaster whose success depended upon his ability to connect with people week after week, this was probably the best nickname he could have been tagged with.
Since his retirement over twenty years ago, we have had many broadcasters step onto the national stage. Yet it is curious that none, at least so far, has achieved the national embrace that Cronkite did when it came to reporting the news - good and bad - of the day. I have no doubt that many of these men and women are just as professional and decent as Cronkite. Without question, many are highly committed to presenting the information they do in the most professional way possible. And, as we know, many of their array of avid followers. Still, not one has reached the level of Cronkite when it comes to credibility. Why not?
My theory is that when it came to news, Cronkite stuck to the hard, serious stuff and stayed away from the fluff. He earned his credibility by the seriousness of his material and the fact he presented it a serious, straight-forward and objective manner. No joking around with others on the news team. No one-liners. He treated his audiences like grown ups in an honest, straight forward way. They responded to his professionalism in-kind. "Mister Credibility" indeed. For communicators, that's as good as it gets. And that's the way it was.
Since his retirement over twenty years ago, we have had many broadcasters step onto the national stage. Yet it is curious that none, at least so far, has achieved the national embrace that Cronkite did when it came to reporting the news - good and bad - of the day. I have no doubt that many of these men and women are just as professional and decent as Cronkite. Without question, many are highly committed to presenting the information they do in the most professional way possible. And, as we know, many of their array of avid followers. Still, not one has reached the level of Cronkite when it comes to credibility. Why not?
My theory is that when it came to news, Cronkite stuck to the hard, serious stuff and stayed away from the fluff. He earned his credibility by the seriousness of his material and the fact he presented it a serious, straight-forward and objective manner. No joking around with others on the news team. No one-liners. He treated his audiences like grown ups in an honest, straight forward way. They responded to his professionalism in-kind. "Mister Credibility" indeed. For communicators, that's as good as it gets. And that's the way it was.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Engagement
I do not know anyone who does not have at least a few pet peeves. I know I do. One, for instance, is drivers who tail gate. At times I even ponder the wisdom of slamming on my car brakes just so the driver behind me will be jolted into realizing how careless they are being and magically decide to never tailgate again. Of course, there's a larger part of me that realizes that if I really were to do that, then there is a good chance the result would be the back of my car would be smashed up and I would have to deal with painful neck injuries. So, I don't. Still, I wish people would not tailgate.
One pet peeve I have having to with communication pertains to people who listen to music through ear phones. I love music and applaud everyone else who does, too, even if they prefer music I do not particularly like. But one vital ingredient to being a good communicator is engagement. If you are going to connect with another person or even another public, then you must be engaged in what it is they are saying and what kind of nonverbal signals they may be giving out. A lack of engagement makes its virtually impossible to better understand or appreciate the interests, concerns, etc. of those around you.
Do not misunderstand. I greatly appreciate "me time." We all need our private moments. We all need our own space. Even Superman had his Fortress of Solitude. But to be better communicators, personally and professionally, it is essential that we be as aware of our surroundings, including other people, as much as we possibly can. This includes not just having a good sense of what we can see that is around us but also what there is to hear. A lack of engagement does not result in even half-way decent communication. Instead, it expands distance between us and others and us and the world. It makes meaningful bridge building all the harder.
One pet peeve I have having to with communication pertains to people who listen to music through ear phones. I love music and applaud everyone else who does, too, even if they prefer music I do not particularly like. But one vital ingredient to being a good communicator is engagement. If you are going to connect with another person or even another public, then you must be engaged in what it is they are saying and what kind of nonverbal signals they may be giving out. A lack of engagement makes its virtually impossible to better understand or appreciate the interests, concerns, etc. of those around you.
Do not misunderstand. I greatly appreciate "me time." We all need our private moments. We all need our own space. Even Superman had his Fortress of Solitude. But to be better communicators, personally and professionally, it is essential that we be as aware of our surroundings, including other people, as much as we possibly can. This includes not just having a good sense of what we can see that is around us but also what there is to hear. A lack of engagement does not result in even half-way decent communication. Instead, it expands distance between us and others and us and the world. It makes meaningful bridge building all the harder.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Communication and Survival
If there is one thing we all have in common it is our own self interest. Something happens or something is said and the first thing that pops into our head is a toss-up between either, "How do I feel about that?" or "How does that affect me?" This is survival instinct at its most basic. Does that make us innately bad or selfish? I do not believe so. But nevertheless, it does point to where we begin when confronted with new information or a new situation. The trick that helps define our character, in my view, is two-fold: what are the thoughts the follow those first ones and what actions do we take as a result of those thoughts?
Open and honest communication is a solid step toward demonstrating good character. Any number of scenarios illustrate this point. We spill milk on an expensive rug. Our initial thoughts include, "I messed up. This is embarrassing. If any one finds out, then I am either going to get punished or be reprimanded in some way for it." The thoughts and actions that follow give a glimpse of our integrity. Here is one more scenario: We are a CEO and because of the economic downturn recognize we may have to lay off a number of employees in order to keep our business going. Our first thoughts in all likelihood will include, "This is bad news. People are going to be upset with me for considering this option. I want everyone feeling positive toward me. Do they really need to know this right now?" Again, the choices one makes following these ruminations showcases one's character big time.
At times, there is no question that communicating in an open way, even if it means our "survival" may be threatened, is a stretch for any of us. No one likes to be under fire. No one likes to be the brunt of negative actions and thoughts. Understandably, we much prefer the opposite. But there are times when getting to that higher place for our own sake requires an openness that may not always be comfortable. One of the great pieces of acting advice the late James Cagney used to give was that when playing a scene, "Actors should plant their feet firmly on the ground and tell the truth." That's not a bad way to go when it comes to communication either.
Open and honest communication is a solid step toward demonstrating good character. Any number of scenarios illustrate this point. We spill milk on an expensive rug. Our initial thoughts include, "I messed up. This is embarrassing. If any one finds out, then I am either going to get punished or be reprimanded in some way for it." The thoughts and actions that follow give a glimpse of our integrity. Here is one more scenario: We are a CEO and because of the economic downturn recognize we may have to lay off a number of employees in order to keep our business going. Our first thoughts in all likelihood will include, "This is bad news. People are going to be upset with me for considering this option. I want everyone feeling positive toward me. Do they really need to know this right now?" Again, the choices one makes following these ruminations showcases one's character big time.
At times, there is no question that communicating in an open way, even if it means our "survival" may be threatened, is a stretch for any of us. No one likes to be under fire. No one likes to be the brunt of negative actions and thoughts. Understandably, we much prefer the opposite. But there are times when getting to that higher place for our own sake requires an openness that may not always be comfortable. One of the great pieces of acting advice the late James Cagney used to give was that when playing a scene, "Actors should plant their feet firmly on the ground and tell the truth." That's not a bad way to go when it comes to communication either.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Fair Speech
People have always had opinions about everything. Conservatively, there has got to be thousands and thousands, if not millions, of opinions on every topic known to man; not just the broad topics like sports, the weather, politics or the environment, but much more narrow ones like poodle cuts, the way certain people laugh, and Danish pastries. Even blogs themselves, I am sure, produce a multitude of opinions. The ability to express an opinion, of course, helps define a free society no matter whether the opinion is ill-informed, hurtful, positive, well-articulated, misdirected or on-point. This kind of free expression provides the foundation for the best kind of communication. Or does it?
There is no question that free expression is a good thing. After all, being able to express our thoughts represents the core of our nation's philosophy. At the same time, this freedom brings with it a great deal of responsibility. But while all of us pretty much can say anything we want, the real question is, "should we?" There are few things that damage or curtail a relationship or one's credibility than a lie or hateful comment. Blasting out any comments without thought to another person's feelings or without making any effort to ensure that comment is based on fact is irresponsible and an abuse of the right of free speech. Yes, we have the right to say dumb and hurtful things, but at the same time that does not excuse it.
Free speech and fair speech go hand-in-hand in the same way having a license to drive does with driving responsibility. Any one with a license can get behind the wheel of a car, but it is only the responsible driver who does so without drinking, without tail gaiting or without speeding. So, as we engage in conversations with others and listen to the many opinion mongers on radio and television, a good question to ponder is are we and they being responsible practitioners of free speech. Are we or they engaging in fair speech? It is free speech that generates attention, but fair speech that establishes credibility, engagement and lasting connections.
There is no question that free expression is a good thing. After all, being able to express our thoughts represents the core of our nation's philosophy. At the same time, this freedom brings with it a great deal of responsibility. But while all of us pretty much can say anything we want, the real question is, "should we?" There are few things that damage or curtail a relationship or one's credibility than a lie or hateful comment. Blasting out any comments without thought to another person's feelings or without making any effort to ensure that comment is based on fact is irresponsible and an abuse of the right of free speech. Yes, we have the right to say dumb and hurtful things, but at the same time that does not excuse it.
Free speech and fair speech go hand-in-hand in the same way having a license to drive does with driving responsibility. Any one with a license can get behind the wheel of a car, but it is only the responsible driver who does so without drinking, without tail gaiting or without speeding. So, as we engage in conversations with others and listen to the many opinion mongers on radio and television, a good question to ponder is are we and they being responsible practitioners of free speech. Are we or they engaging in fair speech? It is free speech that generates attention, but fair speech that establishes credibility, engagement and lasting connections.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Credibility
Is there anything more basic to our survival than oxygen? No, of course not. Without it, we cannot live and that's that. In the world of communication, there is a similar "bottom line." It's called credibility. Without it, then one's ability to communicate is gone. Sure, you can speak and people around you will hear your words and pick up on your non-verbal cues, but they will also tune you out quicker than it takes a Nolan Ryan fastball to travel from the pitcher's mound to home plate. Thus, your so-called ability to communicate is compromised beyond recall. Your listeners have made up their mind that you cannot be believed and, therefore, give your words no value. Further, they even tend to give the opposite of whatever you are saying greater credence simply because they have concluded you are not a person to believed or that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
And to make matters even worse, once you have lost credibility, then the chances of regaining it are even harder than hitting that same Nolan Ryan fastball. Ok, you admit, I did lie about that one thing. But, you quickly add, everything else I have been saying has been the truth. Maybe so. But once the label of "liar" has been stamped on your forehead, then it puts into question everything else you are saying. Your statements are suspect. Your facts are viewed as being tainted. You as an individual or as a representative of another person or an organization are to be avoided if at all possible. To make things even worse, then if you are serving as a spokesperson for others, then they, too, become suspect simply because it is you who is out front doing their pitching. As a result, any effectiveness you might have had before is now gone.
The good news to all this is that there is a simple way to avoid losing credibility: tell the truth. Do not mislead. If you do not know the answer to a question asked, then say so. People will forgive ignorance a lot faster and a lot more often then they will deception. Sometimes spokespeople fall into the trap of feeling as if they have to have an answer to every question or comment tossed at them. They don't. "I don't know but I'll get back to you with the information" is a great response. Making up something and presenting it in a way that it is fact is not. As communicators, we must hang onto credibility just as hard as we as humans do oxygen.
And to make matters even worse, once you have lost credibility, then the chances of regaining it are even harder than hitting that same Nolan Ryan fastball. Ok, you admit, I did lie about that one thing. But, you quickly add, everything else I have been saying has been the truth. Maybe so. But once the label of "liar" has been stamped on your forehead, then it puts into question everything else you are saying. Your statements are suspect. Your facts are viewed as being tainted. You as an individual or as a representative of another person or an organization are to be avoided if at all possible. To make things even worse, then if you are serving as a spokesperson for others, then they, too, become suspect simply because it is you who is out front doing their pitching. As a result, any effectiveness you might have had before is now gone.
The good news to all this is that there is a simple way to avoid losing credibility: tell the truth. Do not mislead. If you do not know the answer to a question asked, then say so. People will forgive ignorance a lot faster and a lot more often then they will deception. Sometimes spokespeople fall into the trap of feeling as if they have to have an answer to every question or comment tossed at them. They don't. "I don't know but I'll get back to you with the information" is a great response. Making up something and presenting it in a way that it is fact is not. As communicators, we must hang onto credibility just as hard as we as humans do oxygen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)