Sunday, August 30, 2009

Words and Deeds

Growing up I used to eat a ton of peanut butter sandwiches. To me, a day without a peanut sandwich was like a day without sunrise. I never had one of those treats without a big glass of milk. As a result, I rarely, if ever, thought of or enjoyed one without the other. In fact, I came to believe that neither truly worked as well by itself but needed to be complimented by the other. In a recent speech by Admiral Michael Mullen of the United States Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that appeared in Joint Forces Quarterly, a similar case regarding words and deeds was made as they apply to strategic communication. Looking back over America's efforts over the past eight years against the Taliban and al Qaeda, Mullen reinforced an excellent point that effective words not followed by equally-effective actions make both entities ineffective and empty.

Producing powerhouse videos, sending out creative messages over the Internet or posting colorful images throughout communities - all important ingredients in any strategic communication effort - mean nothing if the messages or promises communicated in them are poorly executed or weak in substance. To make a quick analogy, it is one thing to promote a new car, but if the car turns out to be a total lemon, then no amount of fancy words or splashy build-up can change that, nor will they ultimately generate sustained public acceptance. One only has review the history of Ford's Edsel to be reminded of that.

From the perspective of a communicator, what is this professional's responsibility when it comes to the actual merits of what they are attempting to promote? In the military, is it the communicator's job to not only produce communication tools but also go out on the frontline to make sure each solider in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually carrying out what has been pledged? Likewise, over fifty years ago, should the communicator have been on the assembly line as well to ensure the Edsel was going to be a product of substance? To these questions I say "yes." Admiral Mullen is a great example of this. If he is going to stand in front of a podium and talk about all that U.S. forces are going to do to eliminate terrorist operations in hot beds of the world, then his credibility is very much on the line. If our deeds are not properly carried out, then the words and professional reputation of Mullen become questionable. Following that, it is only a matter of time before he is in all likelihood relieved of duty. The same is true for those who create the messages. Communicators must do all they can to ensure their words are properly matched by whatever product or deeds they have promised. You can bet Admiral Mullen is doing all he can each day to ensure that is the case regarding what he has said. The outstanding leaders, and I include all who seek to make careers in communication here as well, live and die by what they say and do. As it was with peanut butter sandwiches and milk for me as a child, one without the other is unthinkable.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Packaging

One of the many things my wife is good at is growing tomatoes. This summer has been a particularly good time for her and us as we have been able to enjoy a ton of fresh, homegrown tomatoes at meal time. From time to time she likes to put together what I will call little gift packages for friends that contain - can you guess? - fresh tomatoes. The gift tomatoes have been a big hit because they are very tasty. One thing I have noticed when I have been the deliverer of these gifts to various friends is that it is not just the tomatoes themselves or the thoughtfulness of my wife that brings a smile to the faces of the recipients. Rather, it is also in how they are packaged. My wife does a great job of packing the tomatoes in a bright bag with a fancy and equally-colorful bow.

Communication is more than just saying whatever words need to be said. Communicators need to include steps in their efforts to help ensure the words and the information they convey are understood by the publics to whom they are intended. As a result, this reality suggests that mere words do not always resonate with people. This is why in the many outreach efforts with which many of us are exposed such extensions as music and an attractive and/or famous spokesperson are included. The information, of course, is important, but often the packaging spells the difference between talking at and actual engagement.

For example, take the presidential seal. It is part of the package that every president uses when they give a formal address. Why? Because it contributes to the impression that what is being said is important and of national interest. In a similar but less spectacular way, the colorful bow that my wife uses with her tomatoes reinforces the notion that the recipients are important. Does it make the tomatoes actually taste better? No. Ultimately, the actual message has to stand on its own. But if packaged properly, it presents that message in a well-rounded context and better enables the receiver to better understand and appreciate what is being shared. It also encourages the receiver to keep an open line of respectful and well-intentioned engagement.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Classic Readings

I consider myself an avid reader. Given the choice between being outside and reading, I tend to lean toward finding a comfortable chair and reading. More often than not, however, particularly if it is a sunny day out, I settle into a lawn chair outside and read. Why not go for the best of everything? For a number of years now my tastes in literature has heavily leaned toward current non-fiction books sprinkled with current fiction. While I do not regret anything I have ever read, I will concede there are some books that have not always rung a bell with me. One recent tome I did enjoy immensely is a new biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt called "The First Tycoon" by T.J. Stiles. My crystal ball reveals some some literary awards in Mr. Stiles' future as a result of his fine work.

Lately, however, I have begun focusing on some outstanding works I have missed over the years, ones I consider to be classics that nearly everyone with some degree of literary knowledge has at least heard of. A couple of examples of what I am talking about are Melville's "Moby Dick" and Salenger's "Catcher in the Rye." While I have read those two particular classics, there are many I have not read. Examples of ones I have missed are Huxley's "Brave New World" and Dosttoevsky's "Crime and Punishment." Shame on me. Further more, I have no one to blame for this literary whole in my resume but me. There, I said it. I resolve myself to do something about it.

A few days ago I began reading William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury." As I write this I am approximately one-third of the way through what many consider to be Faulkner's most notable work. I must say I am loving this man's lyrical way with words. And if that wasn't enough, it is also a good story. I am embarking on this personal quest for several reasons: (1) I want to expose myself to works of communication that represent the best of their kind; and (2) Perhaps this kind of interaction will help me in my efforts to be the best kind of communicator I can be in my daily connections with others. My feeling is it is one way of raising the level of my own "game."

Friday, August 21, 2009

The White House

A few days ago I went on a tour of The White House. Even though it was not a truly behind-the-scenes look-see where you get to go into the oval office or the presidential family's private quarters, I must say I found it to be a lot of fun and very inspiring. Walking through the blue room, red room, state dining room, east room, china room, vermeil room and diplomatic reception room proved to be a vivid reminder of the great history of our great nation. The many portraits on the walls of our former presidents - some great and some, of course, not so great - was a reminder of the twists and turns our nation has taken over the past 233 years. The United States, I am convinced, remains on a journey where it strives to be the best it can be toward its citizens and sister nations. For that reason alone I take great pride in calling our imperfect nation home.

I also believe the path of our nation is not dissimilar to the ones Americans themselves are on. We seek to be the best we can be for the sake of ourselves and those around us. Where we as individual often fall down and, for the matter, our country runs into trouble is when we fail to communicate properly with others. We do not always communicate our questions, concerns, fears, agendas, or knowledge. We sometimes tend to place greater priority on protecting our egos or pride than we do on what is right. In short, we do not always believe in the innate goodness and sense of fairness of each other and, as a result, set off feelings mistrust, anger, frustration and disrespect in others.

Effective communication can not totally prevent those negative feelings or attitudes from happening, but the only way you can successfully combat them and keep them to a minimum is through open and honest communication. That is not pie-in-the sky thinking, but simple reality. Honesty is the result of inner integrity and respect for others. It travels on the wings of communication. The journey may not be smooth, nor may it lead to results we desire. But nevertheless honesty cannot be sustained without it being communicated and/or displayed in a visible way. I am not just talking to myself here, but to my country and its citizens as well.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Playing the Fear Card

We are not quite finished with the first decade of the 21st century, yet if there is one thing all of us have learned when it comes to communication and getting people to support various positions or take certain action, it is this: playing the "fear card" works very well. As a communicator, if you are able to make people afraid, then there is little doubt a significant portion of them will buy most anything you say even if it runs directly counter to such things as facts and reality. We all want to feel safe. Fear is a fundamental reaction that so often over powers logic or common sense. Consequently, to get people to jump through a hoop, all you have to do is convince them that not jumping that hoop will put them in danger.

The build-up to the Iraq conflict is a great example. We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to our security. As a result, the United States had no recourse other than to invade that country and overthrow its government. Enough people believed those lies to where the Bush administration felt justified in carrying out its plans. Fast-forward to the current debate over health care. It is one thing for people to question and even disagree with the prospects of universal health care. But given the facts that entering into such a program would only be optional and that, as it is being presented, would merely be an extension of what military personnel and veterans now have, does it really warrant comparing Obama and his administration to Hitler and the Nazi government of the 1930s and 1940s? Of course not. Such a comparison of course, is absurd. Yet a number of people are making it out of ignorance and, most of all, fear.

In the world of communication, playing the fear card when it is inappropriate and misrepresents the issue at-hand is certainly one way to play the game. But it is not the right or ethical way. It is short-sighted, manipulative and fundamentally dishonest. It is unfair to those to whom you are sending your message and a disservice to your client and to the specific issue. The end does not justify the means. Sadly, as we are seeing, there are those who disagree with that. So-called winning, to them and their clients, is everything. If efforts by the Obama administration to implement universal health care fail, then in large measure it will be due to dirty and unhealthy communication tactics. Shame on those who are behind those tactics and shame on those who are allowing themselves to be driven by them.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

That Toddlin' Town

A few days ago I was invited to participate in the fall conference of the National Association of Communicators in Chicago. I was asked to be one of several doctoral students to participate in a panel discussion on our experiences in our various programs. I am very excited. First of all, I have never been to Chicago but have always wanted to see it up close and personal. Secondly, I find being asked to speak to anyone about most anything to be very flattering. Fortunately, there will be others on the panel to carry the ball so it won't just be me having to be interesting, entertaining and informative all at the same time. Nevertheless, I am still going to have come up with somethings to say that hopefully will add to and not detract from the discussion. Full disclosure: A few years ago I participated in a panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the challenges of working with national media to promote a university. I was not pleased with my performance.

Speaking before a room full of people is always a challenge. Even though I have been teaching part-time for over ten years, it is not something with which I feel all that comfortable. Whether it is in a room full of students or professionals, being prepared is the key. I may have a bunch of information floating around in my head, but if I have not properly organized what I want to share and how I want to engage the audience, then my presentation is a struggle. Looking back at my experience at the National Press Club, I do not believe I was as prepared as I should have been. It was a good communication lesson for me: knowing one's stuff is not enough to guarantee you will be able to share it effectively.

But to get back to Chicago, the opportunity to go there is very exciting. Even though it may be very cold there in November, I am prepared to brave the elements and do all I can to check out as much of this classic city as I can. Michigan Avenue. The art museum. The people themselves. Maybe even sneak into a jazz club or two. It is all about gaining new experiences, which, of course, add to one's tool box as they seek to communicate well with others. This new experience for me is still several months away, which is good because it gives me plenty of time to prepare myself. If I do well, then for the duration of this upcoming panel discussion at least, I'll be an effective communicator.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Communication and Vision

Leadership is such a tricky undertaking. While we all have our own ideas as to what characteristics a successful or so-called good leader should possess, there is one element not nearly as associated with leadership as I think should be: service. Specifically, one's ability to serve others. Sure, it is important for a leader to have vision and a good sense of how to move toward it. But at the same time it is vital to be able to instill in others a willingness to travel down that path. After all, if a leader cannot convince his or her followers that their vision is in the best interests of those they are trying to lead, then those followers will quickly look elsewhere for someone to lead them to where they wish to go. It brings to mind the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

Presently, President Obama's leadership skills are being tested as it pertains to health care for the nation. This is his vision. But will meeting it be in the best interest of his followers? Do enough people recognize this particular vision as a way they wish to be served? Presently, the jury seems to be out on this. According to various national polls, when Obama's formally introduced this vision, the great majority of citizens said they comfortably supported it. But now as the health care debate evolves, national polls indicate a shift in what many of these same citizens say they want regarding health care. As I read the polls, many still say they want it, only now they are expressing legitimate concerns as to its costs and how it will be administered. This is the hard part of having a vision. Any one can have a vision, but only when it is challenged is when its validity and applicability are truly tested. It is also a significant test of the visionary's communication skills.

One of the things all of us are now discovering about President Obama's in the first year of his presidency is just how good of a communicator he really is. The health care debate is a giant indicator. Not only is the president being called to describe and reiterate this vision, he also has the additional hurdles of overcoming tons of fear mongering and misinformation along with addressing sincere concerns about the mechanics of national health care. At the same time, there are also other major challenges on his plate, including our two wars, struggling economy, relations with other countries and vulnerable environment. At this point, my money remains on The President. But if he is to succeed, then he is going to need to take his communication skills to a higher level as well as begin making greater use of the many tools of those who continue to share his vision. The ultimate success of his communication efforts in health care and other issues of importance will be the ultimate determiners of his effectiveness as a leader.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Communication Battles

Right now in our country there is a no-holds barred communication battle going on over health care. Putting aside for a moment the fundamental issue itself, watching those who support reform and those who oppose it bang heads is painful to watch. Almost daily these days the news gives us images of people engaging in shoving matches and screaming bouts at events and meetings designed for anything but that kind of uncivil behavior. Granted, the prospect of health care for all citizens is complex. But when there are people who use fear, false information, and bullying tactics to promote their own perspectives, it only makes this entire issue more complicated. If ever there was a need for people to engage in effective communication in the form of even-handed and respectful dialogue, this is it. When communication is sabotaged, then everyone loses.

My hat goes off to those who are trying to engage in sessions of civil information exchange. Trying to be respectful is never easy when people with whom you are trying to connect behave in a blatantly disrespectful way. Who among us can communicate with even a degree of civility in a room of people who are screaming at you? The screamers and bullies are not interested in honest information exchange. They simply want to disrupt and shutdown those who are trying to approach this issue in a proper manner. Normally, I am not one to feel sorry for politicians, but seeing these officials struggling to maintain some level of discourse with those who want anything but that is a bit heart wrenching.

Those who disrupt should not be allowed to participate. Ultimately, communication only works when more than one person plays. For it to work best, then the participants need to want there to be dialogue. But when the primary goal of one or some of the participants is to disrupt, then communication is compromised. There is little point in carrying on. If the uncivil behavior continues, then the ultimate decision makers in Congress will be forced to make decisions with very little input from the voters. Only the lobbyists and special interests groups will have input into whatever decisions are made. If that happens, then once again the people will have failed the system and not the other way around. Communication is a tool and a damn good one when used properly.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Dialogue Leads to Consensus

I work at a place that employs over 6,000 people. These men and women come from different backgrounds, have wide levels of experience, and numerous interests, strengths and levels of responsibility. To get all these individuals to come even close to agreeing on any issue is, to say the least, a challenge. At the same time, it is a challenge that must be met consistently if the organization is going to advance and prosper in any way. Otherwise, it will inevitably slip into a state of mediocrity and, ultimately, cease to exist. That holds true for any organization and, I believe, branch of society. In the absence of dialogue of some sort there is chaos. And, believe me, when true chaos reigns, the last two things you will find are dialogue and, as Woody Allen might say, a good ham sandwich.

Recently, I read a book called "Do the Right Thing" by James Hoggan. In it are a number of fundamental tips for public relations practitioners. One particular truism put forth by the author is, "dialogue leads to consensus."This simple statement in many ways reflects one of the earlier definitions of public relations itself in which it is described as a form of communication that helps create an harmonious adjustment between publics. Our democratic society is based on progress or advancement through interaction, the melding of minds, agreement, compromise, and the achievement of consensus. People talking with people. In fact, since our country's beginning it is no coincidence that it is only positive change that has taken hold and lasted any significant amount of time. Each time, the act of one party connecting with another has occurred.

A word to those in positions of power who do not like to collaborate with others but simply prefer behaving in a heavy-handed way by barking out orders and bossing others around. Your way, at best, only results in temporary change. Further, it creates tension, resentment and discourages dialogue. No dialogue means little or no sense of community. The only commonality people share is a desire to rid themselves of those who do treat them with such disregard. This kind of attitude does not lead to meaningful consensus. As a result, in such a scenario, anyone looking for meaningful communication should look elsewhere.

The comment by Hoggan reinforces the notion that respectful and two-way communication should be the boat on which we ride to reach a better place as defined by dreams for ourselves and those around us.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

What Is Happening to Television?

There is nothing good about hate speech nor can anything good be said about it. Is there any one who disagrees with that? I suspect not. I bet even fringe types who view the world as being flat, the moon landing a hoax, and Elvis still being alive would even agree if directly asked about it. Given that, it raises the question of why people still do it. Why are there commentators on national television, for instance, that call President Obama a racist, for instance, without one shred of evidence to support their claim, tolerated or, at the very least, not challenged? Has our nation become so polarized that this sort of thing is ok? Have people reached such a level of frustration that it is acceptable to spew such venom on mainstream television? Is extreme speech now part of the national landscape?

Since it's beginning days, programming on television has largely been designed to appeal to the greatest number of people. For better or worse, its content is geared to engage, not offend; to make viewing a comfortable and enjoyable experience and not necessarily one that offends. Generally, content touching on themes judged to be out of the mainstream, if displayed at all, have occurred at times and days when the greater majority of views is judged to be at its lowest such as late at night. When it comes to the coverage or introduction of so-called radical notions, television has been a slow-moving creature. Inter-racial relationships and gays are examples of what were deemed to be explosive themes that took decades before they were eased into mainstream programming.

Given the tone of a number of talk shows on television these days, particularly ones on the Fox network, it seems as if television is in the process of taking its viewers to another level where hate speech is being brought into the living rooms of families throughout the country. Apparently, television executives, at least the ones who oversee Fox, have deemed the mainstream viewing public as ready for hate speech. It is now ok for Fox commentators to publicly lambaste others in the most hateful ways and, as an extension, encourage unruly behavior among those who support their views. An example of this is how bands of extremists are being sent to various town hall meetings on the proposed health care legislation for the sole purpose of disrupting them. It is the same thing that was done in Florida when the Republican party sent bands of thugs down to disrupt efforts by election officials to count votes in the Bush-Gore election.

This is not a matter of free speech or a question of whether American families are ready for this kind negative communication. The onus here falls on the shoulders of the executives at Fox who seem to be so blinded by their own ideology that they have misplaced the great responsibility their positions as influential communicators demand. Fox claims it's news programs are "fair and balanced," but clearly it is not. In fact, it is interesting that the only people who seem to be saying that are ones who work at Fox. Communication, at its best, is engaging and inclusive. Hate speech is neither. Fox's judgment here is as irresponsible as it is poor. A better step on their part would be to begin living up to their slogan.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

The Power of Information

The other night I was at a movie when for the first time in my movie-going life the fire alarm went off. The movie stopped. The lights went on and everyone had to evacuate the building immediately. We all did so in a quiet and orderly manner. In fact, as this was one of those multi-screen cinema houses, the quick evacuation of what I'm guessing were easily over one-thousand patrons was quite impressive. Once outside, the ushers directed us to move as far away from the building as possible despite the fact there were no visible signs of fire or impending danger. Soon afterward, two fire trucks arrived on the scene. For the most part, we in the crowd were subdued as we watched the firemen go about their business.

Time passed and other than the hustle and bustle we could see going on inside the large lobby of the building, nothing much else seemed to be happening. Over 45 minutes passed and there was still no word from any one inside the theater. What happened? Was everything ok? Would we be allowed to go back inside and see the rest of the movies? No one knew and we were not getting any help from those in the know. I stood outside in that cool summer night and thought about how vital information is at times like this and how important the role is of those who have it and are responsible for sharing it. At moments of this kind they are in a unique position of power when what they say and how they say it can really have a great deal of influence over many people in terms of what those people think and how they behave. In these instances, the communicator and his or her message are very powerful.

Finally, nearly an hour had passed when several of managers emerged to announce they were going to distribute free passes as the theater was being shut down for the remainder of the evening. No other information was shared. It was not till the next day when I learned that the whole thing was a false alarm. No damages. No inujuries. But the theater lost money that night and many people were inconveinenced. Obviously, it could have been a lot worse. Nevertheless, the lesson reinforced that night was how sharply vital communication is at times of impending crisis. In my own individual experiences and as a member of the general public I have seen numerous inistances when the responsibility of effective communication in these instances has been met well and not met well at all. It makes a big difference. It matters.