Saturday, November 28, 2009

Convenience

What is the trade off for achieving greater convenience? Do we sacrifice a little bit of quality of life by seeking to replace it with ways to make things easier for ourselves? I started thinking about those questions the other day while visiting the National Art Museum in Washington, D.C. with my daughter. While going from one building to another in an underground tunnel we came upon one of those conveyor belts or horizontal escalators as I call them that transport people from one end of the passageway to another. More and more and I see these things in airports. All anyone has to do is just stand on them. No walking. No moving your legs. You just stand. It moves its users at a pace slower than normal walking but nevertheless it saves one the trouble of actual moving and, on occasion, carrying bags of some sort. Upon seeing this, my daughter, being a person of many opinions, immediately commented, "It's no wonder so many people are out of shape." I nodded while noticing that most of the people on the conveyor belt had no bags at all. I guess they simply wanted to take a break from walking.

Are our lives really made better by an innovation of this sort? Is not having to walk for 50-100 yards or whatever the distance of these contraptions might be really a good thing? When the people who use them look back on their day, do they feel grateful for not having had to walk as much as they would have without it? I am not so sure. Walking, even though it may be a bit tiresome at times, has always struck me as a source of accomplishment and not necessarily something to avoid. But based on the number of people who use those conveyor belts, I guess not everyone agrees with me on this.

In the world of communication, a number of technological advancements have been made to make it an easier action to take. The telephone is a great example. Imagine how much easier it would have been for Paul Revere to warn other communities about the advancing British if he had been able to sit down at his kitchen table and begin dialing everyone he knew? If nothing else, his horse sure would have been able to get a good night's sleep instead of being out in the wee hours of the morning galloping from one town to the next. My point in all this is that sometimes things that make life easier may not always make life better. The horizontal elevator is an example. The telephone, however, is not as it makes life both easier and better. Whether it is in communication or some other area, all of us need to be a bit skeptical about contraptions and innovations that supposedly add to our convenience. The fact is they may not necessarily to our lives.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Group Projects

One of the things I like doing best is teaching. For years now I have been teaching a public relations class to upper level undergraduate students, most of whom are communication majors. One of the tasks I assign students is a group project in which they are called upon to create a PR campaign with community service being the theme. Examples of past projects students have done include canned food drives, pet adoption, blood drive, and book collections. As the current semester of classes winds down, the groups, which number between 4-5 in size, are now making their presentations and turning in their notebooks for my evaluation.

Working with others is not easy. This continues to be one observation of mine as I assess the efforts of the students and listen to them talk about their experience in doing this assignment. Often they talk of the difficulty of actually meeting in-person to plan or keeping each other "in the loop." They are busy; some live on campus and some off; most have jobs in addition to going to class so they are not accessibility to meet face-to-face with each other; and they do not always respond to each other's text messages or emails. Consequently, more often than not, the finished product, though well-intentioned, is often thin on details. It is not uncommon to see some of the students walk away from the experience finding it to be more frustrating than rewarding.

I know all about busy schedules and the challenge of remaining in-sync with others with whom you are working or collaborating. It can be really difficult. One way to help ease this potential problem is through communication. Out of sight does not have to mean out of mind. In today's world with so much technology at our disposal, I tell the students that giving their partners updates on where they are on a joint project is far easier than it used to be. Failing to do so says more about them than it does the partner.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Finding Ourselves

Not too long ago I read an article by a young woman who was reflecting on her life as, at first, a model teenage person with loving and supportive parents. Then, she started seeing a boy of whom her parents did not approve. Out of anger and a great sense of unfairness, the girl turned from model daughter to monster, at least when it came to her parents. Things for her went from bad to worse regarding both her parents and this boy. Eventually, the rebellious girl turned things around and began getting a much better handle on the life. And things between her and her parents improved as well.

This article got me to thinking of the many roads all of us travel in our lives. It is no accident, I believe, that upon taking our first steps in life we end up falling down again and again. Eventually, we learn to walk by holding onto things and then, finally, we stand on our own. At that point, we have come to some sort of agreement with who we are. We may not always like everything about ourselves, but the feelings of acceptance are enough to get us through the rest of our lives. As it is with babies, the young woman in the article I read fell down a lot upon taking her first steps into adulthood. I can sure relate to that fact of life.

It is too bad that during those times when people are floundering they are not always to communicate exactly that. Granted, it is not easy because you may not quite understand exactly what is going on with you. Still, communicating even that is better than nothing. After all, there are few things that trigger more confusion than not opening up with others about the confusion you might be experiencing. Confessing to being in a state of confusion is better than not saying anything at all. My point here is communication can be one's best friend when everything around you seems to not be going well. In fact, it can even be the door for which you have been searching.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Self-Imposed Challenges

I am all for growth and self-improvement. Anything we can do to make ourselves a better person and more socially-conscious certainly has my support and endorsement. As someone who considers himself to be very much a work in progress, I know I do what I can to raise the bar as part of my never-ending quest to be a better me. Having said that, however, I have to confess that can be a real pain in the neck. Two years ago I began working toward a doctorate. Obtaining this degree has been a dream of mine for probably thirty years. Realistically, at this point in my life, achieving such a goal will not result in any pay raise or promotion. Still, it's something I want and something I feel will broaden and deepen my own intellectual growth. In fact, it already has and I still have a little way to go before I get to the finish line.

As I write this, in a very short while from now I will attempt to jump a major hurdle in the program: the program's comprehensive exams, or as those of us in the program call them, "the comps." I have been working very hard over the past six weeks or so to prepare for them, yet I'm finding the closer I get the more insecure and over-my-head I am feeling. It's not supposed to be that way, is it? Shouldn't I be peaking right about now and overflowing with cool confidence? Maybe so, but nevertheless all I can say is I'm not. In fact, lately I have been second-guessing big time about getting in the program in the first place. I do not like feeling this stressed out over anything, especially something I have brought on myself.

Not too long ago I was complaining about this upcoming series of tests to my cousin. He listened for a while and then calmly reminded me that no one held a gun to my head to apply for admissions into the program. I think I responded with some kind of grunt and then thanked him for reminding me cause I was thinking someone did. Any way, here I am with just a few days from when I will be expected to start banging out decent responses to the questions that my professors will be asking. Yikes. I have not yet reached for the panic button but I admit it has crossed my mind more than once. Still, despite my trying times right now, I remain an advocate of self-imposed challenges. But that doesn't mean I always like them.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Facts and More Facts

There's a character in Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" who loves facts. He is a school master who demands that his students provide him with facts when called upon with a question. His challenges one new student to provide him with a definition of a horse. When she is unable to properly articulate a response, he scolds her and calls upon another, more experienced student who immediately erupts with details on these four-legged creatures. The teacher is pleased, the experienced student is praised, and the new student has been given better insight into how her teacher views the world and what he requires of his pupils. I like facts, too. They are extremely useful, of course, and provide the foundation of knowledge that exists in everyone's head. Granted, some people have a bigger, more sturdy storehouse than others, but nevertheless it is something we all share. In fact (no pun intended), if facts were a house, then it would be the floors, walls and roof - the interior and exterior structure.

Of course, no one wants to live in a bare structure though everyone does one want it to be strong and lasting and to be able to upgrade it on a regular basis. I know I do. But I also want a house with paintings on the walls., flooring with durable yet attractive rugs, stylish furniture, and an overall environment in which I can find comfort and security. That's where color and nuance come in. Coupled with facts, they can make for potentially an awesome combination. Drawing from facts one needs for a given situation and then mixing it with description is what makes for the best kind of communication under most any circumstances.

In earlier postings I have mentioned that I am currently pursuing a doctorate in communication. Though I have a few more hurdles to jump, I am almost at the point where I can formally begin my dissertation. It will revolve around organizational communication and the impact the communication style of leaders has on its members. In my preliminary investigation, I have found that very little research on this topic has been conducted in a way that includes color and nuance. My hope is to change that even if it is in a small way with my one study. What we communicate and how well we communicate impacts others in a very humanistic way. I want to take that "dance," as one scholar once called it, and go beyond just giving a statistical breakdown of this issue. With luck, I will build a house that is a real showcase.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Grand Thinking

Someone once told me there are basically two kinds of people in the world: those who like Barry Manilow and those who don't. That is very possibly true, but in the communication world, there is another dividing line: "big picture" thinkers and detail people who are more comfortable thinking, planning and strategizing down in the trenches. Both are vital to an organization and one is not any better than the other. In an organizational hierarchy, the big picture guys and gals are almost always a notch or two higher up the food chain than those in the trenches and closer to where the action is. The big picture people are usually part of the top rung of an organization. It is they who set organizational policy and determine how their organization will interact or deal with its environment. The detail people, however, are the ones who generally determine how the organization will interact with its environment.

Make no mistake, both of these people are strategic thinkers, but with a twist. The big picture people are the ones who generally set what scholars have labeled "grand strategy." They set policy, determine the kind of relationship their organization will have with its environment, establish goals, and set the entity's ethical tone. They then look to the detail people situated below them to establish a road map to follow to meet those goals. This includes arranging resources, including personnel, and devising objectives and tactics to achieve that feed into those overriding goals. Each person, despite his or her's position within the organization, is important to the success of an organization and very much needs the other.

One key factor they have in common is people. All strategic thinking begins and ends with people. In the case of the grand thinkers, they seek to determine how best to deal with the people external to their organization. Work with them? Ignore them? Partner with them? Compete with them? The detail thinkers cannot and should not ignore people - external and internal - no matter what kind of grand plan the big picture people comes up with. They direct and oversee their colleagues within the organization and then seek to figure out ways that are compatible with their organization's policies to cope with those situated on the outside. Despite this difference, the two are both communicators and, as a result, carry on their shoulders the challenge of connecting with others.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Public Speaking

Over the years, survey after survey has shown the biggest fear people have is speaking in public. There is something about the thought of standing in front of a room of people, mostly strangers, and talking that sends shivers up and down one's back like nothing else. The reason for this, I believe, is pretty simple: none of us want to embarrass ourselves. We do not want others thinking little of us. Standing in front a bunch of people who are watching us, listening to us, focusing on what we are saying, how we are saying it, our body language, our facial expressions, etc. makes us feel exposed and vulnerable. We feel as if we are being judged in a negative way and there is nothing we can do about it.

The question, then, is what can be done to minimize those understandable feelings of insecurity? Of course, the obvious answer is to avoid doing it. If someone offers you a chance to stand up and share your thoughts with the group, you can always smile and decline. It is similar to the question of how one, say, deals with a fear of sharks by not swimming in the ocean. But suppose you enjoy swimming? And suppose doing laps in a backyard swimming pool does not challenge you enough? Or, in the case of public speaking, suppose you have something you feel is worth saying and that others should hear? To combat the insecurity, my suggestion is to wrap yourself in as much security as possible.

Know what it is you are going to say. Know your main talking points. Collect as much supporting information as you can so you can defend your perspectives. Find out as much as you can about the people to whom you are talking. Collectively, this information will help lesson whatever anxiety you may be feeling. It won't eliminate it, but it should give you enough courage to stand up and be heard. For years now, I have been teaching classes, giving occasional talks before groups, and doing interviews on television. Not once have I ever gone into any of these moments not feeling anxious, nervous and wishing it were over. I do not want to embarrass myself any more than any one else. (And the truth is I probably do from time to time.)

That fear of embarrassment is something I believe we all share. No matter how smooth, refined or out going we may be, none of us want to feel anything even related to humiliation. In a funny way, it is that truism that also helps get me through those anxious moments when I am about to step in front of a microphone or up to a podium and talk. Everyone in the audience can relate on some level to the anxiousness I am feeling. They may not agree or connect with what I am about to say, but they are at least on my side for getting up to say it.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Evolution Part II

Organizational communication is not the only aspect of this field that has evolved since its beginning days. Public relations has, too, in a big way. Going back to the nineteenth century, the message was the key. Get the word out. Don't worry so much how true everything you say is, but do what you can to get lots of people to hear or read it. As the nineteenth century turned into the twentieth, the message remained ever important; but at this point, thanks in large measure to Ivy Lee and his Declaration or Principles, accuracy in the message began to be viewed as important. That, in my estimation, was a big step because it represented an effort to add credibility and respectability to the profession of public relations. Edward Bernays, another pioneer of public relations, then raised the bar even higher by attempting to examine the science of mass manipulation.

The most significant leaps forward, however, have occurred over the past thirty years or so as scholars and practitioners have begun viewing public relations as being more geared toward the development and management of relationships than as simply a means by which to generate greater publicity. Corresponding with this has been a growing awareness that audiences or publics are a lot more complex than was previously thought. This runs parallel to he field of organizational communication. In that case, scholars began viewing the organizational members or workers as being far more than people waiting to be told what to do. It has been the same with publics external to an organization. In order to enjoy any kind of lasting success or stability, PR has largely come to recognize the wisdom of seeking ways to establish partnerships with public versus trying to manipulate them into taking certain actions.

Overall, this is a healthy trend in public relations even though it makes the practice more challenging. After all, isn't it easier to simply try and get people to do something with flashy ads and clever messages rather than conducting complex research of a public and trying to develop a two-way relationship with one? Where's the immediate pay off? Isn't that more costly with less guarantee a profit will be made? Maybe. But if done well and sincerely, then, no, the long range efforts to establishing a connection or partnership with a public will far exceed any immediate return. Public relations today as compared to how it used to be is the difference between a long distance run and a sprint. Now that's positive evolution.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Evolution Part I

To my way of thinking, for too many people today still get upset at the mention of the word "evolution." Everything evolves - sometimes in a positive way and sometimes not - so what is the big deal? Nevertheless, I wish to talk a bit about evolution as it applies to organizational communication. It is hard to find any one who does not belong to some kind of organization. For most of us, despite the current job market, the organization is where we work. For others, students for example, it may be the classroom, a fraternity or sorority, or an athletic team. And for others, it may be the local church or community association. For probably close to a century, scholars have been looking at how communication within organizations occurs. What makes it work more effectively? What happens when it does not work so well?

Not surprisingly, early scholars looked at this topic as it applied to the work place. Their initial perspective was to examine the traditional boss-employee relationship. The boss, they said, was concerned with two things: maintaining a certain level of productivity among his or her workers and doing what was necessary to maintain a certain level of control over the workers. The overall thinking here was that employees were there to follow the orders of the boss. The boss barks and the workers jump. What could be more straightforward than that? But then several people began playing around with the notion that perhaps the boss-worker relationship, as it had been previously defined, was not quite so one-dimensional. Perhaps the workers were more than some kind of mindless conglomeration of individuals. One of the first scholars to consider this perspective was John Dewey back in 1927, the same year Babe Ruth sent the sports world on fire by hitting 60 home runs in one season.

As brilliant as Dewey was, he was not as colorful as The Bambino. Nevertheless, his notion that workers within organizations were individuals with their own perspectives, ideas, creative juices and, at times, in possession of abilities and skills that even the boss did not have set in motion scholarly work that began looking at the supervisor-worker relationship as never before. Issues such as employee morale, retention, ways to bring out the best in workers, and ways in which communication between the boss and their employees could be enhanced began to be explored. Thanks to Dewey, the human relations perspective on organizational communication received a major jump start. Now, over 80 years later, it is hard not to find articles in mainstream and scholarly publications, for instance, on some aspect of this important topic. As with the exploits of  Ruth, Dewey's continue to enthrall.