Little White Lies

We all tell them. Our mother asks us how we like her new hairdo and we say we do even if we don't. We urge our spouse to take us to a local favorite local restaurant to quietly celebrate their birthday knowing full well that a boatload of their friends are eagerly waiting to yell "surprise" and turn an intimate dinner into a blow-out party. These are just two examples of little white lies, innocent fabrications that everyone tells from time to time. Society has deemed them to be harmless and even kind. Therefore, though technically lies, they are acceptable and even expected. For instance, if I had ever told my mother I did not like one of her new hairdos, then I would be viewed as rude and borderline mean.

Even on a broader scale, it is ok to exaggerate or take liberty with the truth. In these current political times, for instance, there is much truth-stretching going on. In one television ad, former Governor Mitt Romney shows clips of President Obama commenting on the national economy in a manner that illustrates how our current commander-in-chief is not a man of his word. Shortly after the ad was run, however, it was quickly noted by a number of sources that the clip was purposefully altered in such a way to depict Obama as saying something he did not actually say. When confronted with this, members of the Romney camp - and Romney himself - simply laughed it off.

Was this a little while lie or something darker? And if it was darker, will the Romney campaign experience any negative blowback? Where and how does society draw the line between the little white lies we all tell and ones that have potentially deeper consequences? I do not see any hard and fast lines of demarcation here though over the years the courts have tried to draw them in matters involving commercial and political speech and possible libel and slander. This is tricky and potentially dangerous territory for any public relations practitioner. My sense is the origins of this murkiness can be traced back to those little while lies. We grow up with the notion that, at times, it is ok to sretch or violate the truth. While I do not believe little white lies should be viewed the same as darker tall tales, I do feel professional communicators, especially, need to practice extreme caution when they are asked to knowingly tinker with what they know to be true and factual.

A National Puzzle

It is no secret the American public holds both branches of the the United States Congress in very low regard. This, I might add, is well deserved. Beside the fact representatives and senators are well paid, have access to a healthcare plan many of them do not seem to want to share with the rest of the American public, enjoy a number of perks, and seem to spend more trying to safeguard their jobs than actually representing their constituents, those elected officials are not liked by the rest of us for a very fundamental reason: they do not work together. This is maddening and counter to how the general American population conducts its lives every day.

Every day the rest of us go to work and collaborate with some people we do not like, do not wish to spend time with, or agree with. Yet we do it because this is what grown-ups do, out of loyality to our employer, and in order to stay employed. But what feels like every day we hear and see in the news more examples of how the members of Congress refuse to talk with each other, reach agreement on various issues, or are unable to achieve compromise. We see this and think: "I do this every day. Why can't they?" It is a pretty basic question, yet one I have yet to hear any member of Congress, when asked, answer. As a result, the membes of our nation's House of Representatives and Senate have become punch lines to a bad joke.

I wish I liked everybody with whom I work. I wish I saw eye-to-eye with everyone with whom I work. But I don't on either account. I am sure this is true for most of us. Yet all of us are expected to put aside our personal feelings and do what needs to be done to be productive and contribute to the greater good that is our organization's mission. And that is exactly what the great majority of us do. But not the members of Congress. I am struggling to understand why. After all, issues they tackle are a lot more important than what I or most of us do. The fact the elected men and women in Washington, D.C. seem so unwilling to meet such a funamental responsibility does not set well with me and, from the national polls suggest, the entire American public. Why can't they communicate as well as the rest of us? After all, they used to be one of us.

Shopping Malls

It is that time of year when there is one place no one wants to go yet most everyone does. Me included. Shopping malls. Depending upon the specific mall, their scale of congestion ranges from madhouse all the way up to "absolutely nuts." The hustle and bustle of shoppers of all ages only adds to the apparent chaos that seems to reign at these centers of holiday hunting. Trying to find a parking place. Long lines. People juggling packages and bags and their own winter coats. Children waiting in line to have a few last-minute words with Santa Claus. And the shoppers themselves scurrying about with expressions that suggest annoyance, frenzy, concern, and commitment all at the same time. It is another holiday season at the shopping mall.

Despite all that, it is a funny thing about shopping malls, particularly during the holiday season. Order prevails. Workers carry out their tasks with purpose. Shoppers actually accomplish their goals. Things get done. Yes, it may take longer than most of us would like. The atmosphere itself may at times seem on the brink of total collapse. Yet workers do work. Shoppers do shop. Missions are accomplished. On the surface that may seem like a minor miracle given the frenzy at the shopping malls. And maybe it is. But I think the success of shopping malls is more basic than that: everyone has a purpose that is well defined, communicated and ultimately carried out.

These modern-day marketplaces are actually highly-functional. Without question, they have every reason to collapse under the weight of humanity that descends upon them every day from morning till night. But they don't. As odd as it may sound, in a certain way they represent the best of us as people. We go to them with our own goals, interact with our fellow shoppers in a cooperative manner, collaborate with the workers who facilitate our efforts, and then return to our dwellings a bit tired but generally satisfied. The shopping malls represent the reality that millions of men and women can and actually do work together successfully to achieve their own ends while helping maintain the existence of shopping malls that function for the benefit of all.

Our Defining Element

What defines us as people? Is it what we eat? Who we know? What we know? Our actions? What we wear? What we say? Our jobs? Our hobbies? My sense is the answer is "all of the above." In fact, it is probably those elements and a whole lot more. We as living beings are complex creatures. The notion that a fair and full assessment of our character could be determined on the basis of a few component parts does not seem right, particularly since a number of those aspects of our personality or character are often seem contradictory. For instance, as a communication professional, I operate as an extrovert. Yet by nature I am much more introverted.

Yet no matter how many component parts there are that comprise the whole of us, it is my sense they all share an important common denominator. (If you guess it pertains to communication, then you get to go directly to the head of the class.) Take the elements I alluded to in the earlier paragraph. Each one represents acts of verbal or non-verbal communication. By associating with certain people, by wearing particular style of clothes, by behaving in specific ways, for instance, we are sending out signals to others that give them insight into who and even what we are. As a result, people begin assessing us as individuals and even begin making certain judgments about us.

If we wish to be defined in a positive light, then the challenge, as I see it, is to be honest in our communication. This does not mean we need to be consistent in our behavior, our opinions or even our words. But what I am suggesting is that we be honest in how we determine our actions, opinions and words. Are they based on facts? Are they carried out in good faith? Are they put forth in a way that acknowledges possible doubts or inconsistencies? Are they respectful of others? If the answer is "yes" to those, then I believe we will have a much better chance or being defined in a positive way even if others do not always agree with us.

My Communication Journey

I started out wanting to be a cowboy, more specifically a big Texas rancher. One of my cousins and I used to wax philosophic about the joys of living a life of riding the range, leading cattle on a long drive, and sitting arond an open campfire. We were not quite ten years at the time. After that, I kicked around the idea of becoming a secret agent. I am sure the fact "Dr. No," the first James Bond movie, had just been released was a coincidence. At this point, I was a "mature" 12 years olf age. That career path did not last long, however. Baseball became my driving ambition. To me, it was the great sport. I was convinced a life of catching flies, scooping up grounders and connecting bat to ball could not be matched by anything.

That desire lasted till my undergraduate years in college. By then, I had accumulated years of experience at all levels of the sport: little league, high school junior and senior varsity, and even a brief stint pitching for a low level Atlanta Braves farm team. It was fun. But the harsh reality is I was simply not good enough to go any further than I did. At the ripe old age of 19, I was faced with the challenge of deciding on other career options. It was then I revisted something else I enjoyed doing: asking people questions and then writing about what they said. I thought back to my time on the high school newspaper and decided journalism might be as good of a major to declare in college as any other. Besides, another harsh reality is I could not identify anything else I was even remotely interested in or good at.

So, I joined the college newspaper and started taking classes in journalism and communication. Four and a half years later I managed to graduate and land my first "grown up" job: a general assignment reporter for a daily newspaper. I ended up working for another newspaper before entering into public relations. My age was 25 was my first job in PR was at a local community college . My whopping annual salary was $4,800. While putting food on the table was a challenge, I ended up enjoying the work a great deal. Now, all these years later, I am still trying to be the best I can be in what started out as a fallback profession. And, yes, every so often I still dream aboutr life as a major leaguer.

Power & Communication: Joined at the Hip

Power and communication is a twosome I have been giving much thought to lately because of their fundamental intersection. If power is the ability to influence, then effective communication is the primary tool for making that happen. Throughout history, there have been great leaders; that is, individuals who have wielded much influence. Every single one, I would argue, has been an effective communicator or, at the very least, had a strong communication operation behind them. History shows that the leader's power begins to crumble when flaws in their communication machine are exposed or begin to break down.

What could cause such a breakdown? Often, one simple answer is found in the leader's message. Either it is found to be bogus or weak, it is no longer timely or relevant to the public, or the manner in which has been delivered is not viable. One need only look at the politics of our times to see examples of this. Many people initially supported our country's invasion of Iraq because citizens were told that country was an imminent threat to the U.S. Coming on the heels of 9/11, people were nervous and inclined to believe what they were being told by our government leaders. We now know the claims made by the Bush administration were either intentionally false or good faith projections that proved to be inaccurate. The result was two-fold: a sharp decline in the credibility of Bush and his administrative team and a rejection of their message.

The message, as has been said many times before, is the key. It must remain as credible and pertinent as the messenger him or herself. The two, in essence, rise and fall together because they are joined at the hip. Often times individuals in leadership positions lose sight of this and believe they can say most anything because they foolishly start believing it is they to which their public responds. This reality only goes so far. Inevitably, their success and level of influence lies in what they say and in how they say it. This holds true for public leaders with many followers jut as much as it does for persons involved in a one-on-one relationship.

My Tom Wicker Lesson

Recently, Tom Wicker, the former Pulitzer Prize winning columnist with the New York Times, passed away. In the world of journalism, Wicker was definitely a giant - as a reporter and commentator. I mention his passing because of what I feel is a kindness he extended me many years ago. Wicker had just written a book on the riots at Attaca State Prison in New York. In it, Wicker was critical of how then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller handled the incident. I was a teenager then, but nevertheless was interested in the subject matter, so I bought the book and read it. One thing I was curious about, after reading it, was how Rockefeller behaved toward Wicker the next time the two crossed paths after the book's release.

Not really sure if I would get a response, I wrote Wicker a hand-written note asking my question. Even now, I recall not expecting to ever get anything back and feeling a bit foolish about writing a man who, to me, was famous and important. Several weeks passed and much to my surprise came a letter to me with The New York Times return address on the envelope. I cautiously opened it and, sure enough, was a hand-written note back from Wicker with a brief answer to my question. I did not save the note, nor do I remember Wicker's exact words. But what has stayed with me all these years is the fact this nationally-renown writer took a few moments from his day to write me back. I remain very touched.

My memory of what Tom Wicker did reinforces the notion that even the simpliest acts of communication can sometimes really go a long way. To him, it probably took less than a minute and was quickly forgotten. But, to me, it has lasted most of a lifetime. The lesson I have taken from it is that as best we can we must take all of our acts of communication as seriously as possible because they can make a surprising difference to others. I never met Wicker in person, so I really do not know if he was a truly good man. Yet when I do think of him, that is how I imagine he was throughout his life: kind and thoughtful. At least that is how he was to me. And that is how I try to be when I communicate to others.

Staying Young

Let me see a show of hands. How many of us want to stay young? Just what I thought. We all do. We want to remain of sound body and mind, be able to kick up our heals from time to time, think deep thoughts and be able to articulate them when the occasion calls for it, and even have people tell us we look good without tacking on those three awful words: "for your age." Of course, it is one thing to want to remain young but another to actually do it, especially when aging is an indisputable law of nature, the existence of which no one disputes. Regular exercise, sound sleep, a healthy diet and remaining mentally active are among the ingredients hard science has identified as helping us remain vibrant both mentally and physically as we move past middle age.

As many non-scientists have their own theories on how to stay young, I would like to add mine to the list. I believe being a good communicator can help one keep a bounce in their step longer than they might otherwise. Good communication is more than just focusing one's own needs and goals at the exclusion of others. It involves developing and maintaining an outlook of inclusion. Also, it includes taking the insight you have gained from others and, with their assistance, coming up with ways to meld together yours and theirs in order to create a connection and mutual understanding. Looking beyond one's own interests and not allowing yourself to become insular in thinking and even action is the key.

This could very well be communication's great gift to us all. Communication pioneer Edward Bernays once described public relations as the act of creating an "harmonious adjustment" between different publics. Simply put, that can only be done if both parties have gathered solid information and understanding of another. To me, being an inclusive thinker is a better way of keeping one's mind and outlook positive and sharp. Granted, Father Time eventually takes over no matter what we do or what our outlook might be. But being the opposite of self-absorbed can certainly help make its inevitability less overwhelming and imposing.

The Malthusian Trap

In the late 18th century political economist Thomas Robert Malthus set down a theory that said as population increases the availability of the basics of life, primarily food, would not be able to keep pace with the growing need for it. As a result, we as a species were doomed to experience never ending misery. This pessimistic perspective later became known as "The Malthusian Trap." As humans advance, they also increase the amount of suffering within their ranks. It is a kind of negative "circle of life"that did not bode well for mankind. This over 200-year-old theory continues to ring true in many the poorer parts of the world and our country, for that matter.

The basic premise put forth by Malthus remains provocative, particularly when applied to communication. Let me take a crack at applying what I will call the Malthus perspective to communication. The more our population increases the greater the need we have for effective communication; but the need for effective communication will not be able to be adequately met by the ever growing population. A growing population of individuals with their own need to be heard, to speak out and to properly connect with others will outpace whatever technological advances are made that attempt to foster greater communication.

This analogy does three things: it paints a bleak picture for us in terms of being able to connect with others in a meaningful way; it reveals a real challenge for us if we agree that effective communication is important and worth perserving; and it highlights a great opportunity for us to continue identifying ways in which we will be to practice two-way communication in our day-to-day lives. Thanks to social media and responses by traditional media to keep pace with it, efforts are already underway to help ensure our future is one of effective communication opportunities and channels. At the same time, growing pressures on us in such other areas as economics, the environment, education and world peace guarantees the balance between communication need and communication solution will continue to be at-risk.

"Myside Bias"

There used to be an old saying that went something like this: "You can't tell any body something they don't already know." The basic meaning of this comment was that people only listened to perspectives which fit their own narrative or opinion. Otherwise, they paid little attention to any facts or points of view with which they disagreed. True or not, this certainly painted a negative picture of how open minded people were. This old saying has since been updated with a new a tag line: "myside bias." It, too, speaks to the observation that people are primarily open to that with which they already agree. If true, other interpretations, conflicting facts or differences of opinion are aspects of communication or, on a larger scale, enlightenment that people continue to not wish to listen to hear or be bothered with.

My concern is not that this paints us in a negative light. Rather, I am worried  it may be increasingly accurate. If so, the consequences are far reaching. Imagine living in a world where everyone is so certain of what they know that they are uninterested in perspectives that may vary from theirs or any new information that may come along that possibly makes the set of facts to which they cling obsolete or, in heaven forbid, inaccurate? In such a world everyone would practically have their own reality. How would that affect such things as collaboration, tolerance or communication? Would it lead to greater amounts of conflict, isolation and division? Would anything even akin to harmony over a sustained amount of time exist?

I, for one, would not want to be part of a world where certainty reigns. A big part of the magic of us is that we remain unintimidated by the unknown. We are driven by our desire to see what lies beyond the river's bend. In other words, one distinguishing characteristic of our species is our open mindedness. But I look at such realities as the rise of niche journalism and the fact members of the United States Congress seem so unwilling to work with each other due to their so-called certainty over the correctness of their ideology. The ever-growing result of these particular circumstances ranges from low morale and frustration to stagnation and cynism. For communicators, this creates a major challenge: getting people to become comfortable with feelings of uncertainty and brave enough to work with others to seek answers in a collaborative manner.

Thank You to the Reminders of the World

I am writing this entry on Thanksgiving, 2011. One of the significant aspects of this day is that it marks the official beginning of our time of giving thanks. Ideally, of course, we should all be giving thanks throughout the year without needing to be reminded of it via a national holiday. It seems we are a nation of people who need gentle or sometimes not-so-gentle reminders about things we need to do or take care of. That could very well be the main reason the post-it industry is so successful. "Don't forget your doctor's appoitment today." "Don't forget to call your mother." "Don't forget junior has soccer practice this afternoon." "Don't forget to turn the oven on at 3:30 today." The reminders go on and on.

In my view, reminding others of things they need to do or, at least, not forget is an important communication skill. After all, none of us can remember everything. From time to time, for instance, I need to be reminded of upcoming doctor appointments. And then there's the matter of remembering everything I have been asked to pick up at the grocery store. Without question, I am a direct beneficiary of reminders. (Come to think of it. I probably need to be reminded of that every so often.)

My point on this great day of thanks is that I wish to give thanks to the people who do the reminding. They are the great helpers of the world; the ones who try to look out after others. Few things make us feel more grateful than being reminded of something we completely forgot. Yet, their job - if I may call it that - is a thankless one. Sometimes, without warning, reminders cross an invisible line and enter into the world of nagging, particularly when they remind somebody of something that the person has not forgotten. Still, they may get snapped at, but you can bet your juiciest drumstick that this will not stop them continuing to remind that same person who just snapped at them of something else in the future. I admire their perserverience and the fact they have planted their flag in a life of keeping others on track. Of course, then there's the matter of those who remind the reminders of things they forgot. But I'll try and write about them at another time. (I hope I don't forget.)

Wolves and Dogs

Please pardon the following gross oversimplification. All canines started out wild. It was not till years had passed before some began allowing themselves to be lured in by humans for free food and shelter. Eventually they became domesticated. This is how we came to have dogs as pets. As a self-described dog person, I have no complaints. Several of the greatest loves of my life have been dogs. Checkers was my faithful companion while growing up and Dusty took over that role when I entered into adulthood. Unfortunately, both are gone now, but my memories of them linger on in a very positive way. But I digress.

Yes, we have dogs. But we also have wolves. These critters continue to live in the wild, not taking the path toward domestication. They have a will of their own and basically do whatever they can to ensure their own survival. They are not our friends, nor do they want to be. Nevertheless, they deserve respect and have as much right to live on this planet as any other living creature, including humans. I mention wolves and dogs because I cannot help equate them with journalists and public relations practitioners. Both started out from the communications gene pool. Yet one chose to remain in the wild while the other selected a life of domesticity.

A journalist's existence is one of detachment. This person observes, reports and attempts to learn the who, what, where, when, why and how of what goes on around them. Their survival lies in how well and accurately they answer these fundamental questions. They challenge, they poke, and they pry. Public relations practitioners also observe and strive to learn the fundamental facts of things. Their lives are the opposite of detachment. Being domesticated, they work with those who employ them to determine how best to communicate what they learn. Interestingly, as is the case with journalists, a public relations practitioner's survival is based on how well and accurately they report what they know. The two are forever connected, yet forever distinct as well.

Combover

All of us have seen men who are losing their hair. As a man not nearly as young as I used to be, my heart goes out to them as I still have hair on the top of my head and dread the day when that may no longer be the case. This is why I feel a special degree of sympathy for those men whose hair thickness is, shall we say, no longer what it used to be. These men wear their hair in the style of a combover in order to cover their balding plate and, if they are lucky, perhaps make others think they still have at least close to a full head of hair. I appreciate their effort because there may come a time in my life when I, too, resort to the combover.

Despite the impression a combover may give, those with this so called hair style either are going bald or are close enough to where they already are bald. No amount of swept over hair is going to change that reality. One point is: combovers are nothing more than diversions designed to cover up (no pun intended) the truth. Granted, it is harmless and no one who does it, has done it or will do it is should be punished or criticized for their attempt to postpone living with the inevitable reality. Having said that, another harsh reality is that combovers fool no one. They are as easy to spot as a unicorn at a bull roast.

Another point here is that efforts to cover up or hide the truth are never successful forever. People either spot deception right away or at some point the actual truth eventually reveals itself. More often than not, when truth does come out, it is like an unstoppable avalanche. Professional communicators need to take this to heart. When communicating, be honest. When communicating, do not compromise the truth. When communicating, do not mislead. Combovers are ok when it comes to hiding impending baldness, but they are not acceptable when standing in the way of undeniable truth.

Perpetual Conflict

I always enjoy coming across new ideas that provide greater insight into the challenges of communication. Recently, I "discovered" biologist E.O. Wilson who has put forth a new theory on man's behavior. Wilson says man is driven by what he labels "group selection" and "individual selection." Group selection is characterized by man's recognition that we need each other to survive. As a result, we create connections with others in the form of such things as clubs, neighborhoods, family units, shopping centers, and even Facebook. On the other hand, individual selection speaks to our drive to do our own thing, stand out from the crowd, be noticed, and, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, "march to the beat of our own drummer." These two internal drives encapsulate a fundamental struggle within all of us, according to Wilson.

It is no wonder, then, that communication is such a challenging enterprise for all of us. Whether we are a professional communicator or a so-called regular person doing what they can to interact well with others, it is important to understand this internal reality within humans. Years before Wilson came on the scene, psychologist Abraham Maslow also touched on the duality within us in his hierarchy of needs. Maslow said we all possess a need for self-actualization as well as a need for acceptance and membership in a group of some sort. The idea of picturing how this internal dual personality of ours reconciles all efforts to communicate with us is intriguing.

Campaigners urge us to support their candidate. Advertisers beg us buy their product. Children try to talk other children into taking their first puff of a cigarette. The examples are plentiful. A big part of our internal decision making process is reconciling whether we want to go along with or stand apart from others. Sometimes this decision is not easy. What is interesting is that just as our eventual decisions come from one of those two places, appeals made to us are often triggered by an acknowledgment of the existence of our innate duality as articulated by Maslow and, now, Wilson.

Classic Mistake

How often do people have to make the same mistake before it finally sinks in that that is not the way to handle revelations of criminal and bad behavior? I'm talking to you Penn State. This institution and its highly-acclaimed and successful football program has been rocked to the core because of the alleged criminal behavior of one of the coaches on its team. It seems as if over a number of years he has been sexually abusing young boys. Just as tragically, folks within the organization knew about it and did little of note to stop this man's perverse behavior or did what should have been done from the beginning: go to the police.

One early consequence of this scandal is that the team's legendary coach, Joe Paterno, has been dismissed. Many are protesting this decision because of the affection and regard they have for this man who is the most successful coach in college football history. I, however, believe his removal was the best and right thing to do. From a public relations standpoint, this decision demonstrates the institution's commitment to running a clean program and the seriousness in which it is taking this matter. Further, their decision to dismiss Paterno illustrates that no one, regardless of their reputation or standing in the community, is deserving of special treatment when the law is involved.

Looking at what is happening at Penn State, I am reminded of the scandals involving the Catholic Church. It, too, has had problems with people of authority sexually abusing young boys. Church authorities also demonstrated poor and immoral judgment when dealing with their internal challenges scandals involving the sexual abuse of young boys. Both organizations tried to protect themselves rather than deal with the problem in an honest and forthright way. In the case of Penn State, it has suffered a major setback in its reputation. It now has an enormous hole of of which it is going to be digging for years to come. Good public relations is about being honest and transparent and placing those values above all else. Penn State needs to get on board with that.

Zombies

I confess I do not understand the zombie craze that seems to be sweeping our nation. Zombies seem to be everywhere: movies, television shows, video games, numerous books, and even as the subject of college courses. To me, these flesh-eating undead creatures have little going for them. They walk around stiffly with their arms extended looking to chow down on any poor living being in their path. Their gait is slow, they do not speak and their level of intelligence is about the same as a door knob. If those deficiencies are not enough, they are also highly vulnerable. A simple bash to the head of a zombie with a baseball bat seems to be enough to stop them. Off hand, I would say vampires have a lot more going for them than zombies, even on their best day.

Yet in the fickle world of pop culture, zombies definitely seem to be the belle of the ball these days. Perhaps one thing zombies do have going for them in terms of terror is that they are so relentless and single-minded even more so than, say, sharks. Sharks, at least, do sleep from time to time and, for the most part, eat only when hungry. But not zombies. For them, it's eat eat eat. Do not get me wrong. Despite their limitations, I definitely label zombies as bad things. I sure would not want to find my house surrounded by them.

In terms of communication, I equate zombies with lies except lies can be worse. Sure, lies can be stopped, but often it takes the equivalent of a baseball bat to the head to do it. They are relentless and can do a great deal of damage if left unchecked. I am concerned this kind communication zombie - lies - are infiltrating our public discourse. Professional communicators, especially ones who are hired to represent the views and positions of clients, need to be extra careful about not unleashing any zombies - even little ones. I understand the temptation, but I also understand the damage they do regardless of whether they are designed to serve a positive end. An example is when the false that former Vice President Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. He did no such thing. Not once. Yet this lie, in some circles, seems to be accepted as fact. It is not fair to Gore or to the people on the receiving end of this communication zombie who do not know any better.

Zombies that seem to be so popular these days are notable because they are undead creatures. But untruths have a way of taking on life that does real and lasting damage to our entire society. This is why all of us, especially professional communicators, should never be far away from a baseball bat to squash them.

Occupy Communication

Looking back over 2011, it seems as if our country has seen a lot of protesting. More to the point, our country has been the subject of much protesting. We have seen thousands of people raising their voices against what they view as a federal government that has gotten far bigger than it either needs to be or should be. And then there are those who are speaking out against the fact the government has not played enough of a role in curbing the social and economic inequality that seems to have gripped our nation. Lots of angry people, all with valid perspectives, passion and comfortable in the certainty of their arguments. Either way, the various groups are doing all they can to be heard, in part, because they feel no one is listening. What's a country to do?

I do not see this situation as being hopeless or impossible to address. Despite their differences, one of the handicaps shared by both camps of concerned citizens is that neither seems to have the right kind of advocate in the halls of power: Congress or the White House. By "right kind," I mean leaders who are willing to try and rise above the raw emotion of their constituents; leaders who are compassionate and are capable of working toward the greater good of the nation rather than their own self interests. Such leaders could strive to dissect the dissatisfaction being expressed by those they represent, encapsulate what people are articulating, identify those main points that are similar in tone or substance, and then begin seeking ways to transform those points into action plans. I understand such a process is not as easy as it may sound just as I am aware that such selfless actions by elected officials are not carried out over night. But the good news is our country possesses the capability - the technology - to carry out such a massive communication effort.

Through such mechanisms as facebook, twitter, you tube and even good old fashion television, a series of townhall forums could be organized and hosted by leaders of both political parties. Such efforts could be their time to put on their listening caps rather than using comments from voters as a springboard to make campaign speeches. Conservatively, I estimate such a collective effort would attract millions of participants. Rather than simply react or try and address what is said to them, the host leaders could dialog with the participating citizens as well take extensive notes to accurately capture all that is said. Implementing such a communication process would enable all who care to regain or occupy much-needed communication and begin addressing our nation's concerns in a more inclusive way.

The Value of Instability

Our lives are not stable. Our world is not stable. Our days are filled with issues all of us worry about constantly. They range from the well being of our loved ones, the security of our jobs and our ability to meet our financial obligations to world peace, the mysterious sound our car engine makes in the morning and whether our favorite sports team is going to do well. The list, of course, is endless and is filled with issues of consequence as well as those that some might view as trivial. Either way, these worries are a constant part of our days. They fill our moments and if, by chance, they go away, they will be quickly replaced by others. To live a life of non-worry is to not live in reality. Is this a bother? At times, yes. Does it cause us stress? No doubt about it. But would I, for one, have it any other way? Not for a second.

My reason for that is articulated quite nicely in Aldous Huxley's classic, "Brave New World."The premise of this book is that people dwell in an environment of total and controlled stability. As the leader known as "the controller" says, "People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age...........they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave." This monologue is all part of the controller's rant against liberty. In his so-called brave new world, stability trumps happiness.

It is an interesting argument. To me, however, it reinforces the reality that is man's own innate desire for happiness. Just as we contend with a constant string of sources of worry each day, we also do what we can to move toward a greater level of happiness. But happiness does not come easy because it is constantly under siege from those very issues that cause us to worry. The two, in many ways, are our constant companions. This relates to communication because the act of communicating, no matter how well planned, is fraught with all manner of noise and potential interruptions. But the challenges that those hurdles represent are what often inspire us to communicate more effectively and then instill in us deeper levels of happiness and pride than we would otherwise have known.

The Numbers Game

The statemebnt "it takes two to tango" has been stated so often and for so long that it - and math - seem to be beyond refute. Still, I do find myself wondering every so often if it would be possible for three to tango. I suppose the choreography might be a bit trickier, but I bet it could be done. This leads me to wondering: how many does it take for communication to occur. One? Two? More than two? My sense is the answer to this question might not be as clear as the tango question. After all, in a pure sense, one person can make noise and therefore be said to be communicating. But if there is no one else around to hear that noise and possibly react to it, then did an act of communication actually occur?

I will leave it to others to wrestle with that. Instead, it seems more beneficial to speculate on the act of communicating itself rather that on whether a verbal or non-verbal act from an isolated individal constitues communication. Such an act, to be purposeful and successful, requires more than one. A sender and receiver need to be part of the mix. An actor and reactor. This is especially the case if one accepts the concept - as I do - that there are two primary purposes of communication: to persuade or to establish/maintain partnership. The scholar James Grunig and Todd Hunt are the ones that set forth this notion. It continues to be relevant today.

This, then, brings me back to numbers. There is the sender - one - and a receiver - two. However, suppose one is attempting to connect with multiple people? Does that grow the number of people it takes to communicate to a potentially unlimited total? My answer, based on the effectiveness of communication, is two. Every act of communication is based on the premise of reaching or connecting with another. One person responds to an overture such as an outreached hand. One person acts buys a product in respond to a fancy advertisement. Depending upon such variables as the range of the communication act first triggered by the sender, the effort can include multiple numbers. But at its most fundamental, communication, like the tango, comes down to one plus one.

Old Timers & Up and Comers

I guess you can say it is another example of the circle of life. Perhaps coincidentally, lately I have attended a number of meetings at which in attendance were veteran supervisors and their recently-hired assistants. Throughout the meetings, I was struck by several things: at how often the veterans deferred to their less-experienced assistants; and how articulate those young assistants were. While I am in no way suggesting these particular supervisors are in any way representative of all veteran supervisors, I did find it interesting they seemed to be making a conscious effort to let their underling have the spotlight.

Being professionally generous is a good thing on many levels. From a communication standpoint, it is an effective way of letting the assistant or person who is not the boss know they are valued and appreciated, that their abilities are recognized, and that their professional growth is a priority to the office. Further, it lets others know that the assistant is to be respected. Also, for me, watching those supervisors voluntarily relinquish the spotlight demonstrates the particular veteran places great importance on the needs of their office rather on just feeding their own egos.

Communication is an act of sharing. Connecting with others and then taking steps to maintain that connection requires what I call a "we" mentality rather than an "I" one. This perspective is better served if it comes from the person who is either in-charge, has seniority, or who is older-in-age. Generally, it is that person who has the clout or power. Consequently, power is better served when it is shared generously rather than used as a hammer over others. The supervisors I witnessed demonstrated a generosity that greatly benefited their own status, that of their staff member, the organization which they both serve, and the communication efforts between them.

Another Progressive Era?

The emergence of the tea party movement and protests against Wall Street that have spread at various levels of intensity throughout our country have helped serve as a reminder that people, when pushed hard enough, are willing to step outside their comfort zones and speak out against wrongs they perceive to have been done against them. These movements remind me of several major social trends that occurred in the United States between 1890 - 1917, a time span that has come to be called the progressive era. This era, which contributed greatly to the kind of growth and general acceptance of public relations that we see today, was characterized by the beginnings of technological advancements in communication and a search for consensus among peoples from different backgrounds.

There were other important trends in this era of bygone years that I am seeing signs of today. They are the growth of institutions, the growth of advocacy, and a possible expansion of democracy. Toward the latter part of the nineteenth century, citizens expressed disenchantment at what they perceived as a great centralization of power among a handful of business tycoons, including Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie. Today, similar outrage is emerging against various corporations and major banks and their blatant efforts to consolidate their power. As today's protests grow, a great deal of speaking-out is happening from those serving as advocates on behalf of the protesters as well as those supporting the wealthy.

Democracy itself received a real boost in the progressive era. Thanks to the sustained effort by many of our current protestors, the potential for that happening today is great, especially if those involved play their communcation cards correctly. Obviously, movements with many voices do not always put forth coherent, precise messages. That has not yet happened today. But the fact voters are rumbling and making their dissatisfaction known is an indicator that they will not be sitting the upcoming congressional and presidential elections out. This, in itself, will be good for our democracy. I urge the protesters, no matter their political affiliations and despite opposition against them, to continue communicating their unhappiness. It makes me hopeful that a better tomorow is just over the horizon.

Too Many Meetings?

In one of CNN's recent unscientific daily polls, people were asked to comment on whether where they work has too many meetings. Fifty-five percent of respondents said "yes." The results of this survey are not a surprise. In all my years in the work force, I have yet to hear any one say they do not go to enough meetings or that they wish they could attend more. If anything, a constant refrain I hear is the complaint that people say they do not have enough time to actually do their job because too much of their days are taken up by attending meetings. I have been known to make that same comment myself, too.

Lately, however, my opinion about meetings has changed. Though I will be the first to admit that many are poorly run and are allowed to run-on far too long, I am no longer of a mind they are a waste of time or are somehow separate from work employees have to do. Meetings represent an important element in the communication process that all employees need to follow as they strive to meet their own responsibilities. They are a time when individuals come together to discuss and devise strategies for successfully dealing with issues of mutual concern. This is no small thing. More often than not, work-related challenges are best confronted by more than one person because most of the time these challenges and their proposed solutions affect more than one person.

Communication is a team sport and meetings represent that. It provides individuals with an opportunity to move beyond themselves and participate in an effort to serve a greater good. It represents a valuable opportunity for workers to shift from "I" to "we." The challenge for those running the meetings is to ensure they are conducted in an efficient and respectful manner. Collaboration is important, yet so, too, is giving people the chance to be heard in a forum where others listen.

Communication Congestion

I live in Northern Virginia, a part of the country that is characterized by its high level of traffic. It is just outside Washington, D.C. What we affectionately call "the beltway" wraps around the nation's capital. Almost all the time traffic on this stretch of highway is bumper-to-bumper. The result is many of us who live near it do all we can to either avoid it or figure out ways to minimize the amount of time we have to be on it. The downside of that, of course, is often times the so-called side roads off the beltway become congested, too. Consequently, it feels as if we are at a point where traffic congestion in our region is unavoidable.

More and more I am coming to the conclusion the same holds true with communication congestion. There simply seems to be no way to avoid it. In the case of heavy traffic, the highways are filled with drivers intent are trying to get where they are going. That is their "message." In the case of communication, there seems to be an ever-increasing amount of messaging underway, too. More and more, it is becoming a greater challenge for any of us to be heard, to ask questions, to raise concerns, or even enter into an ongoing conversation. This is not healthy, nor is it helpful to our society if it continues.

We need avenues by which to communicate even more than we need highways on which to drive. Given that so many of us spend part of our days on the road, this may sound like a strange thing to say. Nevertheless, if one views communication as an essential element of how we fulfill our own fundamental need to connect with others, then it is apparent this cannot be ignored. My concern is one major reason for what I perceive to be a growing sense of dissatisfaction among people in our country and in many parts of the world is communication congestion. Communication efforts to enter into a dialog with others are backing-up. As a result, our society's level of frustration is growing. Those with whom many of us are trying to communicate, including political and corporate leaders, need to be more accessible and start doing a better job of listening.

Communicating With Zealots

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that we live in an age of zealotry. It seems every where one turns there are views being expressed that are absolute with no room for nuance, gray area or ambivalence. The only thing missing is people pounding their fist on the nearest table as they spout their opinions with total and uncompromising conviction on any number of issues. Turn on talk radio or many of the cable shows on television, for instance, and right before your eyes or ears is a full display of zealotry in action. People state their views with a straight forward conviction that I can only describe as fanatical.

From my own standpoint, I find this to be pretty impressive and amazing. I say that because if there is one thing about me as I get older that I have noticed, it is the fact I am becoming less certain about most everything. With annoying and increasing frequency, I find myself seeing various sides of an issue to the extent that I realize wisdom is often a lot more widespread than I had first thought. It does not belong to just me or anyone who agrees with me. Yet there are people on the air waves who are so insistent that only their views are both valid and accurate. Other views are simply dead wrong and forever will be.

Maybe certainty is on the rise because what we are seeing and hearing in the media teaches us that people who do not change their mind or adjust their thinking when circumstances change are more trustworthy or morally strong and, therebefore, better leaders. I pity the person who is ever labeled "flip flopper" even though inconsistency and flip flopping are part of what makes all of us human. Zealots are nearly impossible to communicate with. Their blind conviction, even if based on fact or reasonable bias, makes it extremely difficult for them to listen or be open minded to those with a different perspective. Ideally, all of us should possess a healthy degree of uncertainty that challenges us to learn more about various issues, yet reminds us that we need to keep an open mind to those who see things differently than we do.

The Importance of Self-Assment

So often we hear people talk about how they are caught up in "the same old rut." Their days, they say, are the same with little variation from one to the other. While I can certainly understand how people might feel this way - I know I certainly do from time to time - the fact is it is not true. No two days are the same no matter that we might eat lunch at the same time, interact with the same folks, watch the same television shows or walk the dog in the morning and at night. But while each of those activities may be similar, they are also quite different because of us. We are not the same every day. We just may feel we are because what we do - our routine activities - do not vary all that much.

We should not confuse who we are with what we do. For the record, I also believe we are not what we eat despite the popularity of that particular observation. Each day a new us appears. One morning, for example, we may be super groggy because we did not sleep all that well. Other mornings we may leap out of bed because our smoke alarm went off and we thought the house was on fire. These particular scenarios have an impact on us as we proceed with the rest of the day. They affect our moods, our perceptions, our interactions, and our choices. Granted, the impact may be slight, but the fact is it may also be significant. Either way and irregardless of what scenario occurs that does affect our psyche, it is enough to alter us on a constant basis; enough to make us ever-changing.

This reality is one reason why communication is so important to us as individuals. To begin, we need to be able to communicate honestly with ourselves as to what our emotional temperature is on any given day and at any given time. Secondly, we then need to determine our communication strategies with others based on what our self-assessment tells us. If our objective is to work well others and we know we are in a grumpy mood, for instance, then we need to devise particular communication strategies that do not let that grumpiness get in the way of our goal of getting along. Sure, this kind of day-to-day challenge can seem a bit overwhelming. But communicating well with ourselves pales in comparison to the challenge of making amends with others because we failed to properly assess where we are at any given moment.

Appreciating Military

All of us have many reasons to admire men and women who serve in the military. They put themselves in harm's way to preserve and protect our nation's way of life as well as to help ensure our personal safety. Granted, while the individuals who serve in the military may have as many personal flaws and issues as the rest of us, their choice to stand between us and enemies of the United States who have violent intent is as admirable and selfless as any other action I can name. I add my name to the long list of others who attach the label "heroic" to our nation's soldiers, current and former.

As one who has taken a number of classes through the years and who currently teaches several communication classes, I have interacted with military personnel in the classroom setting on many occasions. Without exception, I have found them to be personable, good-humored, and hard-working. I even viewed them as "one of us." I say this for the simple reason they are like any civilian in that they, too, are normal people with families who contend with the regular highs and lows of everyday life. But on the other hand, they are different because many of them have served on foreign land as well as engaged in ugly and violent combat. Because of that reality, their level of experience is on a plane different from the many of us who have not traveled that path.

Yet in the classroom setting, we all sit together engaged in the subject at-hand, raising our hand to answer questions or make comments, carrying out assignments, and taking tests. My point, from a communication perspective, is this significant difference can make the reality of interaction between military and civilian inside and outside the classroom much stronger and more enlightening if acknowledged and embraced. Military men and women have perspectives and experiences that can add much to the wisdom the rest of us try to bring to life. As every-day communicators, we need to continue appreciating their day-to-day service out of uniform, too.

Land of Plenty

Over the years I have spent plenty of time in a wide range of grocery and drug stores. I suspect the same holds true for most Americans. Recently, I was in a chain drugstore looking for some odds and ends when I found myself focusing on the high volume of different brands of shampoo. In fact, there were easily two isles of nothing but shampoo. Shampoo. Our country may be dealing with economic hardship right now and the middle and lower classes may be under siege from the upper class, but, rich or poor, people sure are able to take proper care of their hair in the United States. My guess is there are countries in the world that do not even have two shelves of food in their grocery stores.

I realize my observation is not new. But I do wonder in a country that possess so many material things, what kind of impact does that have on our ability to communicate with each other? Does it make it harder? Easier? Does it make people want to connect with others more or less? Or in some way does it make us feel more smug and self absorbed and, as a result, make us only want to talk with others as an excuse to show-off what we have and share our dreams of how we want more? Has our land of plenty set us on a path of perpetual self-indulgence to the extent we as a collective society are only interested in what is best for us even if obtaining it comes at the expense of others?

While there is certainly nothing wrong with possessing or even wanting lots of material things, problems occur when those desires circumvent efforts to identify areas of shared interest. Within effective communication is the opportunity for us to talk about ourselves, our possessions and our goals. But that "me talk" should be compatible with "us talk." There should be a healthy balance between the two. Again, this speaks to the reality that communication as a values-driven enterprise is at its best when individuals are talking with rather than at each other.

Grit

When someone is referred to as having character it is usually meant as a compliment. What does this thing called "character" actually mean, however? According to a wide number of sources that range from the Boy Scouts Handbook to writings by Confucius and Aristotle, it includes being in possession of such traits as fairness, wisdom, citizenship, bravery, kindness and gratitude. Who wouldn't want to be seen by others as having those kind of qualities.? I sure would. In a recent article in the NY Times Sunday magazine, there are educators looking to add another item to this list: grit.

Grit, as they mean it, is one's ability to contend with setbacks. How well does a person deal with disappointment? How well does a person take lessons from what went wrong and turn it into a valuable lesson? How well does a person reverse a failure and turn it into a success? In the article, the educators were primarily focusing on youngsters in school and their ability to cope with the reality of not doing well on a class test or assignment. It is the concern of the educators that students should learn at a young age that not everything in life goes well. As a result, in order to live a life of success, they must be able to handle disappointment and adversity.

I believe there is wisdom in this. I also view the development of "grit" as being very beneficial to anyone wishing to pursue a career in communications or public relations. Public relations is not a perfect science in that not all plans or strategies work out as well as intended. More broadly, this is definitely the case when it comes to communication. I say this because I have come to believe nearly every day, at least once, something we communicate either verbally or non-verbally is misinterpreted. Given that kind of frequency, having an abundance of grit is definitely a good thing.

Life's Extremities

Recently, I visited someone in the hospital for part of the day. She is elderly and is slowly on the mend from injuring her back from a fall. In the room next to us was another elderly person. Sadly, while there, this person died. Through the wall separating our rooms I could hear the family members and friends who had gathered cry out in pain as they mourned the departure of someone for whom they obviously cared a great deal. Listening to their cries and moans, I silently watched the person I was with as she drifted in and out of sleep. This dynamic was a vivid reminder of the opposing forces that so dominate our lives on earth.

Life and death. Smiles and frowns. Victories and defeat. Successes and failures. Almost daily we experience or witness these and other stark opposites. It is a wonder how any of us manage to come even close to coping with the regular occurrence of such extremes. Perhaps the fact they are so regular - so commonplace - is what ultimately makes it easier for us to carry on with an unbending commitment to our own goals or to-do lists. No matter what the circumstances, life, for better or worse, moves on. It is one truism of life that all of have embraced. It is one truism of life that touches us all.

This relates to communication in the sense it is a common denominator for us all. Because successful communication is based largely on the identification and exploitation of what we share, then perhaps in these times of conflict it would be helpful if more of the so-called communication advisers and pundits urged their clients and all who listen to them to focus on the truisms of life we share rather than the perspectives we don't. This would not eliminate all disagreement - nor should it - but it would certainly raise the chances of all of us moving forward with more assurance and hope.

Taking a Punch

One ingredient as much as any other that helps distinguish good boxers from not-so-good ones is the fighter's ability to take a punch. In boxing, of course, being the kind of sport it is, eveyone gets their "clock rung" at least one. Granted, the trick in boxing is to hit your opponent as often and hard as possible and to keep the times you get hit back as little as possible. Nevertheless, when it comes to fisticuffs or any other kind of meaningful or intense interaction, reality dictates that eventually all parties are going to get hit. The question then becomes how well one responds when suddenly they have suffered a setback, disappointment, a failure or a punch. In communication, as in the case of boxing, it helps separate the good ones from the not-so-good ones.

Public relations professionals spend a good deal of their time coming up with creative and sometimes innovative strategies to support a client either through promotion or establishing alliances or partnerships. Some of these strategies are complex and some are not. But more to the point, sometimes these strategies, no matter how well funded or planned, fall short. They miss the mark, leaving the public relations expert with the challenge of figuring out what to do next. This can be frustrating and sometimes even expensive. But it is part of the reality of communication.

Working in the communication industry means dealing with failure or disappointment on a consistent basis. Things do not always go as well as you would like no matter how well planned and executed your outreach strategies might have been. This is one important reasons why public relations generally comprise multiple strategies, why good professional communicators do as much as pre-planning and research as they can before launching a campaign, and why many communication efforts are not one-shot-deals. Sure, missing the mark once or even several times can be frustrating. But setbacks can also be turned into the basis for a successful campaign. too.

Reading

When I was a youngster trying to navigate my way through middle and even early high school, one of my favorite escapes was reading comic books. I went through them, especially anything with a super hero in it, faster and more thoroughly than General Sherman went through Atlanta during the Civil War. While I no longer turn to those publications for reading pleasure, I confess to still having a soft spot in my heart for them. I like to think my reading outlets have evolved in a more positive way. Right now, for instance, I am working my way through Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov."

I keep hearing that in our country today fewer people are reading. This is unfortunate on a number of levels. Less reading means less enlightenment, more narrow perspectives, and greater ignorance. It also reduces our ability to communicate with others. How can any of us effectively and even convincingly explain or defend our our views on various issues if we do not possess a base of knowledge from which to draw? How can we effectively connect or relate to others from different backgrounds and cultures without a fundamental awareness of life beyond our own intellectual and geographic borders? How can we help those who follow, such as our children, be better prepared for the challenges of tomorrow without the kind of intellectual foundation that comes from books and other similar resources?

One way I view reading is as an exercise that helps keep our brains in shape. The more we do it the better able we are to keep in our minds in respectable condition. Further, the more we upgrade this kind of exercise, the capacity of our gray matter expands and enhances our ability to understand, be aware, contend with, and connect with others. It is no different than a weight lifter who adds ten pounds to his or barbells. It is a simple matter of doing all we can to stay in the best shape we can. After all, our world and its many challenges are not getting any less complicated, nor are the demands being placed upon our need to communicate effectively.

Best and Worst in Us

Change can be and often is a funny thing, particularly in the impact it has on all of us. At least to a certain extent, I believe we are creatures of habit. We like our routine, even if it does not make much sense to any one else. Some prefer sleeping on one side of their bed, others might like sitting at the same desk in a classroom, others might like taking the same route to work every day, and still others might prefer keeping their clothes organized in a specific manner. This routine helps give us a sense of security and continuity. We see it providing our lives with a sense of stability and, perhaps on a deeper level, comfort.

But if those or any other of our routines are changed or disrupted, then depending upon the level and length of change, a new reality can bring out the best and worst in us. Where I work, for instance, the process of selecting a new chief executive officer is currently underway. The current one has held this position for nearly 16 years. He will soon be retiring and that impending change is causing some to behave in negative ways and others in positive ways. Those behaving negatively are becoming territorial and less congenial because of their concern for what a new chief executive might mean to them. Those behaving more admirably are striving to encourage greater cooperation among their fellow colleagues as a way of being better prepared for that change.

With that kind of mixed and diametrically opposite sets of behavior going on, the atmosphere at work is a challenge. The question, then, is: what can be done about it? What measures can be taken to help ease the genuine concerns people are having as they await the arrival of a new chief executive officer and the break from routine that this person brings along? The answer is found in one word: communication. It is in times of impending uncertainty when effective communication shines the most. When change is inevitable or even underway, communication can provide a means by which people can acknowledge their legitimate concerns and reassure them that the change can actually be a great opportunity rather than a a serious threat. Communicators can and should play a key role in this type of situation.

A Messy Business

All of us at one time or another have found ourselves in a messy office, room or house: papers strewn about, clothes tossed every which way, dirty dishes left sitting out, etc. Even if we ourselves are not always neat or as tidy as we would like to be, my guess is after one look at these surroundings our inner voice speaks out with, "what a mess!" I will even go further to say after passing that judgement, we also picture what the room or house would look like if it were much more neat. But with this scenario is the reality that someone lives in this particular place and does so with perhaps greater ease than us.

Communication is often like that messy office, room or house. But instead of assorted items that are not neatly stacked or put away, there are strategies that are half completed or half successful, plans that are not following the timeline originally set for them, or new tasks being formulated in-place of ones that are not working as well as was originally thought. It is messy. The primary purpose of a simple press release is a good example. This form of communication is written and sent out to local newspapers with the hope it will be picked up and ultimately read by readers of those publications. Much more often than not, this does not happen and the communicator is faced with the challenge of making adjustments in what was a neat and straightforward strategy.

Most communication plans, of course, are more complex than simply sending out a singular press release. They involve multiple tasks requiring an array of production schedules and costs and are designed to be carried out in varying time frames, reach numerous audiences and generate different results. Not only is this reality one of complexity, it also carries with it the potential for a great deal of messiness. Professional communicators live and, yes, even function in such an environment. Good ones even do well in it. Still, it does not mean it is not frustrating at times and even makes one long for simple neatness.

Ode to College Students

I admire college students. Taking classes and producing work that even approaches a high level of quality is not easy. Plus, many of these students take multiple classes per semester while at the same time holding down one or two jobs. Despite that, they still manage to complete their assignments on time, pass their tests and be actively engaged in each of their classes. Very impressive indeed. Oh, I recognize there are those college students who fritter away their time by acting irresponsibly and behaving in a foolish and, at times, illegal manner. Those so-called kids are known to all of us, particularly since that type of behavior and person are so often showcased in various movies and television shows.

While it may be a cliche to point this out, it nevertheless bears repeating: the kind of "party animal" that we see depicted in the media and sometime read about in news stories is far more the exception than the rule. Sure, college-age students like to have a good time, but so many of them do so in a responsible manner because they recognize the value of a college education and are aware of how fortunate they are to be working toward a degree. Many of these young men and women may not yet have families, but the effort they make demonstrates a profound respect for the opportunity of furthering their education they have been given.

As is the case for all who maintain such busy schedules, college students successfully navigate the challenges of a higher education by practicing effective communication skills. They are open and honest with themselves when it comes to assessing the work load before them, the time and effort it will take to complete those tasks, and the best ways that time and effort should be balanced with their other time-consuming responsibilities. In dealing with their not insignificant challenges, college students may not always get it right. Mistakes, particularly dumb ones, can and will be made by them. Yet all of us should remember that these men and women are not alone in that regard. Further, they are working extremely hard and are being successful because of their perserverence, belief in what they are doing, and ability to communicate with themselves and, as the need arises, others.

Our Shift in Communication Appeals

Make no mistake about it, communication is sure not what it used to be. Whether it is better or worse I will leave for others to decide - for now. The fact it is different cannot be denied. Take a statement made by Stephen Douglas in one of his numerous debates with Abraham Lincoln over 160 years ago: "My friends.......I desire to address myself to your judgement, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasms." This is a public figure running for public office who is seeking to appeal to the intellect of his audience rather than their emotions. How would such a politician or style of communication fare today?

What I call public communication via such outlets as television, motion pictures, public speaking, music, and print advertising relies heavily on emotions. Rarely do we find ourselves audience to public discourse not presented in the swell of bright lights, inflammatory oratory, pounding music or jarring picture images. Singularly or collectively, these and other add-ons are designed to push our emotional buttons, reinforce pre-assumptions or notions, and quell any mental reservations we might have from what just communicated to us. Certainly in the United States, it is the emotional side of us to which public communication and public communicators seek to appeal.

What does this deliberate shift by public communicators to appeal to the emotions of their audiences rather than their intellect mean? What does it say about our society? What does it say about us as individuals? Are we as individuals and as a society making better choices as a result? How do our intellectual and emotional quotients of today compare to what they were back in the time of the Douglas-Lincoln debates? Is this shift good or bad? Either way, what can or should professional and public communicators do about it?

Rescuing Long-Term Planning

Long-term action is in trouble. I came to this conclusion recently as a result of a conversation I had with a new parent. She talked of wanting to begin taking concrete steps to begin putting away money toward a college education for she and her husband's newborn child. But the desire to do this, she said, was being compromised by the realities of their current economic challenges: house payments, rising cost of living, little or no increases in their salaries, etc. The result is they are being forced to postpone and possibly even caste aside their commendable and even wise desire to begin saving for their child's college education.

The plight of this couple is not unique to them. More and more people and even organizational entities are being forced to make choices where they are replacing long-term planning with short-term or even immediate action. Ideally, long-term planning and action should not become a euphemism for fantasy or a pipe dream. Instead, it should be as much apart of our daily to-do lists as are the actions that largely define our present days. Sadly, the current state of our country and world is making it ever-so difficult to balance the immediate with the long-term.

I understand the logic we follow that dictates addressing challenges in front of us before getting to ones not quite so immediate. But future challenges are a lot closer than we might realize. A new born child's college education may seem like a long way off, for instance, but reality says differently. A role communicators can play in this situation is to continue educating their publics on the importance of preparation. One major component of crisis planning is risk communication. By following many of the same elements that comprise effective risk communication, including creating awareness among the public, providing them with helpful information and outlining the consequences of being unprepared for the future, communicators can slowly help all of us, including the organizations and businesses many of work for, create a sensible balance between immediate action and long-term planning.

Social Media Means Less Scrutiny for PR Types

Before social media came into our lives, public relations professionals were highly dependent upon traditional media, namely newspapers, television and radio. While direct mail was a tool of outreach for communicators, it was expensive and, statistically, not all that effective in terms of generating concrete results. But traditional media had the eyes and ears of the general public. To reach them, communicators needed to cross over a bridge that was controlled largely by those same forms of media. Whether communicators purchased advertising space who successfully pitched stories, they had to do two things": develop positive ties with reporters and editors and work within guidelines established and enforced by journalists.

This meant public relations professionals were not always free to send out whatever messages and/or information they wished. Their communiques had to pass the close scrutiny of members of the press. To add to that challenge, the press could afford to be very picky about PR communiques they accepted or reacted to. After all, they were the primary game in town, so they could afford to be strict with the PR professionals. Thus, the press served as a check and balance against irresponsible public relations efforts. By adhering to high ethical standards, journalists forced public relations professionals, in large measure, to do the same.

That dynamic is almost entirely gone now. Public relations professionals no longer need traditional media nearly as much as they used to. Social media enables them to communicate directly with the public with no pre-journalistic review or editing. This change places public relations professionals much more in a self-regulating mode. They are more free to take liberties with accuracy, logical claims and responsible outreach. While I do not bemoan the rise of social media - I actually applaud it - it does cause me concern that such a major communication industry as public relations is now more free to operate without as much scrutiny as it used to have. The honor system is not good enough when it comes to professional communication.

Big Changes, Big Questions

What I am going to try and touch on is a topic with which I am currently grappling. It is something I am not going to pretend I fully understand. Still, it is weighing heavily on me these days. I am talking about change; not necessarily with me as an individual, but within our country and throughout the world. Like most everyone else, every day I read reports and view stories of people struggling to hang onto or find jobs, movement in the ecology of our planet due to changes in climate and natural disasters, power shifts within and among nations, alterations in the balance of cultures, and the struggle within and between economic classes. And these are only some of the more significant areas of conflict that I see.

What does it all mean? Why is this happening in virtually every major category or part of our world? Further, is this new? Has it ever before been this intense or all-encompassing? What does it all mean? What can be done to help us as individuals better understand it, deal with it, and help ensure where we are headed is better than where we have been and where we are? From a selfish standpoint, I wonder if anyone else is grappling with these kind of questions, too? If so, then let's talk. If not, then I think they are worth considering. I firmly believe we are living through a time of seismic change. Our world and the planet are undergoing profound shifts in balance in most every area that we know.

One reason people are struggling as much as they are is because they do not understand or even recognize these changes as being as profound as I believe them to be. Take the fundamental topic of employment as one example. People lose a job and immediately begin seeking another. They find it difficult and frustrating, but their focus remains on the need directly before them: get a job. Never mind that many current are disappearing due to advances in technology. Employment opportunities, as we now see them, are shrinking. Consequently, our leaders need to put on their communication hats and begin national and even international conversations about this. The same holds true for many other areas in the national and international community. Until people better understand the shifting landscape before them, the more they will struggle without a proper contextual vision and direction.

The Fox and the Hedgehog

Recently I came across fragments of a poem by the Green poet Archilochus in which he wrote, "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." The more I read and reread this line, the more intrigued I am in terms of its application toward communication. I think it says much in terms of defining choices people make in how they seek to communicate with others. But before I expand on that, it is important for me to explain what "fox" and "hedgehog" to mean to me in this context. And to do that, I will borrow liberally from historian Isaiah Berlin who described the fox as a being that pursues numerous ends, many of which are contradictory, while the hedgehog seeks to relate everything to a single vision.

Given those descriptions, which one - the fox or the hedgehog - makes the better communicator? Which one would any of us hire to direct or oversee our communication efforts? Which one would we rather be as we seek to communicate and/or connect with others in the course of our everyday lives? Can or even should one be both a fox and a hedgehog? Is that even possible or, to a lesser extent, advisable? Both, it seems, have strengths and weaknesses. The fox is more apt to be flexible in addressing an array of topics or issues, yet in doing so give the impression they are without an internal compass. The hedgehog, without question, would be easier to understand and, if one buys into their vision, easier to embrace. But if one does not see eye-to-eye with that vision, then the hedgehog risks becoming a communicator without an audience.

Life is nothing if not situational. Each of our days finds us in multiple situations: alone, in meetings, walking to our cars, speaking with our children, tackling homework, enjoying a movie, etc. Each situation is different and requires communication strategies that speak to what makes them unique. If one believes the manner in which they contend with those situations should be linked by the commonality of our own values and core beliefs, then it would seem it is better to be a hedgehog. But if one believes each situation requires a different message that may not connect with previous messages, then being a fox seems to be the way to go. I confess to not having a firm answer to my questions. However, given the complexities of life, in terms of communication, perhaps it is best to combine the best of the fox and the hedgehog. Life is ever-changing, thus requiring us to be flexible as we contend with it. At the same time, the more firm our feet are planted on the ground, then the better able we are to successfully navigate our daily challenges.

Dancing and Communication

Perhaps one reason I admire dancers as much as I do is because it is one of those things I do not do very well. I am not just talking about trained, professional dancers but also people with no particular talent but who are not afraid to get out on the dance floor and move to the music. It is fun to watch and fun to join in. But what I find particularly noteworthy is a certain skill that good dancers possess that can and does apply to communication. Good dancing is not an act of isolation. It requires collaboration and sensitivity to another. Even dancers who are without partners are moving in harmony to music, so, in that sense, dancing is never purely solo.

Watching two dancers dance, one can see several decisions being made by the partners: how closely should they be together, how closely aligned should their movements be, should the movements themselves be lively or more subtle, and how often, if at all, should the two dancers actually come together or touch. All of this is influenced by their environment in the form of the music itself, other dancers and their own past experiences with and knowledge of dancing and the music being played. This dynamic is not all that dissimilar from what communicators work through when they attempt to connect more than one public.

One can easily make the case that effective communicator is a specialized dance. It involves helping more than one public move in harmony, making choices as to how they will move, and working with an array of outside triggers or elements that comprise the environment in which such a connection is being attempted. Communication is a dance and, conversely, dancing is communication. Further, if one possesses the sensitivity and desire to effectively link to another, then not only are they are on their way to becoming an effective communicator, but they are also their own to becoming a successful dance partner.

Personal Reflections

A big part of what makes life what it is is the fact it is constantly changing, evolving and full of unexpected twists and turns. As was once written in a song, "The only thing to be sure of is there is nothing to be sure of ." For me, each passing day reaffirms that truism. I am feeling that particularly today as I make this entry because it is my birthday. Number 61. I know some would interpret that as being old, while others would not. Either way, I am fortunate enough to be in good health, so I am choosing to be happy where I am in my life. And, as always, I continue to look toward tomorrow with the highest of hopes.

Just in the past few months my life has taken some interesting turns. I became a PhD and then a few weeks after that a grandfather. And, the other day, my daughter called to tell me she is getting married. My head and my heart are still spinning from it all. But, overall, in a good way. In addition, I am now assessing my own professional plans and, for the first time, am even beginning to contemplate retirement coupled with trying to devote more time and energy to teaching. Whether that happens remains to be seen, of course, but the fact I am weighing these scenarios as serious options is another new development for me.

With the various developments of the past months and possible new ones that are beginning to appear over the horizon, they all bring their own set of particular communication challenges. As a PhD, for instance, do I focus more on communicating via professional journals or lectures? If I do, then I had better do a good job if anyone is going to want to read or hear what I have to say. As a grandfather, how am I going to connect with my granddaughter in a way that is meaningful and lasting? And then there's my future son-in-law. What will the dynamic between the two of us be in the the years to come? At this point, I do not have answers to any of these questions or musings. But as I come to grips with them, I recognize the communicating I do with myself and with others needs to be on-target. It just goes to show that communication challenges are not just issues that professional communicators deal with. They belong to everyone.

Reality Over Perception

It is an age-old rivalry: reality versus perception. Which one is better? Which one do people prefer? Which one do people believe? Conventional wisdom today suggests the contest between these old foes and thus the answer to those questions is not even close. Perception wins. Nowhere is this driven home on a more regular basis then in the currently maddening and disheartening world of politics. Take former governor and Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney. In her recent column in Newsweek, columnist Robin Givhan noted how in his current campaign Romney rarely is seen wearing a tie, thus giving him the appearance of being a man of the people. Apparently, one "mistake" he made when he was a candidate in 2008 is that he did wear a tie and, thus, reinforced the notion that he was just the opposite of what he appears to be now.

I think one reason for much of the negative feelings toward President Obama these days is that the reality of him is not corresponding with how he was perceived when he was candidate Obama back in 2008. Consequently, people are feeling disillusioned, betrayed, and rudderless. My sense is many of his supporters are thinking if he's not "the one" who is going to be fighting for us "little people" against the corporate fat cats as we thought he was several years ago, then who is? My point here is not to dissect the Obama presidency or even Romney's decision to forgo ties, but instead use these as lessons as to why none of us should be so quick to embrace perception no matter how appealing it might seem.

Of the two, reality is the least attractive. It represents in a raw and unapologetic way how people and/or things really are. Perception, on the other hand, represents how we'd like them to be. We embrace perception and then, some point later, see it turn into reality with little warning or heads-up. That is very sobering. Communicators, particularly those who come up with clever campaigns to sell various products, including candidates, know this. This is why they focus on perception much more than reality. Their goal is to get us to buy their product or vote for their candidate. What happens after that is not their concern. Communicators who focus on selling or marketing perception are very creative and talented. Perhaps their skills would be better served if they were directed more toward promoting reality. Their publics certainly would be.

Active Engagement

The other day I listened to two friends talk about their involvement with fantasy football leagues each was in. I am not going to pretend I understand precisely how this activity works as I have never participated in one. However, I do know a wide number of fantasy leagues pertaining to many of the major sports exist. They attract a great many sports fans who take these enterprises very seriously. Even though I did not completely understand all my friends were saying, I found the conversation fascinating because of their passion and wide range of knowledge. Each seemed to know what they were talking about and did so in a way that made me ponder actually joining one of these leagues some day.

But whether I do or not is beside the point here. These two people were and are actively engaged in their relationship with their teams, their leagues, other participants, and the overall activity itself. The result is their level of enjoyment is exceedingly high and the "sport" itself is the far better for it. This is a good lesson for all, including those of us working in the communication field. For years I have considered communication to be a relationship science. It revolves around connections. As communicators, we strive to create them and then seek ways to keep them strong and lasting.

My question is this: what can we, as communicators, bring to the table to help make us as successful as we can be and to be the greatest help to those we represent? The answer is found in the conversation between my two fantasy football league friends. Active engagement is the key. While I have no doubt my two friends make mistakes in the course of their team's season, I also am quite certain their sense of fun and level of commitment also makes their efforts successful. If the two were real owners of real teams, I am sure their teams and players would come out ahead regardless of how many games they won or lost each season. Effective communication is more about passion than it is about perfection. For inspiration, look no further than my two friends.

Avoiding Chaotic Communication

One of the great obstacles to effective communication is when the parties involved play by different sets of rules. No more was this in evidence than the recent debate involving the executive and legislative branches over raising the national debt ceiling. One side only wanted to raise the debt ceiling if the increase was counterbalanced by cuts in the national deficit. The other side primarily wanted to raise the debt if ways to generate greater revenue were part of the solution. For much of the time, even though both sides shared the same goal, it did not detract from the debate's ugliness, nor did it reduce the length of time over which the verbal head-butting, jousting, posturing, and game-playing that occurred before agreement was reached.

From my perspective, the so-called different rules under which the opposing sides played was very simple: one side preferred reaching agreement through compromise while the other side did not. One side seemed more interested in reaching a consensus while the other seemed more interested in getting their way. Even though an agreement was eventually reached, the fact is it could have been reached much earlier than it was and in a way that was far less acrimonious. The bickering that took place for several months did no one any good, including those involved, our nation, the financial world or even the actual issue itself. One could even argue that the verbal hostility that did occur actually made things worse on a number of levels.

My objective is to not to comment on the merits of the issue and the points that were eventually agreed upon. Instead, it is my intent to use this matter to illustrate the importance of establishing and honoring rules of communication before actual discussions occur. What all of us observed were representatives of both sides bad mouthing each other to the media and at various public forums. This made their face-to-face encounters more difficult. Assuming both sides shared a desire to reach consensus, then the vital step of agreeing on how they were going to communicate with each other throughout their discussions should have been nailed down. Because it wasn't, the so-called communication process that followed was chaotic and hindered the overriding objective all sought to achieve.

Sequoyah and King Sejong

Since earliest history billions of men and women have inhabited our planet. The percentage as to how many of those people, including present day, remain known to any outside their circles has got to be astronomically low. Let's face it: few of us become famous in the sense that our names and exploits are passed down from one generation to the next. This reality, however, is not to say that those of us who remain unknown - as defined by history - have not and do not make significant contributions. In fact, my own sense is one could argue that the tiny number of people who do gain lasting fame is not reflective of the number of men and women who have contributed to the progress of us as a species.

In the field of communication, there are two such men I wish to highlight for the contributions they made. They are Sequoyah, a Cherokee Indian who lived in the late and early nineteenth century, and King Sejong of Korea who graced our planet in the early to mid-1400 A.D. I only recently became aware of their efforts via author Jared Diamond's great work, "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Sequoyah and Sejong were pioneers in the field of writing as a result of their efforts to create alphabets. Today, of course, all of us sit in front of a computer or pull out a note pad and compose all kinds of messages. We do so by making use of our "ABCs." These two men strove to create symbols from which others could communicate via writing. They did this at a time when, from their perspective, no other symbols or alphabets existed.

Sequoyah was an illiterate Indian who provided blacksmithing services. He had his own business and came upon the idea of creating written symbols to help him keep track of his customers and his financial transactions with them. Professional linguists came to praise this singular man for his efforts. King Sejong, many years earlier, devised what was called the han'gul alphabet that featured, among other things, the grouping of letters by syllables into square blocks and shapes of consonant letters that depicted the position in which a person's lips or tongue are held to promounce them. I recognize these two largely unknown men because of what they did and because they represent the many that played roles in enabling all of us to advance and maintain lasting connections.

Confession

My name is Daniel Walsch and I am a cynic. In all fairness, I did not start out that way. At one point in my life I believed people, generally, were motivated by things other than their own self interest. I believed people did try to carry on their lives with the idea of supporting the greater good. In fact, over the years I have actually seen people take actions that had nothing to do with improving their own lot in life. And, truth-be-told, I still see it today on rare occasions. But for me, a new truth has pushed its way into my line of vision and I can't seem to shake it. Simply put, it is this: actions people take are driven by their own self interest.

I take no joy or pride in coming clean with this perspective. I have been carrying it around now longer than I care to admit and it has not been fun. People say and do things and I immediately suspect their motives. Sure, this person just held a door for me, I think. But what was their real purpose for doing that? Maybe behind that seemingly nice deed was an effort to try and impress the person they were with. And why did that other driver let me move my car in front of them? Surely being courteous just for the sake of being courteous was not the reason. There just had to be a hidden agenda to their kind act, I reason.

What makes being cynical particularly tough for a person like me is that I work in the world of communication, a field that supposedly focuses on building and maintaining relationships between various publics. How can I reconcile trying to build bridges while secretly not trusting what I am being told by each side and not trusting actions each side is taking to solidify their efforts to cooperate? To say the least, it is a challenge. For me, and perhaps other communicators who wrestle with the same inner demon, it is one we will never overcome. With that in mind, then, this perhaps is all the more reason why we need to work extra hard at ensuring that honesty dominates our actions as well as those with whom we work.