Public Speaking

There are few things that make many of us more weak in the knees than the prospect of standing in front of a room full of people and speaking. Most of us do not like it, do all we can to avoid it, and would rather face a firing squad than have to do it. Why is this? What is the big deal? Truth be told, public speaking is a big deal and the reason for almost universal reluctance of people of all ages to do it no mystery. None of us want to embarrass ourselves. Standing in front of a bunch of people and trying to be articulate, look comfortable, and appear in total control of our subject is far from easy. Further, making that effort in front of others puts the speaker in a  very vulnerable position. No one wants that.

Yet people do it every day. Politicians, as we all know, seem to hop up from their chairs and speak before others with little provocation. School teachers, of course, spend the bulk of their work days doing it. Performers, including comedians and actors, do it with aplomb. What do they have the rest of us don't? How come they seem so much better at it and comfortable with it than most any of us? It is not because they are smarter or necessarily better than the rest of the population. Rather, the secret to their success is summed up in two words: preparation and repetition. What they do they do often. When it comes to speaking publically, most of us cannot make that claim or come any where close to it.

In terms of those on the receiving end of public speakers, something I have suspected for a good while is that I do not believe audiences expect their speakers to be perfect. Mainly, they want them to be sincere, honest of intent, and engaged in what they are talking about. Speakers who lose their train of thought, struggle with what word to use or take a moment to refer to their notes are all ok to audiences. Instead, what they hone in on is whether the speaker seems to know what they are talking about. If they do not, then it does now matter how smooth or polished the speaker is, they have no credibility and the audience has tuned them out.

Good Citizenship

As is the case for other professions, including journalism, public relations has its own set of ethical guidelines and values designed to serve as benchmarks by which practitioners should conduct themselves as they go about working with clients and fulfilling their responsibilities. The most recent set was adopted in October, 2000, by the Public Relations society of America. While they pertain specifically to the PRSA's membership (estimated at being in access of 21,000), the practices advocated certainly apply to those men and women who do not carry PRSA membership cards as well.

One passage of the PRSA's code of ethics particularly striking is called "principles of conduct." They call upon practitioners to support the following: free flow of information, competition, disclosure of information, safeguarding confidences, the avoidance of conflicting interests, and enhancing the profession. More specifically, these elements direct practitioners to be advocates and active supporters of ensuring the free flow of truthful information, healthy and fair competition, open and/or transparent decision making, protecting private information, building trust among publics, and working to enhance a general appreciation of the public relations profession itself. With the possible exception of the last element, all echo fundamental principles of the United States.

By making such a link between the profession and the country in which most PRSA members perform their duties, the organization seems to be suggesting there is a strong overlapping between being a responsible practitioner of public relations and a patriotic American citizen. Is there such a link between responsible public relations and good citizenship?  The PRSA appears to think so. While I tend to agree, I feel it is also important to note that being a responsible and honest communicator should not necessarily be tied to the values of any specific country. Responsible public relations is more universal in that it should cut across national borders rather than be tied exclusively to the principles of one country, even if that one country is the U.S.

Results

There are so many actions we take that have definitive results. We are out of milk so we run to the store and buy a new carton. Done and done. We like someone so we ask them out on a date. They accept. Check that off, too. Such actions where there is a clear goal and a clear result provide us with a sense of accomplishment and closure. We can move onto the next action with a sense of not having to clean up after ourselves or tie up any loose ends. It feels good. On weekends, for example, I confess to feeling pleased with myself when I achieve all the items on my list of chores. Scratching everything off the list does present its own special brand of satisfaction.

Unfortunately, not every action we take or attempt is so clear-cut. Many do not provide us with the definitive result we seek. Going back to the example of the date, ideally we take such a step with the hope it will go well, that we and our companion will have a good time. Suppose one or both of us don't?  Or suppose both parties do and that each agrees to go out a second time. Either way, the result becomes not quite so definitive. We cannot look back at the experience with a sense of total completeness. What may have begun as a simple, fairly straightforward act has now become more complex.

Given this reality, I say "welcome to the world of communication!" Many acts of communication do not give us the sense of closure that, say, going to the grocery store does. At best, that coveted sense is temporary. For instance, the public relations worker devises a strategy to elicit a strong turnout to a particular event. It goes well, yet there is the realization that a second event must now be addressed. More planning is needed. And so it goes. Professional communicators often do not have the luxury of experiencing a sense of total satisfaction the way most of do with those weekend chores. Results sought by the communicator are more nuanced and elusive.

A Call for Balance

The world, as I see it, is largely dominated by two types of people: those who believe we are connected and those who view life from a "bottom line" perspective. As the first group sees an all-encompassing interrelationship between all people everywhere, they try to conduct their actions and way of thinking toward benefitting the "greater good" of society. The second group, though not without concern for others, tend to be driven by the plusses and minuses of any decisions. One is more heart-driven while the other is comfortable letting their head sit behind the steering wheel. Neither one, I should note, is necessarily better than the other. Basically, it is their approach to life that separates them.

I see these two perspectives driving many communicators as they approach their jobs, assignments, and responsibilities. Each perspective - one from the heart and the other from the head - is important and should play a vital role in how all tasks are assessed and eventually tackled. Ideally, the two should complement each other. I mention this because of a concern that many communicators today are letting one perspective dominate the other. Hired by a client to help them turn a profit, the professional communicator devises strategies designed to achieve that "bottom line" objective. While such a scenario is fine, particularly if success is achieved, the so-called "victory" seems limited.  

My concern echoes that of the little Prince in the famous book of that title by Antoine de Saint-Exupery. "Bottom-line" thinking is something grown-us do. In pursuing actions that are black-and-white in nature, other vital parts of life - happiness, contentment, fun, etc. - tend to get squeezed out. This is not good. Communicators is about human emotion. It speaks to the need we all share of  feeling connected, safe, appreciated and heard. As practitioners approach their many challenges, those aspects of the human psyche should not be overlooked. Thus, the two perspectives need to be co-pilots. 

Doing What We Have To

Recently, in a new book called "Looking Out Looking In" by Ronald Adler and Russell Proctor, I read of an experiment testing isolation. Specifically, five subjects were left alone in separate rooms with the idea of seeing how long they would last. One held out for eight days, three for two days, and one for only two hours. I am not sure how long I would last under similar circumstances. On the one hand, there are times when I definitely could see me being the eight-day-person, while other times I would be pressing the buzzer to be released after two hours.  As is the case with food and water, what this experiment demonstrates is that all of us need some form of interaction or connection with others eventually.

This, then, speaks to the question of why it is we communicate. The answer is because we have to. It is a fundamental need we as humans share. Even if that interaction is only periodic, it is something we have to do because it enhances our desire to survive for as long as we can. Adler and Proctor note that socially-connected people live, on the average, nearly four years longer than those who are not; divorced, separated or widowed people are more likely to require mental hospitalization than married folks; those who are socially isolated tend to be more susceptible to the common cold; and socially active people tend to have better memories.

Given these reasons for all of us to be more active communicators, the challenge becomes how we can be the best we can at it. After all, the above-mentioned facts suggest by being socially active and generally satisfied with our various interactions, we tend to live longer and more fulfilling lives. To that, I, for one, say "sign me up!" This points to the need for people to learn more about the mechanics of communication. Knowledge about this field helps us learn more about ourselves and that, in turn, improves our ability to connect with others.  

What is Communication Worth?

In the mid-nineteenth century, an interesting debate on economics took place involving activists Karl Marx, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Basically, the discussion revolved around Mill's theory that the value of a good was set by the amount of labor needed to produce it. A big part of the discussion revolved around the matter of the actual value of labor itself. How could labor, both Marx and Ricardo wondered, be valued as well as serve as a measure of value? This and other interesting ponderings set in motion even more interesting debate as Marx, Ricardo and Mill and sought to reconcile the challenge businesses have of paying people their true worth while trying to generate as much profit for themselves as possible.

The point of this entry is not to discuss economics matters, particularly ones began over 160 years ago. Rather, it is to use it as a lead-in to a conversation about the value of communication - an issue that continues to be the subject of conversation today among public relations practitioners and those that hire them to perform specific outreach tasks on their behalf. I should note the focus of this entry is driven by my current foray into the world of consulting. What should I charge for my so-called expertise? What are my skills and time worth?  Presently, while I do have a set hourly range, attaching a dollar amount to communication is not as easy as it may seem.

What is communication worth? For mid-level managers or directors working in public relations, a few years ago Fortune magazine listed the average annual salary at $84,000. My question revolves around the calculation of such a sum. Communication itself is both a tangible service as well as an act that generates certain emotions and attitudes. Without doubt, feelings are difficult to measure. Their value, of course, when positive is immeasurable. Many rank those feelings as high as any profit that communication efforts might generate. Perhaps this is one reason employers struggle with providing their communicators with adequate compensation. It is not as if they do not want to pay public relations workers a decent salary. It is just they, too, are struggling with the intangible value of communication.

Batting Practice

One of the things I enjoy most when going to a baseball game is watching the players limber up and take batting practice. As good as these world class athletes are, even they need time to stretch and get their bodies "in the mood" for a new contest. If they had to, of course, I am sure they would be able to run onto the field and play without the benefit of warming up. Still, making a regular habit of that  would no-doubt be difficult and put them all at-risk of injury. This is true of athletes who play other sport as well as people in other professions as well. Professional singers and musicians need time to warm up as well.

Can the same be said of professional communicators? Do they time to warm-up their minds before starting on a new campaign? My sense is, "yes," they do. As someone who has been in the communication profession since the early 1970s, however, I concede I have never seen or even heard of any communication professional who has actually taken their own version of batting practice before sitting down with a client, entering into a brainstorming session with their team, or sitting down to draft copy for a publication or write a speech. This is too bad because our brains, to perform at their best, need time to stretch just as much as the rest of our muscles.

The question then becomes what would be an example of batting practice for professional communicators? What could they do to limber up before embarking on a challenging assignment? Physical stretching is not a bad idea. After all, sitting in meetings or behind a computer all day can be physically taxing. Mental word games, such as reciting the alphabet backwards or trying to identify everyone of our presidents, are also good. Anything to get the juices flowing, as my father used to say.  As thinking and creative beings, those who communicate for a living must do all they can to remain stimulated and be stimulating. In their own way, they, too, are athletes.