Lawrence G. Foster

I confess the name Lawrence G. Foster is not one with which I have been familiar. But while I did not know his name, I knew of his actions because what he engineered has made a big impact in classes I and many others have taught for years. It was September, 1982, when police conneted a string of mysterious deaths in and around Chicago to cyanide-laced capsules of Extra Strength Tylenol at various outlets. This news triggerd panic among the general public and, not surprisingly, threatened the very existence of the Tylenol brand. Executives at Johnson & Johnson, Tylenol's home office, were deeply concerned as they recognized the negative consequences of this tragedy could put the company out of business.

Foster, Johnson & Johnson's top public relations officer, was assigned the daunting task of putting together a company response and overall strategy to win back and hearts and minds of the general public. Foster started with the premise that it is the safety and well being of the public that is most important. Profit, he believed, runs a distant second. At Foster's direction, the company suspended all advertising for Tylenol and issued a national recall of Extra Strength capsules (more than 30 million bottles). This unprecidented strategy cost the company an estimated $100 million - a lot of money by any standards.

Foster's plan was incredibly successful. Over the following 12 months, Tylenol introduced tamper-free bottles. Its share of the analgesic market, which had dropped to seven percent as a result of the incident, increased by 30 percent. Foster and Johnson & Johnson were showered with accolades. To this day, how Johnson & Johnson handled this major crisis is used as an important case study in many communication classes throughout the country. I recognize Mr. Foster with this entry as earlier this week he passed away at the age 88. In the world of crisis communication, Foster's legacy is one of openness and honesty. He will remain an inspiration.

Dare to be Wise!

It was almost 240 years ago when the philosopher Immanuel Kant took a stab at defining "enlightenment." Actually, he did more than that. Kant hit a bulls eye as what he articulated in the September, 1784, edition of Berlin Monthly continues to resonate among scholars when they discuss the term with classes and colleagues and ponder the challenges of achieving that state themselves. In a nutshell, Kant described enlightenment as "man's emergence from self-imposed nonage." As defined by Kant, the word "nonage" refers to using one's understanding without another's guidance.

Kant urged people to think for themselves. More to the point, he challenged men and women to "dare to be wise!" It is interesting that as put forth by Kant, he did not mean people should always be correct in their assessments, conclusions or judgments. Rather, to be wise,  he said, was to take what knowledge they have gained and even add input from others, and then make their own determinations. Wisdom comes from demonstrating conviction and even originality of thought. It is no act of wisdom to simply echo another's ideas or thoughts. That can be done by anyone. Sadly, in our current times, we see such unwise acts performed on a regular basis. Perhaps we ourselves are even guilty of that.

How does this relate to communication? Are professional communicators helping or blocking folks from exhibiting wisdom? At best, the answer to this is mixed. Public relations practitioners, for instance, take great pains in devising memorable talking points and in framing discussions in ways that others can both easily understand and repeat. Repetition seems to be their objective rather than instilling wisdom within their targeted publics. On the other hand, journalists are defined by how well they share unbiased information without the fingerprints of others telling them what to say or write. Thus, members of the press seem to be more on the side of spreading wisdom than those who communicate on behalf of others.

Striking a Better Balance

"Never before have so many sought out information yet but been so misinformed." This intriguing and provocative comment was made recently by veteran television correspondent Chuck Todd of NBC at a lecture he gave at George Mason University in Northern Virginia. His audience was comprised primarily of communication students interested in pursuing a career in public relations. Todd's observation has given much food for thought. My first response is: Is this true? Do I agree with his observation? If it is, then how has it come to be and who or what is most responsible for such an unhealthy and unwanted reality?

In terms of the veracity of this remark, while I am not aware of any scientific data to support such a claim, I tend to believe what Todd said to be the case. There are several reasons for this: (1) the steady decline of newspapers; (2) the shrinking news holes in those newspapers that remain; (3) cut backs on news departments in the print and electronic media; (4) rise of social media and the ability of individuals to blast out over the Internet anything they wish without regard for verification or context; (5) the 24-hour cable news networks; and (6) rise of public relations practitioners hired to promote specific, one-sided perspectives on various issues.

This list of trends in the news world is not good for any of us. The result seems to be a society in which citizens have opinions that are stronger-than-ever, yet are less fact-based. As a student, practitioner and teacher of public relations, I am currently struggling with ideas as to what scholars and professionals in this important field do to help reverse such a negative trend? I confess to not having a ready-made answer. While one obvious solution is those in public relations should continue to be credible, ethical and transparent in all they do. The more truth-tellers are engaged in the public forum, the better. Communicators at all levels need to do a better job of balancing the needs of those they represent with what is good for society.         

"The Five Es"

I think we all agree that communication is important. After all, if it is not, then how come everyone tries to do it well every day of  their lives? We may not say so out loud, but we all recognize how vital being able to communicate effectively is to the betterment of our lives. While we want to understand where others are coming from on things, we certainly them want the same in return from family, friends, co-workers, etc. In terms of helping make such mutual understanding happen, communication has a bottom-line role that I call "the five Es." They are: engagement, exchange, enlightenment, experience and esteem.

Following is a brief summation of each aspect of the role of communication: engagement refers to helping bring about meaningful interaction between individuals and/or entities; exchange speaks to the quality of message-sharing; enlightenment addresses how well messages are understand; experience pertains to how well those who are interacting feel about their connection with another; and esteem is about the degree to which people who are interacting feel good about themselves and the effort they made to make an interaction meaningful. Collectively, these five points take communication beyond the mere act of being heard.

Being heard or acknowledged by others is very easy to do. Any one of us can go up to another person and begin to talk. Such an act, no matter how rude or inappropriate, definitely gains that other person's attention. It does not constitute a meaningful encounter or act of interaction, however. Granted, not everything any one communicates is golden or is going to generate much interest from others. But having said that, trying to address "the five Es," will improve one's chances of having and, yes, enjoying meaningful interactions with others. The more encounters of this nature one can have, then the better communicator they are.  

Group Distruptors

What do whiners, martyrs, saboteurs, bullies and deadbeats have in common? They, according to researchers David Jalajas and Robert Sutton, are people who, through their own behavior and attitude, contribute to disrupting any attempts by groups to succeed in achieving their goals. Even though Jalajas and Sutton introduced these classifications of what I call "group disruptors" in 1984 in an article in Journal of Management Education, in many ways their observations remain viable today. In blunt terms, we still have groups today and often the efforts of many of them are compromised by those interested only in their own agendas.

As described by Jalajas and Sutton, whiners feel most everything the group does is very inconvenient; martyrs are certain they are being given the worst assignments; saboteurs often get in the way of progress by initiating on their own what they believe are better solutions; bullies are not shy about telling everyone else how things should be done; and deadbeats simply do not do their fair share of the work. Depending upon the extent of their negative behavior, any one or several of these individuals can totally compromise the work of groups to carry out certain tasks, including advancing the progress of their organization.

The question then becomes: what does one do about these disruptors? Jalajas and Sutton offer up three solutions: group members should make sure everyone knows what they are responsible for; members should speak up if they feel choices made by other members are not workable; and members should focus on treating their partners with respect and openness. While modest conflict within groups is not uncommon and, at times, even healthy as it can stimulate good discussion, following the Jalajas-Sutton solutions groups improve their chances of successfully meeting their goals.  

Sweet Tooth

While watching television the other night I decided to chow down on some cookies. Even though I knew and know they are not the most healthy eats in the world, it is what I wanted. The taste was gratifying and they even made the program I had tuned into more enjoyable.  Such a choice is one I suspect many make each day. People want what they want simply because it makes them feel better. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that. After all, who among us does not want to make our lives a bit better even if that improvement comes in the form of satisfying our sweet tooth for a few minutes?

The problem, of course, comes when we spend too much time devoting our energies to what we want and not enough to what we need. If, for instance, I ate nothing but cookies and did not balance them with vegetables, then health-wise I would soon not be in very good shape. We as a society seem to be suffering from a similar imbalance when it comes to information. This was articulated in the form of what is called the uses and gratification theory of mass communication. With the explosion of communication channels and outlets, like never before members of the public have the opportunity to select their own sources of information.    

No better example of this is found in various cable programs with defined political leanings. Viewers who are conservative tend to gravitate toward one outlet while those with more liberal leanings go elsewhere for their information. Both are seeking gratification because what they tune into tend to reinforce their preconceptions. You might say those biased media outlets satisfy the intellectual sweet tooth of their viewers. This, it should be noted, does not automatically mean the viewers are gaining enlightenment. Rather, it just means they are receiving gratification - just as I did with those cookies. Perhaps one challenge those in the communication industry face these days is to continue to be dedicated to giving their publics greater and healthier balance.

Making a Comeback

In an effort to better understand and explain the workings of communication and the media, over 80 years ago media scholars introduced what they labeled the magic bullet theory. This theory of mass communication introduced the notion that mass media wields great influence over its audiences. According to the theory, if an entity sends out the right kind of a message, then it will in all likelihood influence the masses who are exposed to it. An example of the magic bullet in-action the scholars at the time pointed to was the great success of the Nazi party regarding their use of radio to generate greater support among the people.

It did not take long, however, before scholars began rethinking this thoery. Their conclusion was that theory was wrong. It, researchers suggested, supposed that people were unable ot resist appeals of high quality, thus making them weak-willed. As a result, the magic bullet theory was replaced by other theories that introduced different perspectives on the workings of mass communication. One of these latter theories, the agenda-setting hypothesis, suggests that the magic bullet theory either may not have been that far off-base or is now making a comeback. This theory, introduced in 1960s, puts forth the notion that the mass media tells people not what to think but what to think about.

Puitting the two theories side-by-side, both depict the mass media as being a very powerful and, yes, influential entity that does hold sway over all of us who depend upon it for information, news, and even guidance. In essence, we place great trust in the media even taking into account certain aspects of the media that may be biased or not of high quality. Does this, then, still present us as being weak-willed when it comes to allowing ourselves to be influenced by the media? If so, has there been a time when we the masses have been not been manipulated by the media? Perhaps we ought to rethink our relationship with the media.

Dealing With Traffic

I am certain no matter where one lives, they feel compelled to identify and talk about one or two characteristics of their area that are unique. By saying, "My town is special because....." perhaps it is an indirect way of suggesting that, they, too are special as well. I am no different. As a resident of Northern Virginia, one of the characteristics of our region is the heavy traffic. While other part of the United States and the world, too, have traffic challenges, few, if any, can match ours. A normal rush hour on the beltway that circles Washington, D.C. is one of those things that need to be experienced - at least once - to be appreciated. Warning: this will not be a fun experience.

Unfortunately, as it is in any part of the world with cars and drivers, traffic accidents do occur.The result is usually some type of back-up. When this happens on our beltway, the ramifications are quick and mostly wide spread. Thousands of commuters are affected in big wand small ways. Of course, the worse the accident the more likely it is more people will be inconvienced. Traffic delays can set drivers back literally hours. As frustrating and, at times, tragic as this can be, however, there is a silver lining worth noting. It speaks to the importance of communication and being prepared for times when things do not go well.

In our region a mechanism is in place to contend with accidents that occur on the beltway. A team of traffic workers and road units, including police, converge on the scene of the traffic. In a short period of time, they deal with the drivers invovled, make sure anyone injured is taken to the nearest hospital, clear the damaged cars, and redirect traffic. They are a well-coordinated team, thus representing communication at its best. Each member of the team knows their part in the overall process and carries out their duties with the understanding they are meeting their responsibilities while also serving the greater good that is their unit and the many drivers depending upon them.  

Maintaining Continuity, Creating Change

Let me begin this entry by acknowledging right upfront that some of my best friends are people. In fact, I was even raised by people. I lived among them, learned many of their habits , such as how they dress, foods they prefer, and a number of their recreational activities, and have become so immersed in their culture that often times I am able to easily blend in with them without any fear of being singled out as being different. Perhaps one day I will do some kind of super study on all that I have learned and observed. Until that time, I am glad I made the choice to align myself with people as opposed to, say, moray eels or cockatoos.

One observation of mine is that people like continuity. They gravitate toward routine even though the specifics of everyone's routine is not always the same. For instance, they have their favorite restaurants, television shows and even pattern of getting dressed each day. Those constants, small in the grand scheme of things, often help make the difference between whether a person feels their day has gone well. It is such consistency that provides people with a sense of security and safety. At the same time, these same creatures recognize and accept the inevitability of change and variations of routines they have established for themselves.

One of the groups within the human species - public relations practitioners - have the daunting challenge of helping fellow humans maintain continuity but often doing so in ways that reflect change. People want consistency, yet do not always want it delivered in a constant manner. An example is the consistency of making money. One group of humans - business people - embrace the regularity of profit, yet often want this result to be carried out in ways that vary from effort to effort. It is the public relations practitioner or communicator that plays a leading role in giving them the continuity they crave via changes they want.