The Heroes of 2010

The holiday season is rapidly drawing to a close. 2010 is standing at the door. It does not matter whether we open that door, it's going to come in any way. If, for one, am eager to usher it in as I figure the sooner we rid ourselves of the first decade of the 21st century the better. On so many levels for our nation and our world, it was pretty poor. Sadly, as we approach the first days of the next decade, there remains far too many people who seem intent on keeping us on the same path that made the last ten years so unfortunate. Those that are trying to move our country and the world to a higher, better place in terms of seeking more positive interaction, meaningful collaboration and increased selflessness are going to have to work that much harder. May they continue riding on the wings of strong hearts, open minds, sturdy wisdom and effective communication skills.

Even with these "tools," their challenge remains imposing. When faced with opponents whose only goal is to obstruct, tear down and do only what is best for them, they must be at "the top of their game" virtually non-stop. The seemingly endless health care debate is an example within the United States. On the one hand, this issue is one in which our national leaders reportedly agree on two levels: they view it as being of national importance and they acknowledge that more people in our country need health care insurance as the current system, if left unchanged, will soon bankrupt our country. So, one asks, what's the problem? To my mind, not everyone is being honest. There are enough nay sayers who really do not want to see any changes made in the health care system because they are putting their own self interest ahead of the greater good of society. They either do not want to jeopardize the financial support they receive from insurance companies or they do not want to see the Democratic administration succeed on any level or both. As a result, they make up such lies as death panels and government takeover of the health care system. It's maddening, frustrating and sad. On the international basis, another example are the terrorists, those groups whose are only goals are to disrupt, create chaos and kill innocent people. These evil-doers are in a category all their own in terms of being a black mark on civilization. No other explanation is needed.

Unfortunately, 2010 will not see the extinction of either dishonest obstructionists or terrorists. But I predict what it will see is an increase in their isolation. More and more people will recognize them for what they are and stop following giving credence to their lies and terrible ways. This will happen because of the work of the heroes of 2010 - those who speak truth, demonstrate compassion and place the betterment of society above short-sighted selfish self-interest. These heroes will win-out because of the positive actions and words that serve as their communication tools. Their struggle may not always be pretty, nor may it not be without setbacks. But this time next year it is they and, as a result, all of us, who eventually will be perched on the higher plain that is their vision.

The Cycle of Issues

It has always been a source of fascination to me that all aspects of life run in cycles. This, of course, includes life itself. Things begin, go through some type of evolutionary process, and then eventually regress and ultimately come to an end. We see this in everything ranging from people and pets to fads and food. Recently, I have been reading about the life cycle of issues. A number of scholars have already written on this topic, but nevertheless I think it is worth revisiting as our nation and our world slide from one year to the next with a range of issues on our collective to-do list. Two scholars, in particular, (Carl Botan and Vincent Hazelton) have done a good job of identifying the life cycles: pre-issue, potential, public, critical and dormant. It is important for communicators to have a good sense of what each of these are so as to be better able to devise specific strategies in which to contend with them.

The pre-issue phase refers to those matters that have not yet appeared on any public's official radar screen but nevertheless are bubbling beneath the surface and are worth making note of. A simple example might occur in winter and involve a person's lawn that will need to be cut when the spring season arrives. A potential issue is basically a pre-issue that is recognized by a public as something that is going to have to be dealt with. Spring is almost here, the weather is growing warmer, and grass is beginning to grow again. Public issues are distinguished by the fact that there is a general acceptance and/or recognition of a particular issue or problem that needs to be addressed. For instance, if there is media coverage of the issue, then there is general public acknowledgement that not only does this issue exist, but it needs to be addressed as well. Issues become critical issues it is time to make a decision or take action on them. Finally, a dormant issue is when it has either been addressed or has simply lost its urgency or is no longer the focus of public attention. But this should not be interpreted as meaning the issue is gone forever. In other words, dormant should not be confused with dead. Think of the character Jason in all the Friday the 13th movies. He is dormant for a while and then reemerges more public and critical as ever.

Given this cycle, then, what is a primary take-away lesson for communicators? For me, at least, it confirms that a communicator's work is never done - much like the need for effective communication. Communication is very much on a 24/7 cycle. It ebbs, flows, dips, peaks and levels off during the course of any cycle. As a result, communicators as strategists must remain ever on the alert to help their clients and organizations successfully navigate the challenges that come with any issue.

Giving Thanks

It is now Christmas Day and I wish everyone a very happy and safe and warm holiday. I do not see myself being all that different from many others on this day in the sense it fills me with gratitude, reflection, hope and affection for others. Almost by definition, Christmas day is a good day and I hope it's that way for others, too. I recognize not everyone celebrates Christmas the same way, nor does everyone even believe in it the way I do. And that's ok. As this blog revolves around communication, I wish to devote this particular entry to this vital topic. Specifically, I want to recognize the role communication can and does play in helping foster tolerance.

Communication, at its best, is a two-way encounter. Listening and talking. Talking with, not talking at. Conducting extensive research on one's intended audience. Learning of their needs, hopes, concerns and interests and then framing messages and conversations that speak to them. Not catering to audiences or simply saying whatever it is you think they might wish to hear. Speaking truth. Speaking to them and not over them. Being honest and respectful. Working to establish ties that bind and remain bound. Recognizing that all of us have much more in-common than not and, consequently, seeking ways to build on those commonalities rather than exploit or sensationalize differences.

These are the goals and actions of what I consider to be good communicators. And those are the kind of results that I believe communication, at its best, can bring about. It all adds up to tolerance. Yes, we have differences. And, yes we have different perspectives and attitudes. But, ideally, none of that should lead to ill-feeling or disharmony. Obviously, in many parts of the world, including our own imperfect country, those things exist just as there are people who seem to devote their energies to doing all they can to creating friction and discontent. These people are hate mongers and shame on them for making the choices they make. My hat, then, goes off to the communicators who seek to build even though they do not always succeed and even though their efforts at times fall short. Nevertheless, thank you for being good communicators and for helping to spread tolerance.

Human Ethics

All of us live under sets of rules or guidelines. This includes those among us who claim to be their own person (whatever that means). In our work and personal lives, we all have to conduct ourselves within certain parameters of behavior or decorum. It is reality. Subscribing to it  does not necessarily make any of us less as individuals. Even jazz musicians known for a free-style way of playing or improvising work their creative magic within a particular framework dictated by the notes on the song sheet from which they are playing. In communication, human ethics serves as one overriding framework around which many practitioners in this field carry out their responsibilities.

What is human ethics? Basically, it is as fundamental as human nature itself. It revolves around treating others with respect and in good faith; being honest and not deceptive. It refers to pursuing your own goals in ways that do not harm others. At the same time, it involves balancing one's own needs with those of society itself. Sometimes, they may seem to conflict, but how one contends with life's inconsistencies is, itself, a test of a person's ethics. Aristotle once wrote of virtue ethics. Choices people make help define their morality, he said, particularly if they seek a path of moderation - avoiding extremes. In the world of public relations, building and maintaining relationships is the primary goal. In doing this, often times charting out and then following a middle road built on compromise, respectable negotiation, and good faith information sharing is often times the most ethical way to proceed.

With Christmas now literally just a few days away, it certainly does not hurt to remind ourselves of the importance of human ethics. How we stand today as people is often dictated by how well have stood in the past. Communicators may be effective at what they do but if they are not ethical in their behavior, then their overall effectiveness will not have a long shelf-life. If an organizational leader is unethical, then whatever ability they have to dictate the actions of others will not be long-lasting. And if a person like you and me is unethical, then our ability or desire to connect with others will see little success.

The Quiet Ones

Like a lot of people, I have been following the not-so-pretty verbal jousting that has been going on in both Washington, D.C. over health care and in Denmark over climate change. Without question, passion reigns supreme regarding both issues. Because the news media seems to be doing little else but focusing on the people making the biggest noise at each site and on each issue, I keep wondering about the men and the women who are quietly working well with others to try to find common ground so that some agreements or consensus can be reached. For a change, I would love to hear about those people and not the ones who are making the wildest charges and who seem to be more interested in hearing themselves talk than actually contributing to the process.

Eventually, if agreements of some sort can be reached on these issues, then those quiet, behind-the-scenes workers will certainly get my vote as the unsung heroes. In terms of strategy, I will concede there may be times for public posturing. But more often than not, building on commonalities in a respectful, honest and cooperative manner will get one to the finish line faster than bullying or name calling ever will. Both styles represent different ways of communicating. But at the end of the day, which one makes the most solid contribution toward resolving a difference of opinion? It is a shame those who make the most noise, yet contribute the least to obtaining a resolution get the headlines.

This is one reason I believe we all need to be a bit skeptical of those in the headlines. Just because they are the ones standing in front of the microphone does not automatically mean they are meaningful contributors. When I see someone step in front of a camera to talk, often my gaze goes to those behind them. My hunch is it often those people who probably have the most to say; those people who spent long hours working through the details of an issue; those people who slogged away at hammering out some sort of agreement that, while not perfect, more often than not brought all of us closer to adequately addressing the issue at-hand. In these cases, it is health care and climate change. Both are long reaching and both affect all of us. I tip my hat to the quiet ones who often do so much of the heavy lifting in life. While they may not make the headlines, yhey sure do make the story.

Image Versus Reality

The other day I had a conversation with a family member who commented how upset they were at the revelations that have been coming out over the past few weeks about the golfer Tiger Woods. My relative expressed sadness over the whole Woods situation because "he seems like such a good man." My response was, "How do you know that?" The great majority of us only "know" Woods by watching him on the golf course or by seeing him in various advertisements. And that is about it. Any conclusion we might draw from such limited exposure is flimsy at best. This is not to pick on my relative or, for that matter, Tiger Woods. It is obvious that, up till now, his handlers have done a great job of controlling his public appearances and therefore ensuring he is always showcased in the best possible way. As one of Woods' legions of fans, all of us, including my relative and me, for that matter, bought into it. It is no wonder, then, that this new reality is such a shocker.

Everywhere we turn we are surrounded by celebrities. Some of them have become well known because of circumstance and talent, while how others maintain their fame is a mystery. Some of them we gravitate toward to the point where we feel like we have a good sense as the human beings they are. My own sense of famous people is unless we actually do know that person in the same way we do our next door neighbor, old college roommate or the person who works down the hall from us, then all famous people need to be taken with a grain of salt. They are to be admired or even appreciated for their skills, but going beyond that is a mistake. 

At least part of communication is image building. But when does creating an image became an outright lie? If a politicians is actually not very bright, yet their image makers seek to present them as an intellect, for instance, then isn't that doing society a disservice? If image makers seek to present a would class athlete as a good family member and loyal husband when it turns out he is neither, then aren't they actively participating in a lie? The answer to both questions is a loud "yes." I call upon all image makers to stop doing that. Sure, your client may be offering you tons of money to perpetuate a falsehood. But remember: those who knowingly support a falsehood lose their credibility just as shady as the person they represent.

The Voices of Our Time

2009 has been quite a year when it comes to communication. I am specifically referring here to the voices we hear. No, not just the ones in our heads, but the ones coming from our televisions, radios, computers and other sources. Collectively, they are a major part of our daily landscape and are the loudest voices in our society. They come into our our living rooms, our cars, and our offices all packaged in serious tones, smiles, jokes, grimaces, anger, frustration, arrogance, curiosity, and even kindness. We find them, at times, comforting, funny, appalling, distracting, nonsensical, annoying, informative, engaging and off-putting. We like them. We don't like them. We need them, yet often pretend we don't. The mouths from which they erupt include those of commentators, comedians, television personalities, newscasters, disc jockeys, actors, entertainers, elected officials and even non-celebrities. These voices are a significant part of our lives and, in many ways, play a vital role in helping shape our bases of knowledge, values, perspectives and, at times, daily habits. Whether we like it or not, that is a lot of influence.

Are we their prisoners? I hope not. Do they have a hold on us that we cannot break? Maybe. But it does not have to be that way. After all, two weapons are in our favor - two big ones - our spirit and our brains. While these voices may be inescapable, their degree of influence is only as great as we allow them to be. We can, after all, think for ourselves. We can ask questions. We can challenge what we hear. With effort, we can separate those who babble and talk nonsense from those who do not even though that may not be as easy as it may sound. Some of those nonsense talkers can be pretty tricky at times. One other thing we can do is not limit ourselves to the voices we allow into our heads. All those voices do not have to agree. They can represent a wide range of views and perspectives, thus giving us greater opportunity to analyze what we hear and then make choices based on intellect, not just emotion. Doing that allows our own voice, the one that should have the most influence over us of all, to maintain its rightful place.

An Ethical Dilemma

Dealing with an organizational ethics is such a tricky dance. A case in point is the supervisor who has to balance what is best for the entire organization against what might be best for an individual employee. Let's say the employee is a hard worker, does good work and demonstrates on a weekly basis they are more than capable of taking on greater levels of responsibility. As a result, they ask the boss for a pay raise and a promotion. The boss easily recognizes the merits of the employee's case and even agrees with this person. But the boss also recognizes a few other realities: extremely tight budget and other employees who work hard, too.

This scenario represents a case of what might be best for the individual versus what might be best for the overall organization. Sometimes those two are not always compatible or the same. If the boss agrees to both or even one of the worker's requests, then they risk upsetting other workers as well as placing unexpected strains on the organization's budget to the point of possibly interfering with plans for various program initiatives that now have to be curtailed because the boss has decided to redirect monies to give this person a pay hike. Additionally, if the person is granted a promotion, then how might that affect overall office morale, particularly among those who believe they work just as hard as the one being promoted? Will they be disgruntled? Will they resent the employee? Will they might perceive as being an unfair decision on the boss's part affect their work productivity?

So, what has started out as a fairly straight forward and even reasonable request has evolved into an organizational dilemma. In this case, there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. What emerges, at least in part, is a challenge to the boss on several levels. As a leader, what are their priorities? Do the needs of the organization out weigh everything else? Or is giving worthy employees the support they deserve the best way to go? And as a communicator, how well does the leader communicate their vision, particularly at times like this when it is put to the test by what can be construed as positive circumstances? It is, in short, an ethical dilemma.

Understanding Different Perspectives

Everyone has a different perspective on things. One important way to being a successful communicator is getting a handle on what the other person's perspective is. For instance, take the boss of an office or even an entire organization. Sure, they make more money than most; have more authority; have more people to order around; have a better parking space; and get to rub elbows with other executives and big-wigs that most will never know or even meet. The boss seems to have everything going for them. After all, they are in-charge. Yet the boss has a perspective, too, that may vary from ones others might have.

They, too, have a boss they need to please. They, too, are held accountable for what they do and how well they do it. They, too, strive each day to make the best of their circumstance even though, in some ways, it is different than that of the people they oversee. They, too, are vulnerable. Perhaps in some ways even more than others. After all, my guess is a lot more people want their job than the jobs people under them have. In doing their job, the boss then, has the dual challenge of doing what they do well and satisfying their own boss, while trying to coax good performances out of those who report to them. All this is not to feel sorry for the boss, only just use them as an example of the different perspectives a person can and does have.

If a communicator can take the time to look at life or even situations through the eyes of another person, then making a connection is made easier simply because you have a better understanding of their likes and dislikes, fears, hopes, ambitions, and current challenges. This may not get you to like someone you did not like before, but it will help enormously as you try to craft talking points for your interactions with them and shape what you either have to or want to say in ways to which they can better relate. Learning about different perspectives is not always an easy thing to do, but when it comes to communication, to this day it continues to be among the best weapons a communicator can have.

Running Conversation

It is always nice when one connects with another person, has a good conversation, reaches an understanding with which both parties are comfortable. It does not have to be about anything of particular importance or significance. The simple experience of having a good conversation with another person is, in itself, noteworthy. Let me add real quickly that I have certainly had my share of these over the years, but the older I have gotten the more I have come to appreciate how much value such a seemingly little thing can add to one's day. Over the recent Thanksgiving holiday I had one of those times with my daughter.

We went jogging together and ran for a little over two and a half miles. Because she was being very kind, we kept a very nice and easy pace. The sky was clear, the temperature was brisk but not awfully cold, and the trail we followed was not overly hilly or rough. We talked the whole time as we ran. The topics we touched weren't as important as the experience itself. It was free of distractions and interferences like ringing telephones, text messages or unexpected visitors. I wish we could do this sort of thing everyday even for just an hour where we were free from the interruptions of life.

This little episode got me to thinking about how so much different things are at work where interruptions reign supreme. At the office in meetings, for instance, even if they are with just one other person, there are very few opportunities to connect with people on challenges the two of you might share or even projects on which you might be working. Sure, the work gets done. People are able to work together to come up with a game plan for tackling a joint project. But how much longer is all that stretched out due to interruptions that get in the way of being able to connect? My guess is more than any of us wish to admit.

So, what's the answer? Should all of us go on jogs together just so we can connect with other people? Truth be told, that probably would not be a bad idea. Short of that, from a communication standpoint, it is important to create an atmosphere or establish a setting that is as distraction- free as possible. Good communication is about talking as well as listening. Anything that gets in the way of that simple flow is unwanted We all need to focus on ways to set aside or even remove potential disruptions that might interfere with efforts to connect with others. If that requires stage managing a little bit, then so be it. The greater good is the connection - personal or professional. It feels good and it feeds into a basic need we share, which is our innate sense of being needed and belonging.

Convenience

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

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

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

Group Projects

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

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

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

Finding Ourselves

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

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

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

Self-Imposed Challenges

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

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

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

Facts and More Facts

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

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

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

Grand Thinking

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

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

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

Public Speaking

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

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

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

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

Evolution Part II

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

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

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

Evolution Part I

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

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

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

Safeguarding Integrity

Dealing with criticism is not an easy thing. But if it sincere, fair and done with an attempt to help rather than simply put down, then it's not so bad. Otherwise, being maliciously criticisized or attacked is never easy to swallow. But as tough as dealing with this sort of thing might be, contending with charges that are false is another. Recently, I received a call for advice from a representative of a national service agency I will not identify that was attacked via emails to persons throughout the organization. From persons unknown, the emails charged the organization with improper use of funds and accused a number of its leaders with treating their employees unfairly. As this situation is still unfolding, I cannot say how it will ultimately play out. But what I do know thus far is the charges in the email are mean-spirited and, more importantly, not true.

The question the organization had for me is: what should they do?. How should they react to these emails? Would it be best to simply ignore them? My advice to the group and to any organization that is maligned - falsely or not - is that things of this nature should rarely be ignored or taken lightly. Take charge. Be proactive. Contact the press and let them know what is going on. Let them ask questions and, if they so choose, write their stories. If you have nothing to hide, then do not act like you do. Compile all the documentation you can to refute the charges and then openly invite the anonymous bomb throwers to step forward, reveal themselves and play an active, constructive role in helping right the wrongs they claim exists. Transparency is the key.

As I write this, the organization is still mulling over what to do. To my knowledge, they have never been subjected to this kind of broadside before, so I understand their need to take a deep breath before making any kind of decisions on what to do. As they make their decisions, the leaders of this organization should remember they are not deciding just for themselves, but also for the people who work for them and for the thousands of needy people they strive to serve each year. One of the few things each of us carry with us as we move into each new day is our integrity. Without it, we are mere leaves in a windstorm. None of us, including this organization, should allow ourselves to be in that position. By communicating openly, honestly and with conviction, we can not only safeguard our integrity, but also make it stronger.

Regaining Credibility

There is a mystery going on in our house right now. We call it "The Case of the Missing Keys." I doubt this will ever be turned into a major or even a minor motion picture; or, for that matter, a dime-store novel. Nevertheless, it is an engrossing and intriguing enough pot boiler to keep all of us on the edge of our seats. Having said that, I am confident the eventual ending will be a happy one. The keys will be found and all will once again be right in our domestic world. Unfortunately, there are issues in other arenas that are not nearly as straight forward and capable of being addressed so easily as finding a missing set of keys.

In the field of communication a perfect example is credibility. When that goes missing, then even an unbroken string of string truth does not guarantee its return. Lies and purposeful deception have a very long shelf life. If a public figure or even any one us are perceived to play fast and loose with the truth, then that perception is nearly impossible to shed. Assuming for a moment one is caught in a lie, then what can they do to right that wrong? The first step is as direct as a simple fact: take responsibility. Admit it. Set the record straight. Doing this, of course, will not immediately restore one's good standing, but it will certainly put you on the fast track called "the right direction."

The second step revolves around facing the fall out of a lie or deception. Depending upon the size of the lie, its consequences can range from hurting one's feelings and costing people money to leading people to say and do things that puts them in a vulnerable position and even costing people their lives. When one or all of these things happen, the victims are understandably upset and angry. You, the teller of the untruth, need to give them a chance to vent, tell you of the problems you caused them, and voice their unhappiness with you. None of these things is easy to sit through. But this is what makes regaining one's credibility with another person or a public so difficult. It also is a great argument for not telling lies in the first place.

One final word: even devoting yourself to telling the truth and acknowledging your past missteps will not guarantee you will ever regain the original esteem in which others may have held you. But taking these difficult steps is the only path to take to being viewed as credible.

Citizen Journalists

Yesterday, as of this writing, I participated in a panel discussion on journalism in the 21st century. It is a fascinating topic and one, as a former reporter and a guy who loves starting each day with a newspaper or two that I personally find of great interest. The panel, which was part of a conference sponsored by the Virginia Association of Arts and Science Communicators, featured several communication scholars who, like me, used to work for a newspaper. Several times throughout our hour-long discussion the phrase "citizen journalist" was used. New to me, this is a label used to describe those people who pass along photos and/or report on or share story tips to others on the Internet.

One of the panelists viewed this recent phenomenon as a positive development in the evolution of journalism. He also went on to say it gave him great reason to feel optimistic about journalism's future because this trend represents a way of sharing information in a quick and broad way and demonstrates a greater engagement on the part of the public in the reporting of news. I wish I shared his optimism but I don't. While I applaud the sharing of information, what concerns me is the bulk of what these so-called citizen journalists are spreading seems to be rumors and celebrity-oriented tidbits rather than hard news. Additionally, these civilians often lack the time, inclination or base of knowledge to put what they are passing along into any kind of meaningful or even helpful context. In other words, they lack the training to do what professional reporters are supposed to be doing.

Thus, while a greater volume of information is being passed around thanks primarily to the Internet, I am concerned that so much of it is diluted and trivial as to compromise any meaningful benefit it might otherwise bring to an issue or a reader's knowledge base. Sadly, I do not see this trend subsiding. As more of us utilize the web as our primary source of information, I see us as a people being fed a greater volume of thin doses of so-called news. That, I fear, is not good for any of us. But as I write this I am at a loss as to what to do about it. I certainly do not want to prevent the efforts of these citizen journalists. Their actions are part of the social media revolution that is at the beginning of its historic arc.

News and Television

Relationships are always interesting. At times they can float along in an easy going manner. Other times, they can be as erratic and edgy as an out-of-control lightening bolt. Sometimes the changes can be sudden while other times they can be gradual. Presently, we are witnessing everyone of these kind of changes in the relationship between the news and and television journalists. More than ever, these journalists seem to becoming more free with expressing their own own perspectives. They also seem to be far more aggressive in challenging those they are covering or interviewing on why those people do not share their views. Fox News, of course, is an obvious example where this is happening with greater frequency. But so, too, is MSNBC. And then there are even the interview shows such as "Meet the Press"on the major networks.

Is this more confrontational style of interviewing simply a new trend in the news business or is it a reflection of the major networks seeking to become more edgy as a way of generating greater audiences and, therefore, increasing their profits? The answer, I suspect, is probably "both." I remain unconvinced that this change is resulting in any greater enlightenment of an issue or even bringing forth new information. Watching more and more interviewers and their subjects talking over rather than with each other leads me to conclude television executives view this kind of display as being highly entertaining and engaging for those who are watching. Maybe so, but it sure makes me long for the days when simply covering and reporting the news was good enough to attract viewers.

I enjoy a tough interview as much as the next person. It is important that our elected officials and those who represent them, for example, be put on the spot as much as possible to explain decisions they are making that affect all of us. But the line between that kind of hard-hitting reporting and simply jabbing a stick in the face of someone just to get a reaction is becoming increasingly blurry. Reporters are not the news; nor should they be. This even applies to the numerous commentators who dominate the evening news shows. But given the thrust of each network's promotional efforts, one would not know that. Sadly, it seems as if news is becoming the junior partner in its relationship with television journalists.

An Imperfect Union

Isn't it amazing that all of us share this same planet, possess so many similar traits and characteristics, have many of the same needs and desires, yet spend so much of our time not getting along? We seem to devote untold amounts of energy and time trying to get others to understand us or else trying to figure out what others are hiding from us. And if all that isn't enough, we then seem to round out many of our days by figuring out ways to re-explain ourselves just to erase any doubt we might have that people are confused about where we are coming from. What's that all about? What does that say about us? Are we human beings really that much of an insecure mess? It sure does seem so.

Given all that we do, in fact, have in common, one would think every person on this planet of ours would absolutely overflow with understanding and empathy for everyone else. Yet, day in and day out, it seems all we see or hear and read about is conflict, conflict, and more conflict. Family members are butting heads. Congressmen are calling each other names. Media commentators seem to consistently lambaste the actions of public officials of all persuasions. Countries even take up arms against each other. One thing seems to be for sure: the human race may be dealing with shortages of water or food or shelter, but it sure has a wealth of misunderstanding. And that so-called resource seems to be growing by the day.

Looking at all this, however, my theory is that all of us actually do overflow with understanding of our fellow men and women. All the fretting and arguing we do and see around us is not due to a lack of understanding of others. What keeps us from living in a more collegial, cooperative and even peaceful manner are two things: we do not do a good job of letting others know that we do understand them; and we seem to view other perspectives as conflicting with ours as opposed to being mere extensions or off-shoots of thoughts hopes and wishes we have. Fundamentally, I see all of us wanting many of the same things out of life than not. Yet instead of devoting ourselves to communicating that message each day and then seeking ways to build on it, we focus on "talking points" that do little else but create pointless friction. It is not that we are inadequate communicators. Rather, we seem to be communicating the wrong things. That, as much as anything, is the real tragedy of the human race.

Knowing the Question

As I write this, a little later today I will be giving the students in the public relations class I teach their mid-term exam. It will be an essay exam. The test will be comprised of four questions and the students will be asked to answer any three. At our most recent class meeting, we reviewed for this mid-term and I gave the students a good sense of the topics each of the questions will cover. Many of the students walked out of the class with a sense that the test was going to be easy. From my own perspective, I view this as a false assumption, particularly as it relates to my own situation. I am currently a doctoral student. This semester I will complete the course-work phase of the program. Before moving onto my dissertation, however, I am required to take a comprehensive examination to test my field of knowledge of communication. Like the mid-term I am giving later today, it will be comprised of a a number of essay questions. And, as it is with my mid-term, the faculty members who are administering my comprehensive exam are giving me a sense of the specific topics that I will be expected to address. But unlike many of my students, I definitely do not believe my comprehensive exam is going to be easy.

Having a good sense of the question or questions in advance is a double-edge sword. The good news is that it provides you with extremely helpful direction in your preparation efforts. But on the other hand, it puts pressure on you that whatever answers you ultimately do come up with better be awfully good. It also raises the level of expectations on the part of the teachers when they eventually sit down to assess your answers. What I am trying to do with my students and what my teachers are attempting to do with me is give provide an opportunity to give serious thought to various questions and, even in a small way, advance the level of discourse about topics relating to communication. I see this is an important responsibility and I hope my students do, too.

A key to being able to communicate effectively is often found in the preparation. These steps include identifying key points, collecting pertinent information, organizing one's thoughts, and establishing a proper tone for the ultimate presentation of the message. Unfortunately, opportunities to prepare do not come along every day. Sometimes situations occur when we are called upon to communicate messages or information with little or no warning. These kind of a moments present their own special brand of challenge as it forces to draw upon whatever information they can on the spot. But while knowing the questions in advance is a different scenario, it does not make it any less of a challenge to be taken seriously and handled responsibly.

The Challenge of More Than One Perspective

It has been said many times before how there are many different ways to look at an issue. Whether the issue is big, small, important, unimportant, pressing or upcoming, each comes with its own array of looking glasses through which to gaze at it. None of these perspectives are necessarily good or bad, nor is one particularly more weighty or pressing than another. They merely exist and therefore are real. How pervasive one, several or even all the perspectives become is inevitably decided by those of us who are doing the looking and judging. A great example of this is the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Obviously, it was and is international news and is the topic of much discussion and debate as I write this.

A number of people have expressed delight at this honor being bestowed upon our still-new president. Others have found this decision by the Nobel Committee to be outrageous and insulting. And still other perspectives have fallen somewhere in the middle of the others by being congratulatory while at the same time questioning the wisdom and timing of this particular honor on this particular individual. In attempting to interpret these mixed reactions, what is a communicator to do? Given the many responses, would one determine this to be a good thing, a bad thing, important, something to be scoffed at, or better left ignored?

Seeing as we are now just over a month away from Thanksgiving, which around our house always includes a big meal, let me make a food analogy. Final perspectives are like a freshly baked pie. They are produced as a result of combining a number of ingredients. If mixed properly and in a timely manner, the result is one's own creation that, if not edible, is at least understood and given consideration. Often times, communicators are called upon to offer their interpretation or assessment of a given issue or incident. Ideally, one's "take" on something should not be pulled from thin air but rather be the result of combining your own assessment with facts and thoughts from other sources. Once mixed together and analyzed, then the odds of you producing a viable and intelligent perspective are high. Communication is a social science and therefore should be carried out as any other scholarly field deserves: with facts and analysis. It makes the challenge of dealing with various perspectives much more interesting and orderly. It also points to the importance of communicators placing their own stamp on various issues of the day but doing so as a result of looking beyond their own perspectives.

Short Cuts

Recently, I was out running errands. Traffic, as usual, was slow and heavy. There were no real problems, but I was just not getting to my various destinations as quickly as I would have preferred. Then, I happened to think of a short cut I could take to one of the places I was headed. While sometimes so-called "short cuts" do not always work out, this one did and I managed to save myself a little time. It was a reminder of how sometimes it is the little things that can and do make life worth living. But it also got me to thinking about short cuts as they might apply to communication. Are there short cuts to effective communication?

I think not, particularly if one views the purpose of communication as being to build and maintain collaboration and partnerships that last. Ties that really bind are not built of straw or on half-promises; nor are they woven out of some kind of quick action. Rather, by their very nature, relationships are built over stretches of time that provide the participating parties with a chance to establish mutual trust, lasting respect, open lines of communication, and overall harmony. The passage of time allows parties in a relationship to develop a resilience so when things do go wrong or when disagreements occur, the connecting thread is strong enough to bend but not break.

I think of my own relationship with my daughter. Over the years we have had our share of ups and downs, but to this day are very close. Despite periodic misunderstandings or miscues, we are credible enough with each other to continue moving forward in a healthy and mutually-supportive way. Ideally, the same can and should hold true for various entities that seek to establish ties with different publics. Professional communicators are in the relationship business. Further, the public relations profession has evolved into a co-creational dynamic defined by bringing publics coming together to address matters of common interest. Unlike running errands on a Saturday afternoon, there are no short cuts to making connections last.

Stream of Communication Thoughts

Communication is an act. An action. Any kind of behavior or verbal pronouncement not only transmits a message, but it also triggers some kind of reaction. People on the receiving end of another's statement or action either initiate some kind of physical reaction or response of their own or, at the very least, draw an opinion. As a result, with the act of communicating comes power. Take an office supervisor, for instance. If this person has a a casual relationship with the truth, then you can bet that kind of communicating will directly influence how they are perceived by their staff. On the other hand, if the supervisor demonstrates a deep commitment to being honesty, then the reaction it ignites will be a whole lot better not only for them but for the entire organization. The bottom line: those in-charge need to use their power carefully and communicate responsibility.

*****************************************

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to one of the giants of public relations, Thomas Hoog, talk to a group of budding communication students. One observation he shared was the great revolution our society has seen over the past several decades in terms of technological advancements. This revolution, he said, would not have happened without communication. He's absolutely correct. It would not be possible for me and thousands of others to blog, for instance. Additionally, being diagnosed with cancer is no longer akin to being given an automatic death sentence thanks to many hard working scientists as well as to those communicators who worked equally hard at helping those medical researchers advance their findings. Hoog's point was that the communication industry continues to play a vital role in the world. This role, he said, will continue to expand.

********************************************

Words matter. A man who lived that credo in a very public and honorable way recently passed away. I speak of William Safire, speech writer, New York Times columnist, and author. Safire was a warrior when it came to defending the English language. More often than not I did not agree with his politics, but I always greatly respected his great reverence for the beauty of our language. In many ways, he was one the English language's finest cheerleaders. Given the rise of public officials and personalities who do not seem to be all that articulate, I can only hope Safire's work will be carried on by others.

*****************************************

I have been writing this blog now for approximately 14 months; nearly 130 entries. The comments I have received have been underwhelming. But I love doing this and will continue. If nothing else, it provides me with a great outlet to write about about a subject and field I love. At the same time, I welcome any one who might be reading this from time to time or might happen to stumble upon it, to share your thoughts with me and others. There is nothing I would like better than to include ongoing exchanges with readers in my blog.

The Same Rules

There are two criteria that must be met if effective communication is to occur: both parties must be playing by the same rules and be acting in good faith. If not, then it is just not going to happen. You end up having two people or groups talking at each other and, when they are finished, nothing has been advanced. A simple example of this would be two people who cannot speak the same language. Unless the two shift to a form of communication they both understand, such as physical gestures, then any connection between the two will not occur. Fortunately, if the two people are acting in good faith and genuinely wish to communicate, then they will make that necessary shift.

Another, more timely example of two communicators not playing by the same rules is seen in the health care debate going on right now between republicans and democrats in Congress. It is apparent to me that members of our country's two major political parties are not playing by the same rules and are not acting in good faith. What makes this debate so frustrating is that they all definitely speak the same language, both say they recognize the nation's health care system needs to be revamped, and both even agree more people need to have easier access to health care. Despite that, progress and ultimate consensus on this important seems stuck. Why? Because many of these elected officials who claim to want more health care for Americans really do not. They are happy with things as they are for philosophic reasons or because they do not wish to anger those that support them with money and votes. Still, that does not stop them from going through the charade of participating in discussions over ways to expand and improve the nation's health care system.

So, what is one to do when one of the communicators is not shooting straight? Whether it is the specific case of the republicans and democrats or discussions involving two individuals, there are two primary options: try getting at the root of the disagreement by creating a safe environment in which the non-straight shooter can feel comfortable enough to share their real agenda; or simply walk away and proceed in a manner you think best. Generally, people should not be forced to cooperate. But nor should they mislead. At the same time, trying to honestly communicate with someone who does not want to reciprocate is totally misguided. Communication at its best is a two-way street. When it's not, it digresses into a frustrating, shallow dance. Life is too short for that to be allowed any longer than necessary.

The Benefit of Experience

Not too long ago I talked with a group of Air Force officers involved with public affairs work on the challenges of risk and crisis communication. The presentation went well as much because of their input and willingness to engage themselves in the topic than anything I had to share with them. Given their years in the military, they all had stories to tell, information to share and lessons to impart. As they talked I could not help but accept the reality that while I may be the one sitting at the table carrying the title of "teacher," it was they who truly deserved that label. At the conclusion of the two hour session, I walked away feeling as if I gained more from that encounter than did they.

In all fairness to me for a moment, I do not wish to suggest that I had nothing to share or did not provide them with useful information I feel I did. At the same time, given their collective experience of serving overseas, living in combat situations, standing tall in potentially explosive encounters, providing emotional support to the families and friends of fallen comrades, and being responsible for the handling of hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars of equipment, what I brought to the table could not match their impressive backgrounds and histories.

This entry, then, is a tip of the hat to those with experience. To my good fortunate, these men and women with whom I spent several hours, had plenty experience to spare and share. And if that was not enough, they also shared some of their wisdom in ways that gave life and added meaning to the theories and research I brought with me. Unlike all the times in my life I have purchased a lottery ticket, in this situation I came out a definite winner. Experience does matter. Perhaps its greatest benefit is that it propels knowledge that comes primarily from book-learning to a greater height. Those Air Force professionals had a winning combo of tools when it comes to communication: knowledge and experience.

"Tough Crowd"

A number of years ago I was invited to speak to a group of people as their after dinner speaker. Actually, I was asked to step in for the person the group had originally asked to be with them. Close enough. The one thing I remember about this experience is that during my talk I told a joke and it absolutely died. It was so bad and so poorly received that I could not even hear crickets chirping in the distance. It was a very embarrassing moment. This is why, to this day, I have great empathy for non-comedians like myself who try to be funny in front of a large group of people but aren't. While I know humor can be a great devise for helping establish a connection with others, unless you have a sure-fire joke or funny story to tell, it is also something that should probably be avoided by most of us who occasionally are called upon to stand at a podium and yak at a bunch of people.

Very recently, I spoke to another group of people. Did I tell another joke? Yes. But this time it was received more warmly than my first attempt that still haunts me to this day. Beside the joke itself, what was the difference? Between that first experience and this most recent time, I have learned that audiences generally are not ready for humor from a speaker they do not know or have not, at least, heard of. If you as the speaker are going to try and make them laugh, then you need to let them get to know you better; relax with you; gain a better sense of you as a person. The way to do that in the scenario of giving a public speech is by - are you ready? - speaking. My advise is to not let out with your joke or jokes right away. Give the audience and give yourself time to warm up to each other. At that point you can unleash your inner Henny Youngman.

I teach public relations and have come to rely upon humor in a big way to connect with my students. But even in that situation I do not joke around until the students and I have gained a better sense of each other. As it is when one is talking with a reporter, your main objective is to stay true to the points are need to get across. Rarely are jokes the best way to go. Save them for later. In fact, when in doubt, stay away from the humor altogether. Leave it to the professionals or for when you and colleagues are gathered around the office water cooler.

Communication Baggage

There are a number of kinds or categories of communication. They range from risk and crisis communication, internal communication and inter-cultural communication to interpersonal communication, web communication, and strategic communication. There are others, of course, but these particular ones are among the more popular categories discussed, researched and analyzed. While they all have their own distinct pieces of the total communication pie, they also have plenty of fundamental truths in common. One of these common denominators is credibility. For any kind of communication effort to be of value, then the communicator must have credibility. There is no substitute for that. Oh, people will hear you and they may even read what you write, but if they do not perceive you to be a teller of truth, then you are wasting everyone's time.

Credibility does not always come easily. Sometimes it takes time to establish, particularly if you are representing something or someone who did not have a good reputation for honesty before you came on the scene. Is this fair? No. But it is certainly understandable. It is not unusual for people to lump all representatives together, at least initially. For instance, if an elected official is perceived to be dishonest and this person had a a spokesperson who told half-truths on his or her behalf, then the spokespeople that follow are often viewed as being guilty until proved innocent by the public. This is the baggage that communicators are forced to carry from time to time.

Communicators represent the present and the past. How they deal with this often separates the credible ones from the others. If mistakes have been made, misdeeds occurred, or lies told, then they should not be glossed over or ignored by those who speak in the present. Sure, negative moments from the past can get in the way of what is happening now. And no question it can be irritating when people keep bringing up misdeeds from times past. But if that happens, then a good communicator can use those wrong turns as a way of better highlighting that that sort of thing is no longer happening. Baggage is a reality for all of us. It never helps when it is covered or treated as if it does not exist.

Civility on the Ropes

In the span of a few days our country has been witness to several very public displays of uncivil behavior by well known people: South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson interrupting an address to the House of Representative and U.S. Senate by President Obama by the calling commander in chief a liar, tennis superstar Serena Williams yelling profanities at an official who made a call against her during one of her matches at the U.S. Tennis Open, and rap singer Kayne West taking the microphone away from another performer during the middle of her acceptance speech at the MTV Awards program because he thought someone else should have won a particular award. Are these isolated cases that coincidentally happen to occur around the same time or are the actions of these people representative of a larger, negative trend in our country? I am not sure but I am concerned enough to raise the question.

There seems to be an escalation of ugliness in our country. Increased shouting. Increased name calling. Increased threats of violence, and, in some cases, actual violence. None of this is good and none of it is healthy for our society. Why is this happening? What is going on? And what can be done about it? One possible answer might be found in reasons why any of us ever feel a need to shout or lash out. We may feel frustrated. We may feel as if we are not being heard. We may feel as if we are not being appreciated or taken into account by those that wield influence over us. We may feel boxed in with no way out but to huff and puff in ways that are ugly. The result is uncivil behavior fueled by anger and frustration. And sometimes those feelings are expressed in ignorance.

Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to address this phenomenon. However, following fundamental elements of good communication can help. The key to good communication is to establish an environment in which people do have a chance to feel as if they are talking with others. Granted, this is not always easy to do when one is dealing with masses of people. Nevertheless, it is doable through well thought-out strategic communication. Town hall meetings are a good idea, but only if ground rules are established that requires all who participate to behave respectfully. Making great use of social networking outlets works, too, so long as concerns and questions people raise are addressed in a timely manner. Mainly, people need to have confidence that their best interests are being taken into account by those in positions of authority. There's an old expression that says, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." The successfully planting of that seed will go a long way toward nullifying uncivil behavior.

"You lie!"

President Obama was not the only one who did a double take during his recent health care address to a joint session of Congress when he heard the words, "You lie!" erupt from the audience. I did, too. In my lifetime, which goes back as far as President Truman, this was definitely a first for me. As it turned out, according to the numerous media pundits that have since commented and/or reported on it, it was a first for the nation as well. The owner of those two words, we now know, was Congressman Joe Wilson, a republican from South Carolina. Let me quickly say I was and still am as appalled as any one at the inappropriateness of Wilson's behavior. In the past few days I have been around those who have labeled Wilson "an idiot." I confess I did nothing to refute them. Now, I will content myself to say Wilson merely behaved like an idiot.

Up further reflection, given the tenure of our times, I am not sure Wilson's outburst should really have come as a major surprise to any of us. After all, we have just gotten past a summer of (1) one unruly town hall meeting after another in which many people did little else but yell at each other and at their elected representatives; (2) appearances by the president himself in which a number of attendees actually brought weapons; and (3) cable talk shows and call-in radio shows which did little else but fan the flame of uncivil behavior. (In fact, there are some right now that are actually attempting to depict Wilson as some kind of modern day Patrick Henry.) Given all this, is it any wonder that more of our so-called leaders did not distinguish themselves that night in the manner of Wilson? Actually, some in my view were certainly leaning in that direction. As the President talked they sat in their seats posting messages on their blackberries, sending out tweets to their followers, and waving documents in the air. It no longer seems a coincidence that fewer people these days are referring to our country's Congress as the "greatest deliberative body in the world."

Serious and complex issues cry out for respectful debate, thoughtful dialog, and active listening. Instead, we seem to be witnessing people who should know better talking at rather than with each other. What is particularly frustrating is this is occurring around an issue that has universally been acknowledged as being extremely important and in need of addressing. Here's a thought: maybe instead of electing a president in the next election we should simply elect an all powerful referee. Instead of wearing an expensive suit and tie, this person should wear the traditional black and white striped shirt with a whistle hanging around his or her neck. Until then, another option might be that those in leadership positions might do their best to remember that persuasive communication occurs best when it is wrapped in civility.

In Praise of Chicken Little

I would like to give a special shout-out to a much maligned group of individuals who get very little appreciation or, at times, respect: the Chicken Littles of world. No, I am not talking about the nut jobs who are convinced there are aliens hiding behind every mailbox in every city in America. Nor do I mean the fanatics who are certain that every time President Obama swears death panels are not part of his new health care proposals, what he is actually doing is sending a secret message that death panels really are part of his health care proposals. Sadly, there are some people, I am convinced, with whom one cannot reason. Rather, I am referring to those who are reasonable, knowledgeable and sincerely care about helping the rest of us deal with real world problems. They want us to know what to do in case there is a fire in our building or if we have been diagnosed with the H1N1 virus or if our community is hit with a natural disaster.

When times are calm, we may jokingly call these people Chicken Little, but if any of us do, then it is my hope we do so with affection and respect. These individuals are important members of our communities and should be valued for what they do. One of the biggest challenges these professionals face falls under the heading of risk communication. It is this form of communication that is a continuous process in which the communicator attempts to share important information with various publics that they can use in case a potential threat comes to pass. Think about the challenge these communicators face. For most of us, when the sun shining the last thing we want to hear is how we should keep an umbrella close at-hand in case it rains. Yet the risk communicator is the person who needs to figure out a way to get us to not only keep an umbrella nearby just in case but also to know what to do with it should we get hit with a cloud burst.

The risk communicator works to help us prepare for potentially dangerous situations that we cannot see but on some abstract level recognize could potentially become real. In the past eight years our country has been "hit" in a number of significant ways that have been both devastating and unnerving. The terrorists attacks of 9/11 are an obvious example. An anthrax scare, which came right on the heels of that, are another. And then there was Huricane Katrina. How well prepared were we as a society for those times? How well prepared are we now? Under the guidance of competent leaders, it is often the risk communicator who helps improve our state of national and personal readiness. As the eighth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 passes, it is good for us to recognize the efforts of the risk communicator. At times, via their research and various informational campaigns, they may come across as Chicken Littles. But more importantly, they also have our welfare at heart.

Brave People

Not too long ago I attended a meeting that focused on the health care debate currently dominating much attention in our country. There were only nine of us present so, thankfully, there was none of the shouting, hate mongering and overall nonsense that seems to be occurring at so many of the public meetings on this subject these days. Despite the fact all of us agreed health care reform is needed, everyone behaved in a respectful manner and made no attempt to criticize or verbally attack those who feel differently. Still, some of the conversation was emotional. Several people had heartfelt stories to tell of how their lives have been totally upended because of their battles with and treatment by insurance companies.

One gentlemen, for instance, confessed he currently owes over $100,000 in medical expenses that he believed was going to be covered by his insurance company. Instead, the insurance company decided his "pre-existing condition" was reason enough not to pick up the cost of his needed surgeries. A couple shared the plight of their son, who had become unexpectedly ill. As the boy's condition grew worse their insurance company became less responsive and, ultimately, also concluded it was not responsible for providing the financial assistance upon which this couple was greatly depending. Like the man who spoke before them, they, too, are now heavily in debt and are feeling quite hopeless at the prospect of ever getting back on their feet.

Listening to these people tell their stories, I was struck at how none of us like to display our vulnerabilities to others. Even though we all know we are vulnerable on some level and have plenty of weak spots, generally, we tend to cover them up when around others in the false hope they will think that we totally have our so-called acts together. Maybe, in a number of ways, most of do. But at the same time, as I drove home that night, I reflected on how quickly all of us can become unraveled and have our lives can go from being hopeful to hopeless when things we take for granted or expectations we might have are not met. For me, at least, the brave people who shared their vulnerabilities that night are not only what this health care debate should be about, but their honesty should be what communication itself is about. No spinning. No test marketing. Just plain, simple openness.

Communicating With Strangers

I have been teaching public relations on a part-time basis now for over ten years. It's fun, always a challenge, and it gives me a chance to talk about a topic in which I believe very strongly. Nevertheless, the first day or two of class is always a special source of anxiety. This is because making a connection with a room full of strangers is never easy. I walk into the classroom and the focus of everyone is on me simply because I am the teacher. What exactly do I say? How should I behave? I am still not sure. After all these years, one would think I would have by now come up with a sure-fire opening line guaranteed to get the class and semester off to a rousing start. Alas, I have not.

For me, the awkwardness of the getting-to-know-you dance of strangers who meet is enhanced when the people I do not know out number me by 30 or 40 to one. Still, the show must go on. As the teacher and initial sender of any messages, I recognize the responsibility is on my shoulders to take the lead. Preparation is the key. This, as much as anything, gets me through most any moments of this kind. It may not eliminate my nervousness, but it does help me get through that initial interaction without losing-face. Consequently, I go into each class knowing the topics I wish to cover and having a good sense of the kinds of questions I might be asked. I have little doubt the same can said of most every teacher irregardless of the topic of their class. The power that comes from the knowledge of what teachers want to say helps neutralize moments of awkwardness with their students.

This communication truism goes beyond interactions between teachers and students. It applies to all of us who mingle with others - strangers and people we know. Be prepared. In fact, effective communication comes primarily from two sources: being prepared and maintaining a respectful pool of knowledge from which to draw should unexpected questions, comments, actions or topics be raised. Plus, a good sense of the audience with whom you are addressing or who you are about to address is a major help. This combined knowledge can help you shape your message in a way that is most receptive to the people with whom you are speaking. I consider myself to be more of an introvert in both my personal and professional worlds. The common denominator that helps me navigate each world is preparation.

Words and Deeds

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

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

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

Packaging

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

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

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

Classic Readings

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

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

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

The White House

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

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

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