Persuasion vs Partnership

There is a debate going on right now within the field of communication. It pertains to the bottom-line purpose of public relations. Is it to persuade or is it to build and maintain relationships? Is it the primary function of public relations practitioners to devise strategies that help motivate various publics to take certain action, support a particular position, or mobilize in some way? Or, rather, should these same professionals devote their skills and energies toward establishing bonds of connection between publics in order that they might confront challenges and problems of mutual concern?

Everywhere around us we see examples of public relations strategies being devised and implemented designed to talk various publics into taking a stance on something that they had done before. How many people voted for President Obama, for instance, who did so as a result of an effective public relations strategy?Or how many people have gone to see "Slumdog Millionaire" because of an effective advertising or marketing campaign? On the other hand, how is communication helping keep together those people who share the same views on climate change? While these people did not necessarily need a public relations campaign to formulate an opinion on this issue, it is easy to see how public relations is certainly helping them remain mobilized

The phenomenon of persuasion is an intrinsic part of public relations. By its very nature, public relations is a method designed to wield influence. If successful, then the effort to influence has worked. To use those who believe in climate change, they may not necessarily need be convinced to come together. But staying together and doing what is necessary to remain unified can be made easier by public relations or communication. The focus of the persuasion strategy might be more pronounced in one strategy over the other, but it exists in all communication strategies regardless of their ultimate purpose.

Propaganda

I have never been a fan of propaganda. I know many nations, including the United States, practice it. I also know in many ways even smaller entities, such as corporations, organizations and even individuals, partake in this ever-so-tempting activity. We all want to be liked, supported, and thought of highly. But propaganda, in its rawest form, smacks too much of self-serving horn blowing that contributes to providing information to others that is overtly beneficial. It also can lead either to falsifying information about ourselves or, just as badly, distributing information that misleads others.

No question, a fine, fuzzy line exists between propagandizing and self-promotion. But propaganda smacks a bit too much of "spin," a relatively new descriptive term in communication circles that connotes exaggeration and false claims. One of the early pioneers of public relations, Ivy Lee, was on the right track when he created a "Declaration of Principles." In it, he called upon representatives to the media to share accurate information and do so in a straight forward and timely manner. Doing so enables the public to make their own judgments about what is being shared with them as opposed to being the subject of manipulation.

Establishing a solid reputation is and should be the result of honest words and deed, not manipulation in the form of propaganda or spin. At its best, communication fosters positive and mutually beneficial relationships and bonds. This cannot happen if either party is engaged in misleading behavior or trickery. Communicators take heed: do not perpetuate falsehoods. Do not be party to efforts to mislead. Do, on the other hand, communicate the virtues of your clients but only with honesty and openness.

Press Secretaries

Not too long ago a friend asked my opinion of the job that various presidential press secretaries have done in recent administrations. (I currently work as press secretary at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. I have now worked at this institution for 20 years.) To be blunt, I have not been impressed with the job that the press secretaries have done over the past several administration. (For the record, I thought President Bush's press secretaries these past eight years were the worst.) The reason I am so critical goes to my core belief as to the bottom-line role of professional communicators or public relations practitioners.

Communication is at its best when it builds and strengthens relationships. If done well, communication can help create an environment of collegiality and shared purpose. Sadly, it has been a growing trend among the presidential press secretaries to not do this. Instead, these men and women have served as the president's attack dogs, putting down those who question or criticize their bosses, slamming the door on meaningful dialog or interaction. They seem to have viewed their important positions as being part of the president's last line of defense against all who have the audacity to challenge or question the policies and actions of the nation's chief executive.

Press secretaries, particularly the ones who represent our president, have twin responsibilities: to represent their boss and to represent the interests of those to whom they seek to communicate. Sure, juggling those two balls can be tricky and even difficult at times. But that comes with being a public servant. Up till now, the press secretaries seem to have forgotten or discarded the part of their jobs that calls for them to be the best public servant they can be. Instead, their focus has been on being a shill for their boss, even if it means being dishonest and arrogant. This kind of posture, in my view, has reflected the attitude of their boss.

I do not know what kind of job President Obama's press secretary will do. My hope is that this person will be as open and inclusive as Obama himself says his administration will be. One of the big reasons our nation is struggling right now is because it seems to have evolved into a closed society. Our current press secretary will play a leading role in helping turn that around.

Honesty Triumphs All

As of this writing we have a little over 24 hours remaining in President Bush's administration. A great deal, of course, has been and will continue to be written about him, much of it critical.
One of the often repeated criticisms has revolved his skills as a communicator. In fact, it has often been the subject of many jokes and ridicule. Rightfully so, I might add. A person with his level of education and that rises to the station of life that he has should be able to turn a phrase better than Bush; should be more sensitive to the rules of grammar. Is that, then, why in most circles our 43rd president has been judged to be a poor communicator? No.

None of us speaks perfectly all the time. Even, dare I say it, soon-to-be president Obama trips over an incorrect verb tense from time to time. Nevertheless, the great majority of people consider him to be a solid communicator. At this point in the lives of these two men, to steal from Highlights magazine, the reason one is considered a Goofus as a communicator and the other is more of a Gallant is summed up in one word: honesty. One is viewed as honest and the other isn't. In his eight years as president, Bush simply told far too much lies. In my view, people finally caught on to his scam years ago. Consequently, as his tenure president draws to a close, he has no credibility. Without that, it matters not how articulate a person might be. If your audience does not believe much if anything you say, then your ability to communicate is gone.

It is not my purpose in this entry to pick on Bush, though given the many problems he has dropped in Obama's lap, can anyone blame me? Rather, I view Bush as a perfect example of why honesty is oxygen to any and all of us who communicate under any circumstance and to any size audience. Without it, communicate dies along with any kind of connection or relationship. If one is deemed to be a teller of truth, then that person will be listened to. They may not be agreed with or followed, but they will be heard out. Communication comes in many forms, including advertising, marketing, speech making, and deed. Slickness does not replace honesty. It is simply irreplaceable when it comes to communication.

Talking

We are rapidly approaching the inauguration of a new president of the United States. Coinciding with that are the hearings for the members of the soon-to-be chief executive's new cabinet. These men and women have been nominated by President-elect Obama and require the approval of the U.S. Senate before they can formally assume the duties of their new jobs. As it always the case, the transition from nominee to cabinet secretary for some of these individuals is going more smoothly than it is others. For instance, the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is going very smoothly while the nomination of Timothy Geithner as secretary of treasury has run into a few bumps. Eventually, I predict, all of Obama's nominees will be approved.

I mention the selection of a new cabinet and, specifically, former U.S. first lady and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton because I was struck by a point she raised earlier this week in response to various questions from members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It had to do with changes in U.S. policy; specifically, to actually engage in conversations with countries deemed not to be friendly with us. This simple point has been a source of much debate over the past few years, particularly in light of the outgoing administration's reluctance to engage in conversation or diplomacy with allies as well as non-allies. The previous administration argued to engage in direct talk with non-friendlies is to give those countries and their leaders a cloak of legitimacy that they do not deserve or have not earned. Doing so also reduces the prestige of the United States. To both of these arguments I say "hogwash."

Every day all of us engage in some form of communication with those we do not necessarily consider to be friends or even friendly. But we do soon because we recognize to go though life each day by connecting only with friends is virtually impossible and limiting. We engage - communicate - with friend and foe in order to pursue mutual goals, advance our own goals, and because it keeps the wheels of progress in society moving just as they should. Any time communication breaks down, for whatever reason, we all suffer. Rarely are there positive alternatives to not communicating. What alternatives there are include fighting and active sabotage, neither of which is good for us as individuals for us as citizens of the world.

A Level Playing Field

We are all equal. Men and women far wiser than I will ever be have written and spoke of that for more than hundreds of years. Much like the concept of gravity, it is indisputable. Having said that, however, it is interesting how in various circumstances of exchange or communication between people of varying rank, that old standby or concept seems to fall by the way side. For instance, take the scenario of the boss who will not speak to or interact with his or her employees simply because they are at a lower level within their organization. Yes, that is rude. Yes, that is unprofessional. And, yes, that is arrogant.

Communication can and does level that playing field. Whether the communication takes place in the form of face-to-face dialog or in writing, it puts the two on the same wave of interaction and forces a mutual acknowledgment that may not have been there before. For as long as the communication lasts, the players are engaged in direct and equal interaction. This, of course, is not to say one of the principles might not act rudely or might not communicate very well, but nevertheless this exchange puts them at literal or virtual eye level. Equality. Begrudging or easily-given respect. These are the seeds of effective and successful communication.

Effective and successful leaders do not shy away from opportunities to communicate with others irregardless of a person's station within an organization. This is simply because communication is one essential element the leaders need to direct and guide others toward helping workers achieve organizational goals and fulfill their own potential. If a so-called leader does what they can to avoid or minimize opportunities to communicate, then perhaps they are ill-suited to hold such a position of responsibility or authority.

Responsible Speaking

There are few things more gratifying than talking with someone who actually listens to what it is we are saying. They pay attention and seem to be genuinely interested in the points we are trying to make. This not-so-illuminating thought was triggered yesterday when I attended a speech by President-elect Obama on the national economy. Over 1,000 people were in attendance, dignitaries and "regular folk." The economy, of course, is a topic that is a great interest to everyone because the economic problems of the nation are enormous and far-reaching. It affects all of us. Further, as the nation's soon-to-be next president, people want to know what Obama's thoughts are on this situation and what it is he is going to do about it. The obvious result is that Obama speaks, everyone listens.

Being a speaker who is listened to carries with it a great deal of responsibility. When people are active listeners they are, in a sense, opening up their minds and hearts to the speaker. They are, in essence, giving this person their trust. To give them back anything less than honesty and equal openness is underhanded and foul. While this applies to Obama, other public figures, and people of high visibility and authority, it also applies to the great majority of us who primarily speak only to other individuals - family members, friends, co-workers, and others with whom we interact. Honesty begets honesty. Honesty begets honest talk and honest listening.

As someone who will be doing a great deal of communicating with us over the next four years, Obama carries with him the heavy responsibility of not betraying we the listeners. On perhaps a smaller scale, we, too, carry that responsibility with us each and every day. It is not a small thing. So long as this responsibility is carried out in good faith and not short-changed, then the ties we attempt to create and maintain stand a most solid chance of being built.

Communication Recession

Is there any one who has no yet heard or read that our nation is currently dealing with an economic recession? Probably not. Even if someone is in the enviable position of not having to tighten their belt these days, then surely they are aware that most of the rest of us have and will continue to do so for who knows how much longer. When it comes to communication, there are also times when a recession occurs. People fail to communicate as well as they should or need to. Their timing is off. Their message is not clear. They do not listen as well as they should. These miscues between two entities happen not just once or twice but on an ongoing basis. In baseball, it is called a slump. The same is true for communication.

But whether we are talking about economics or communication or even baseball, recession is the result of sustained failed policies; ones that have been deemed to lack balance, honesty of intent, or effective follow-through. One piece of fallout from a recession in any one of these fields is a lack of confidence. Economically, many Americans currently share a severe lack of confidence in the Bush administration because of its failed policies. When it comes to communication, a lack of confidence also occurs. People withdraw. They turn away. They lose interest in maintaining a bridge between themselves and those with whom they are attempting to communicate. If left unaddressed, then a gap occurs that will not be rebuilt unless new policies or efforts are made.

In communication, a lack of confidence is equal to a lack of credibility. For any communicator, this is a kiss of death. When communicators fail to include benchmarks or points of measurement in any of their communication efforts, then they risk implementing policies that can lead to a recession. Much like the economy itself, the act of communication is that fragile and in need of constant tending and oversight. With the proper vision and commitment, recession in communication can be avoided.

Dealing With Less

These are tough times in which we currently live. Just today, for instance, it was reported in the national press that Wall Street suffered a trillion dollar loss in 2008. Further, many state budgets are being cut. Holiday shopping is dramatically less than what it was last year. Plus, the Christmas-New Year's season, which traditionally is a big movie-going time for Americans, is experiencing a drop in ticket sales. These are just a few of many examples of our country's current financial hardships. It is no wonder, then, that the great majority of American families are worried about their ability to meet their financial responsibilities and not suffer a serious decline in their lifestyles.

Is there a role for communication in these times in which so many people are affected? The answer is a definitive "yes," especially for those entities and individuals who are in positions of fiscal authority and are sources of pertinent information. In times of uncertainty, people need sources of information and guidance to better help them cope. Here's an example: The institutions of higher education in the commonwealth of Virginia recently had their budgets slashed as a result of a revenue shortfall in the state. As a result, people want to know if this means tuition is going to be raised and if there will be less financial aid available for them. The responsible parties - the colleges and state officials - should prepare pertinent information with which to share with their constituents. They need to begin addressing the possible concerns and questions of their constituents. Do not wait to be asked. Get out ahead of the inevitable inquiries and share what information is known at the moment.

Taking a proactive approach will not eliminate the concerns of families, but it will help ease their level of discomfort, fortify the connection or bridge that links the colleges and state government with the people, and possibly build on whatever support the families give their colleges and universities and elected representatives. Bottom line: people do not want to feel alone and uncared for when a crisis occurs. Open and proactive communication can help address the kind of fundamental mindset people share when they are feeling as vulnerable as they do now. Suppose, one might ask, the information is not positive or that there is no new information to share? Good question. Here is a good answer: The responsible entities can and should communicate that. This kind of initial communication effort can help people feel they are not alone as they attempt to cope with the financial challenges of the new year. People are aware that government and, in this case, the colleges and universities may not have all the answers, but they do want to be reassured that they are on the same side. Honest, straight forward and timely communication can help do that.