Predictors Beware

All kinds of money is spent each year by marketers and public relations professionals on research that will help them predict how potential customers and audiences are going to react to a range of outreach efforts, including slogans, products, candidates, performers, plot lines, and  even colors. The list, of course, is a lot longer and much more comprehensive than that. Marketing research is a multi-million dollar industry fueled by the drive of manufacturers, entrepreneurs, companies etc. to either make money, win public approval, or both. I do not criticize them for this. After all, everyone has to make a living, especially when they themselves often have made substanial effort in terms of financial investment, time, and personal sacrifice to achieve success.   

What is dicey is the whole "prediction business." I say that because predicting human behavior is something behavorial scientists are still trying to figure out. Related to that, I recently came across a quote from cartoonist Scott Adams, best known for the "Dilbert" series. Adams wrote, "There are many methods for predicting the future. For example, you can read horoscopes, tea leaves, tarot cards or crystal balls. Collectively, these methods are known as 'nutty methods.' Or you can put well-researched facts into sophisticated computer models, more commonly known as a complete waste of time." This is a funny quote, but also quite inciteful.

If I were as clever as Adams, I would proceed to write an equally funny and provocative line. The truth is I am not, so I won't. However, I will say this to all current and prospective communicators whose job it is or will be to predict the actions of others: be as thorough as you can in your research, yet also quality every conclusion you draw because the chances are great you going to miss the bullseye a lot more often than you hit it. There are just too many variables affecting human behavior, and each one has a different level of inflence on any given day. Good research helps provide you with the ability to recognize others' probable or possible behavior. Nothing more.

Changing Course

What seems like a 100 years ago, but in reality is "only" 40, I graduated from college with a degree in journalism. It was my plan to pursue a career  in newspapers an an intrepid reporter. After working for four years on the college newspaper, I figured I was ready. Over the next several years I worked for newspapers in Tennessee and Maryland. At about the three-year mark, I began having doubts as to whether I really wanted to stay in the newspaper game. Shortly after that I made the decision I did not. By year four I was working in higher education as a public relations practitioner. It was a change, though not all that dramatic, that I would never have predicted I would make. But I did.

I thought back to that time in my life recently while attending the commencement program of the university where I currently work. The university's class of 2012 numbered over 7,700, the majority of whom received their undergraduate degrees. It was fun watching them celebrate their well-earned achievement. I could not help wonder, however, how many of them will end up doing what I did: swtich careers? After some time working in what they are certain is their life's calling, how many of those members of the class of 2012 will change careers?  My guess is the number will be pretty high. And when they do, those men and women  will be joining a very large family of career changers.

I think of a woman I know who worked in career counseling but now oversees, along with her husband, an independent film comany specializing in animation. Then there is another friend who was an admissions officer for a community college, but now charters boats for people wishing to sail around the Chesapeake Bay. Life is nothing if not a series of endless and fascinating changes. I, for one, have nothing but the highest hopes for all members of the class of 2012. We need their energy, creativity, idealism and ambition. I only hope the lessons they learned in communication, no matter their field of study, are part of the foundation on which they will be building.

Communication Entrepreneurship

To describe someone as an entrepreneur suggests a person who is flexible, not tied to tradition. He or she is  creative and able to make the best of their environment and circumstance to address issues or reach particular goals. In many ways, such a person is innovative and free-spirited in their approach to challenges, yet conventional and disciplined enough to work within specific goals and parameters that they themselves set. In my time, I have seen this word applied to individuals, business and universities and to such fields as business and public policy. But until now, I have never heard or seen it be applied to communication. This suprises me because I feel it applies to communication as well as any other field or profession.

Being a communication entrepreneur begins with being able to think creatively and, as a result, carry out strategies that go beyond the status quo to the point of achieving alternative futures. They have a good sense of purpose and direction. This entails being able to devise appropriate messages in a variety of genres and media aimed at making lasting connections and reaching well-defined, measurable goals. Such a person is as much of a leader as they are team player. Thus, they demonstrate the qualities associated with leadership, yet are able to work well a vareity of others. Their role is multi-layered as they go about establshing an array of networks. 

A communication entreprenuer displays all the qualities first articulated in 1984 by Brian Spitzberg and William Cupach when they outlined what makes for communication competence. A competent communicator, they said, is a good manager. He or she is able to make the necessary adjustments in most any situation in order to drive through their particular points. They properly engage other publics, establish a viable connection with them, and still effectively impart their messages onto those newly-established partners. Obviously, this is an important skill for all communicators. It certainly applies to communication entrepreneurs.

Bang Head Here

Working on a university campus, it is not unusual to see an assortment of words, messages, drawings, etc. written on walls both inside and outside buildings. One I saw the other day made me laugh.  It read "Band Head Here." The words were wrapped around a circle with arrows pointing to a particular spot. Fortunately, I saw no one literally banging their head against that brick wall. But it did serve as a reminder of how all of us, from time to time, need a safe place or haven where we can unleash our inner frustrations, anger or dark thoughts.

The trick is to do it in a zone of some sort that is removed from doing harm to oneself or to others. Counselors, of course, make their living by providing this kind of outlet. The good ones do it by implementing one of the best elements of communication. First and foremost, they listen actively. Doing this helps the patient feel safe, accepted, validated, and respected. The result is they are more open with their thoughts and feelings. This also paves the way for a strong connection to be made between the two who are communicating even if, in the case of a counseling session, only one of the participants is doing most of the talking.       

People want to  be heard. People want to express their feelings even if it is in a way that is inarticulate. While banging one's head against a brick wall ranks pretty low on the scale of articulate communication, it sure makes a strong point. Active listening helps such a frustrated person make their point in a far less destructive way. I have always been of a mind that active listening can also help transform a person who has trouble with words into a genuine orator - even if it is only for the length of a conversation or counseling session. We all need a spot to bang our heads. But finding an active listener sure beats a brick wall.

Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

The year is 1854 and the U.S, government is debating expansion. This current debate is being driven by a need to open up thousands and thousands of acres for new farms and make possible the building of  a Midwestern transcontinental railroad. So far so good. Even better is that everyone agrees they want the United States to have more farm land and more railroads. But then popular sovereignty is written into proposed legislation making this expansion possible and suddenly a seemingly easy piece of governmental action becomes a lot more complicated. Proponents of slavery and  those who are against it rise up in protest with equal fury. Their conflict, of course, is something that has been going on since the still-young nation's beginning days nearly 70 years ago.

As the legislator behind this expansion, Congressman Stephen Douglas believes letting people of those territories decide for themselves whether they want to allow slavery is the best way to go. His perspective sets off a firestorm of criticism. Anti-slavery proponents accuse Douglas of betraying their cause and pro-slavery advocates erupt with indignation over what they interpret as actions that reduce the right to own slaves. Many prominent politicians weigh in on this debate, including Charles Sumner, Sam Houston, Franklin Pierce, Thomas Hart Benton, and a very young Abraham Lincoln. The result is the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, legislation that many feel paved the way to the War Between the States. At the very least, it did contribute to violence.

The point of this brief history lesson is it represents a vivid example of ineffective communication. Parties representing both sides of the slavery issue tried to co-author a plan in which neither side would make any meaningful compromise.  Neither side wanted to sacrifice any part of their position on the slavery issue. As a result, they failed to address the real issue of the debate and ended up making matters worse for themselves and for the nation. This shows how tough communication can be, particularly when two sides place their own needs above those of the greater good. Both sides talked at - not with - each other. The price they paid was terrible. 

Game Changer

Make no mistake, Maurice Sendak, who died recently, was a game changer. Children's literature was never the same after he turned his brilliance on speaking to youngsters in a way they had never been spoken to. Along with his contemporary who wrote under the name Dr. Seuss (Theordore Giesel), Sendak revolutionized children's literature. Giesel did it with words while Sendak did it with pictures. His drawings were counter to what young boys and girls had been used to seeing: the heroes were not clean and polished, the world was not always bright, and his story line was often dark and unconventional. If you don't believe me, then check out "Bumble-Ardy," the story of an orphaned pig who decides to give himself a birthday party after his parents are eaten.

Sendak's most famous book, of course, was "Where the Wild Things Are." Published in 1963, it depicts the imaginings of Max, who is sent to bed without supper by his mother. Max proceeds to take himself on an unprecedented adventure to where there are wild things. These creatures are far from warm and fuzzy. Instead, they are grotesque, imposing in size and shape, maniacal and ready to burst, much like young Max. They serve as Max's companions as the young boy and his monsters release their pent-up frustration and rage. Finally, Max returns home with his inner anger gone. He also finds his supper waiting. 

Sendak's success was, in part, due to his ability to communicate in ways that had never been done before. His insights were unique. His story lines were not sugar-coated. They were honest and raw and not in any way designed to make children believe it was one fairytale after another. That kind of world as depicted by others was not paqrt of Sendak's professional vocabulary. The critics responded with the highest praise. So, too, did much of the general public. His work later became the subject of movies, art shows and even plays. To me, Sendak's ability to communicate well and in ways that were unconventional makes him a communication hero.

Being Human

There are a number of characteristics that distinguish humans from other living creatures. One of my favorite is music. Humans are the only ones that creates music. No other creatures can or do create expressive sounds that combine melody, harmony, and rhythmic beats. This, of course, is not say animals do not make sounds that we may find pleasant to the ear. Birds are one example. Even whales create sound that some find relaxing. But the difference is sounds they and other animals make are fixed. They do not necessarily include variations in tone or harmonies. Humans are world champs at that.

We are also top of the heap when it comes to language. Sure, animals "speak" to one another. But their language is designed to express one message at a time: it is time to mate; dominance or subservience; or the length of a journey. No other creatures come even close to the kind of nuance, complexity,  multiple layers of thoughts or innuendo that comprise typical human-speak. As behaviorist Edward Wilson explains, you will never see one animal say something like this to another: "To get to my den you go about four blocks, make a left at the first Chucky Cheese, go another five minutes and turn right at the second - no, wait - third traffic light; look for the blue Prius that should be parked out front of my place. Just come on in. Oh, on your way, would you mind picking up something to drink?"    

Animals never do that. We, of course, do it all the time. This, then, makes us the most powerful communicators on the planet. We have multiple tools in our communication box that are driven by intellect and emotion. The language of animals is driven largely by instinct. Despite our superior communication ability, this is not to say we always communicate perfectly or even well. We don't. Often, we do not even come close to it. In many ways, we are still trying to get a handle on our power. Communicating well on a consistent basis is an ongoing challenge for all of us. Being on top of the food chain is nice, but being as good as we can be while in that number one spot is not easy.

Global Communication

All around us are symbols that mean the same thing to everyone in all corners of the globe. When you see someone shouting at another person, for example, you know anger is on display. When you see another person laughing, then you know joy is at-work. Or when you see a couple holding hands, then affection is being shared. These acts are universal in that they reflect emotions we all feel and exhibit from time to time. There are, of course, others.These symbols represent a kind of global commonality that helps connect all of us. Collectively, they support the notion that we are all global citizens even though I recognize there may be times when we would rather not be. 

As reported in "Being Global," a new book co-authored by Angel Cabrera and Gregory Unruh, perhaps for the first time this was put forth by the Greek philosopher Socrates when he proclaimed himself a "citizen of the world." President Reagan echoed that sentiment approximately thirty years ago before the General Assembly of the United Nations. Most recently, the Dalai Lama said any vision we might have of our individual independence is far outweighed by the reality of the interdependence of all people everywhere. From the standpoint of those of us who try to communicate for a living, this hard-truth reinforces our potential value.

Given that all of us are connected, even indirectly, then communicators are the ones that ensure the viability of that connection. The work of communicators in their many guises as spokespeople, speech writers, copy writers, press agents, strategists, marketers, reporters, editors, commentators, bloggers, etc. are not unlike droplets of water that fill a bucket. Make no mistake, what and how communicators communicate contribute greatly to how the entire planet communicators as well as to the quality of that communication. Does the world's communication bucket overflow with inclusiveness and honest and respectful exchange or not? There is no bigger responsibility.