Choosing Not to Communicate

I always find it frustrating when two people I view to be at least fairly reasonable fail to communicate. I understand everyone has their own perspective and preference to the point they may not totally agree with where another is coming from on a given issue. Yet when a point of contention arises, literally not being able to find common ground - no matter the passion one carries with them - and, thus, some sort of agreement never ceases to surprise. Perhaps this is me simply being naïve. But the reality of reasonable people not finding that common ground - no matter how small - remains difficult to grasp. I find the concept of "agreeing to disagree" not so much a foregone conclusion but more of an example of two people giving up.

What is triggering this current state of perplexity of mine is the shutdown of the federal government now underway. The primary point of contention revolves around funding the United States federal government so that it may continue to operate. The specific point of contention is the Affordable Care Act, adopted in 2009. (As of October 1, citizens are not free to begin signing up for it.) The divide is largely political and is taking place in the halls of Congress. A vote to keep the government open represents a vote to assure the continuance of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans wish to defund the act and Democrats wish the opposite. As a result of this sharp disagreement, the federal government is currently shut down.

Is what is going on - or not going on - in Congress a failure to communicate or a choice on the part of members of Congress not to communicate? My sense is these so-called reasonable people - our elected officials - are being driven more by principle than they are a desire to identify enough elements on which they agree. Until they reverse their priorities, this roadblock they have created will continue. Thus, what we are seeing is not so much a lack of communication as a choice on the part of the people involved not to agree. This is what happens when reasonable people choose to be unreasonable.

Lawyer or Advocate?

The other day I came across an interesting question regarding the role of a public relations professional. In regard to their client, is this person more of a lawyer or an advocate? It is their job to be similar to that of a lawyer by challenging the person who pays their salary, asking them hard questions, telling them difficult truths and keeping that person and/or their company on a path that is legal, ethical and transparent? Or it is their job to be more of an advocate or cheerleader in which they devote their communication skills to promoting their boss and company in ways that are positive?

My immediate response to this is "both." The public relations can and should fill both of these roles on behalf of their employer. If they are doing their job properly, then both roles should be part of the public relations officer's normal duties. Yes, they need to come up with strategies that best showcase their client. At the same time, when navigating the media terrain in which one must travel if they are to generate greater visibility, then the professional communicator must ensure their client is not or does not behave in a manner that counteracts any steps toward positive exposure. For the public relations worker, this means closely monitoring the actions and communiques of their client.

From the perspective of the client, it means having full trust in their top communication officer. Trust, of course, is not always to attain or give. This is not because one person does not trust another to be honest and truthful. Rather, it involves trusting the judgment of that other person as well as having confidence the communicator has the best interest of the client in mind. This sort of thing takes time as it involves the essence of what makes a relationship between any two individuals succeed. Having these fundamental elements in-place, of course, does not there will not rocky moments between the two. But, then, have there ever been successful partners that do not have times when they disagree?

Going Too Far

I have been teaching one form of public relations or another for slightly less than half of my over 40 years in communication. One class I have taught more than any other pertains to the principles of public relations and how it needs to be depicted and ultimately practiced as a values-driven endeavor. In other words, those that "do" public relations for a living should behave ethically and always take the high road in terms of being fair, honest, open and loyal. The textbook I have used is one quite popular in our communication department at George Mason University: . "Public Relations: A Values-Driven Approach" by two respected scholars, David Guth and Charles Marsh, both on the faculty at University of Kansas.

Recently, Prof. Guth got himself into hot water over a controversial tweet he posted. The tweet pertained to another multiple shooting in the United States. In this case, 13 individuals died at the hands of a shooter at the United States Naval Shipyard in Washington, D.C. Guth, like many throughout the country, was outraged at the incident and, in his case, directed his frustration at the National Rifle Association. In his tweet, he said the NRA has "blood on its hands" and that next time let the victims be "your sons and daughters." As a result, University of Kansas officials have placed Guth on administrative leave.

No doubt the university justifies its action on the fact it does not want any of its employees publically wishing ill - or more specifically death - on others regardless of the circumstances. There was nothing wrong with Guth's action of commenting on this most tragic incident. In a free society, he and any of us are within our rights to do so. However, he obviously went too far. What Guth did and the repercussions that followed serve as a reminder that even freedom has certain parameters. The idea of certain action and the actual taking of an action are not one-in-the-same. I support the university's decision, yet hope it allows Prof. Guth to come back out of the penalty box soon.

Staring into a Mirror

All of us every day spend time staring into a mirror. Sometimes we do it to look at our face . Other times we do it while taking some type of action such as brushing our teeth, flossing, combing our hair, shaving, or putting on make-up. Each of those acts take only a few moments, but during the course of a typical week, I bet all those moments add up to a significant amount of time. In fact, I would go as far to say I bet if one were to share with us the amount of time we do spend looking at ourselves, we would find the total figure to be embarrassing. My unscientific conclusion is that we  humans are a lot of things and vain is one of them.

That vanity, I believe, tends to get in the way of our being better communicators. Staring at ourselves in our own mirror has become such a regular part of our lives that often we do not even think to take the time to gaze at someone else's reflection. This is unfortunate. My sense is if we did make the effort, we would see a face with many of the same characteristics that we have: some nice features, a few flaws, signs of attempted individuality, and indications of conformity as well. We would see areas that need improvement and others that are fine the way they are.  We would see a face both unique and commonplace.

Also, we would see a face which exhibits much feeling when circumstances arise or change. Such a feature, no doubt, would remind us of our own reflection during the course of our own day. From a communication standpoint, what may seem so obvious is actually quite profound. Our faces are much more similar than not. So, too, are we. From that perspective, perhaps communicating does not always have to be as much of a challenge as it sometimes is or feels. The face in the mirror that is our own is just as easily someone else's. Given that we all know how easy it is to communicate with ourselves, then maybe connecting with another is not necessarily that difficult either.

Golden Mean

Practicing public relations is not all black and white. As it involves the intimate act of communicating, more often than not there is much grayness to it. Such a reality was first acknowledged approximately 2500 years ago by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In wrestling with the ethics of communication, Aristotle attempted to reconcile what scholars David Guth and Charles Marsh called the "extremes of excess and deficiency." Out of his contemplation, Aristotle came upon a point in communication he labeled the "golden mean." Basically, it represents a balance between those two extremes.

Specifically, Aristotle raised the question of whether it is ever right or acceptable to lie. Should one always tell the truth no matter the consequences? On the other hand, is it acceptable for people to take liberties with the truth to fit their circumstances? A classic example revolves protecting another person's life. Is it ok for someone to tell a lie if it means saving another's life, particularly if that other person is not involved in any wrong doing? If one believes it is, then that immediately raises that larger question: under what circumstances is it acceptable to lie? Does this apply, for instance, only those times when a person's life is at stake?

Should public relations practitioners be absolutists when it comes to truth telling? If not, then how can this be reconciled with a commitment they have to being credible and tellers of truth? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for them to lie? And what about those who are not professional communicators, is it all right for them to turn away from the truth? If so, then under what circumstances? Finding the "golden mean" for any of us, professional and non-professional communicators, is not easy. What complicates this issue even more is the fact there is no universal understanding of when lies are acceptable.

Satisying the Reader

A good part of any public relations practitioner's day involves writing.  Whether it is putting together a press release, composing a speech, writing ad copy, creating the text for a brochure or the many other communiques with which a professional communicator is involved, much of their average day revolves around the act of sitting in front of the blank screen of a computer and deciding upon the best combination of words to meet the immediate goals of their words and those of the vehicle for which they are intended. As any one who does this can testify, such an act if never not a challenge. Without question, being able to write well is an important for any communicator to have.
But what about the person for whom the written word is intended? Who are they? What kind of person are they? What kind of person takes time from their day to read? To begin, I view readers as risk takers. They know going into an article, a book of even an email, for instance, there is a chance they may not either like what they are about to read or understand it. Thus, they risk frustration or having to take additional time to re-read the piece. For many, this extra time may not always be a commodity they can readily spare. There is a chance, then, their decision to read something may not be a good choice.

Still, readers are curious, seekers of information, open to the written word as a source of entertainment, and in constant search of expanding their base of knowledge. These are good qualities, of course. Given them, this puts a special brand of pressure on the writer to do all they can to address those internal forces that drive readers. Sure, the writer needs to satisfy the person for whom they are writing a particular communique. This bond is overt. But the one the writer has with the reader is just as important even though it may be less out-front. Readers are a demanding lot. They expect much of writers and rightfully so.  

What About Me?

Perhaps one of the frustrating aspects of being a professional communicator is that one has very little "me time." Everything is always about someone else. First, there is the client. What is their message? What is their goal? How much of their money are they willing to spend on an outreach effort? Are they pleased with the advertising copy? Does the speech hit all the points they want to emphasize? Are they comfortable with the quotes that have been prepared for them? Do they want to speak to the press at all? Those are just a few of a litany of questions that revolve the needs and wishes of one person or a singular organization.

There is, then, the matter of the publics the professional communicator seeks to connect with on behalf of their client or that which they represent. What are their interests? What are their primary sources of information? Do they have any opinions or history with the client or organization previous to this new announcement? If so, was it an experience that was positive to them? What is the level of education, age range and other demographic pieces of information regarding the various publics? As it the case with the client, publics, too, have their own set of questions revolving around their likes and dislikes, interests, concerns, needs and hopes.

At some point in this dynamic, particularly if it is one that repeats itself as the pubic relations practitioner moves from client to client, the communicator has got to wonder, "What about me? Does anyone care what I like or think? When is someone going to try and please me?" Indeed. All the questions listed above represent the lot of that professional. The communicator is the dot-connector, the one to whom people turn to meet their communication needs. In such a scenario, there is no or very little time to ask the communicator about them. Their career is about others. It is not about them, at least not much any one wants to ask about.  

The Challenge of Truth

The truth is not always an easy "sell." When one puts forth untarnished facts, then a common result is that sincere and respectful conversation follows. While agreement may not be reached, mutual respect is established and people of honor behave accordingly. As a result, those involved in the discussion are the better for it and so, too, is the topic itself. People of honor recognize facts as undeniable reality that cannot be disputed. However, what can and often is debated is how it is perceived or interpreted. This, then, is what I mean by labeling "truth" a hard sell. While the facts may enjoy universal agreement, how they are interpreted often does not.   

 As I write this, a debate over whether the United States should initiate a limited military strike against Syria for using chemical weapons against its people is dominating the news. This is a most-serious topic worthy of discussion. President Obama is to be applauded for putting the question before Congress and the American public. What we are currently witnessing is the kind of national, roundtable conversation that showcases what is best about our nation. People are engaged over facts: Syrian citizens, including children, were gassed. Thus, we have seen very few examples of disrespect from persons on all sides of the issue.

From a communication standpoint, this debate over Syria showcases an interesting challenge that public relations practitioners often face. Much of what professional communicators strive to do is persuade various publics to take certain action or support particular causes or positions. They try to achieve those goals by putting forth the truth. But what happens when the truth is not enough? What happens when people are presented with unshakable reality and they still are not persuaded? The answer to those questions is often what distinguishes reputable communicators from those who are not. The good ones remain loyal to the truth while the others do not.   



    

"...temporary about myself"

If not the greatest, then definitely one of the greatest plays was "Death of a Salesman." Written by Arthur Miller, it depicts the sad decline of Willy Loman amidst drama surrounding his wife and sons. In it, Loman talks about feeling "kind of temporary about myself." This is a powerful self- description of an individual  - once powerful and vibrant - who recognizes his vulnerabilities and weaknesses are beginning to overwhelm him to the point he no longer has the ability to turn them back or, at least, hold them at bay. His anguish goes beyond recognizing his own mortality. Rather, he is becoming increasingly aware that when he passes he will leave worse than when he began.

Loman's cries are those of a professional who is burnt  out; an individual who no longer feels joy in what he does and sees no hope in regaining it. He is spent. I mention this because such feelings, even to the extreme of Loman's emotional state, happen to real people in the real world, too. Those working in communication are not immune from it. In that profession, there are most definitely elements that can and do contribute to one losing their zest for devising strategies to promote something, helping others articulate their thoughts and messages, and even providing information to those in need of help and guidance.

Striving to be a successful communicator can be a frustrating experience. In any communication effort, there are a ton of variables that can and do get in the way of doing well. The result, missing the mark is a regular part of life as a professional communicator. After awhile, this can wear one down, especially if they have supervisors who do not full understand or appreciate the effort that goes into the implementation of a multi-faceted outreach effort. For communicators, then, the joy must come from the thrill of their chase and those who respect what the communicator strives to do. Otherwise, lacking energy to do one's job to the fullest or derive any satisfaction in the process is not a good place to be.

What to Do?

As a species, humans have made an incredible amount of progress. Look at where we were, say, a hundred years ago compared to where we are today. We live longer, healthier lives. Food is more accessible. Shelter is more attainable. In fact, one would be hard pressed to select any field or aspect of life and not see a level of improvement. Good for us. However, as we know, this is not to say life is now rosier for everyone. There are those, even in our country, who have not seen or enjoyed that level of advancement in the same way many others have. Sadly, for many of those viewed as being poor and/or to be living in poverty, it is not their fault.

This, of course, is not new information. We are familiar with the cliché designation of "haves" and "have-nots." Further, any one even halfway following the news over the past 30 years knows the gap between the two has been steadily increasing. Such a trend is not good for a nation such as ours whose economic foundation is built on a strong and vibrant middle class. The smaller that class becomes the weaker the nation's economic foundation. Again, this is not new information. Looking at this unfortunate reality, I look at the field of communication and its ever-growing number of practitioners, scholars and students, and raise the question of the role they can and should be playing in helping reverse this trend.

I confess to not knowing the answer, at least in terms of being able to propose a series of tangible recommendations. At the same time, because virtually all of those who represents the "haves" and those looking to become part of that group utilize and/or depend upon those who organize, author and help distribute information - communicators - then a given connection already exists that can be exploited in a way that helps better educate everyone about this damaging trend and then sets in motion conversations as to what to do about it. It seems there is a key role professional communicators can and should play here.