Doing Ourselves Harm

In past entries on this blog site I have alluded to several recent news stories relating to a sizable division among the American people regarding an apparent unwillingness on their part to want to talk with or even be near those who have a different political affiliation. This, of course, is reflected by the elected officials who also seem to be having a hard time wanting to work with members not belonging to their party. The whole scenario is very frustrating. This constant friction is doing harm to the nation as well as all of us who support it via taxes and, even more importantly, our deep loyalty to our homeland.  


What is driving this desire that apparently many people share to not even want to interact with people who perhaps see the world a bit differently? How did such a hateful attitude become so widespread and intense? What has happened to us? For generations Americans enjoyed a reputation of being congenial. And maybe on some level in certain situations we still are. But when it comes to issues or topics deemed to be controversial, such as immigration, climate change and job creation, that innate niceness has vanished. Why? Politicians are often accused of being partisan. It seems as if non-politicians are that way, too. 


For me, the main source of frustration is not that we have lost our ability to respectfully and responsibly work together toward the greater good of society. I firmly believe we still can that whenever we want. Rather, we - politicians and non-politicians alike - are simply choosing not to communicate with each other. We seem to be so blinded by anger that we are making a conscience decision to not get along. This self-inflected breakdown in communication is doing us and our nation great harm. Perhaps we first need to hit a kind of collective rock bottom before we decide to being the kind of people we used to be. I hope not.

Plan B

What seems like a hundred ago I had great designs on becoming a professional baseball player. It never happened. Looking back, the big thing that prevented me from fulfilling that early dream was talent. I simply did not have enough of it. That disappointment forced me to come up with a Plan B for my life. That turned out to be a career in journalism. This, after a few years, turned into a more lasting career in public relations. Now, except for work as a part-time teacher and writer, I am retired. So, in addition to living a life in which I rarely have to put on a tie, I also have greater opportunity to look back over various crossroads I faced and choices I made.


One conclusion I have come to is how life and the act of communication have so much in common. Often times, we all try certain things, only to have them not work out. The result is we are forced to make some type of decision as to what to do about it: start over? try something else? retreat? correct any errors we may have made?  The choices are many and some of them are not all that easy to face. Still, going into any venture without a Plan B can be a bit risky. This requires acknowledging the reality that a career path or outreach campaign - to give two examples - that we might attempt may simply not work out no matter how much we want it or hard we try to make it succeed. 


Contemplating the possibility of failure and/or disappointment may seem like one is being a defeatist. Actually, however, such thinking shows a person is being realistic and well prepared. Regarding communication, whether it is on a persona level or one more professional, not all efforts to communicate effectively succeed. Our message is not as understandable as we might think. The targeted audience is not as engaged as they should be. Conflicting messages get in the way. The reasons for falling short are many. But including a Plan B as part of a comprehensive communication plan helps ensure one's attempt to connect with others will not fall completely short.      

Naked Communication

There is a new show on television called "Naked Dating." While I have not watched it, nor have any burning desire to, I have read about it. The premise seems to be is a couple meets and begins to date. The kicker is, however, that all this takes place while they are naked. Their dates, as best I can tell, are not the traditional kind where they go out to a restaurant or a movie or perhaps play a round or two of putt-putt golf. After all, doing all those things while naked might not set too well with the other patrons. On the other hand, it might. Who knows? It seems to me if they did go out one public, then one practical problem the guy would have is where to keep his car keys.


That challenge aside, it seems meeting someone for the first time for an evening of socializing and possible romance while naked is dicey enough as it is. What do you talk about? Since your date has agreed to do this, can you assume that it all right to immediately start holding their hand? Would it be difficult to pay attention to what the other person is saying when they are naked and you are, too? And then there is the matter of doing this on television. Also, trying to be cool or nonchalant about the whole thing would immediately reveal one to be a faker. After all, going out on a date naked is not routine - at least for any one I know.


In terms of communication, such a scenario would seem to make conversation a bit stilted and even limited. On the one hand, trying to talk about the weather, traffic or one's hobbies would be a lame distraction at best. But if either one states the obvious - "Hey, we're naked!" - then where do you go from there? Meaningful interaction between two people meeting for the first time is enough of a challenge all by itself. As titillating as it may seem, making them both naked not only raises the stakes in that regard, but seems to make the chances of the two actually developing a relationship that last even more slim.

Consistency and Coordination

Basically, there are three ways we communicate: verbally, physically and via symbols such as letters or drawings. Given that each represents a broad spectrum ways to interact with others, one would be hard-pressed to identify a moment during any one of our days when we are not communicating. One may ask, "Well, how about when we are alone?" Even then, of course, we are communicating some type of message - even if we are our only audience. Also, the mere act of being alone may communicate to others that this is what we want. Thus, others may give us our own "space," thus signifying or message has been received and understood.


With those three broad categories at our disposal, one might surmise that communicating a message to another is actually not that difficult. This is true only if one is not all that concerned with having their message received, understood and acted upon in some way. (This can entail a simple response or an actual action on the part of the receiver.) But if one does, in fact, desire some type of exchange or dialog with another, then communicating can be a challenge with no guarantee of success. To even come close to a successful act of communication requires a number of elements, including consistency of message and coordinated delivery.


As this pertains to those three broad categories, it is important that the communicator utilize them with a strong sense of coordination. Following is a simple example: One says hello to a stranger as they wish to be friendly. They can support that verbal outreach with a physical smile, wave or both. This may seem like a no-brainer, but I have been part of numerous occasions when a person has said hello to another while not even looking at them. This is a mixed message that detracts from the communicator's primary intent. For us to succeed in any act of communication we attempt, it us key we ensure all parts of our arsenal are on the same page.

Time for Professional Communicators to Reassess What They Do

No country is perfect, nor is there one is not dealing with issues that create tension among its citizens. Here in the United States, one such point of contention revolves around communication. Several national surveys conducted recently by the Pew Research Center highlight. One survey, conducted in 2011, found that Americans have major trust issues when it comes to the work of journalists. Simply put: Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, were found to view members of the media as being unethical, biased and inaccurate. A more recent conducted in 2014 by Pew found Americans to be more polarized than ever, less willing to even associate with those whose politics are different than their own.       


One clue as to where these attitudes come from may be found in a 2011 study released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which showed an alarming income gap between the richest or most wealthy households and the rest of the country. Between 1979 and 2007, the CBO reported the income of the top one percent households increased by 275 percent as compared with an approximate 60 percent income increase for the remaining 99 percent of the households. The overriding results of such a trend are a shrinking middle class and, according to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a serious lack of distrust on the people's part of government and business in terms of their work and what they communicate.    


Putting these various surveys and reports together, it is not surprising that there is definite need for all professional communicators to take a hard look at what they do and how they do it. The media, for example, need to begin moving away from niche journalism; stop catering to conservative or liberal audiences and, instead, be more informed and lazy in their presentation of the issues. Public relations practitioners are not off the hook here either. They should strongly consider focusing their energies more toward helping create a more enlighten citizenry rather than simply trying to persuade or manipulate people to take certain actions or adapt particular beliefs. It seems clear that people are communicating their dissatisfaction with professional communicators. The question is: are the professional communicators listening?   

Haves & Have-Nots

The expression "haves and have-nots" has been with us for many years now. Generally, when used, it refers to the impression that society is divided into two camps: persons of wealth and privilege in the one and those with neither in the other. While such an assessment may be cynical, it is no doubt reality-based. In terms of economics, there does appear to be two such groupings that differentiate life styles and opportunities. In fact, this economic-divide is the focus of much conversation among political and societal leaders these days. Whether anything even close to a resolution will ever emerge remains to be seen.


Does such a division exist when it comes to communication? Are there those with a louder "voice" than others? Is there one group of individuals who, when they speak, generate more attention and exhibit greater influence than others? Without question, the answer is "yes."  Media moguls, for example, are one. Their "voice" is heard through a range of media outlets, including newspapers and radio and television stations. Celebrities are another. Due to their fame, people tend to pay attention to what they say, particularly when it comes to endorsing products and speaking on behalf of various causes.


Then there are the rest of us who neither are famous or all that wealthy. Certainly we, too, have a voice, but how much weight do our communication efforts have? Can those of us in the "have-not" column adequately compete with our "have" counterparts? Further, how much of a tie-in is there between those of wealth and privilege and the weight of their voices with those with little of either and the lack of  influence their voices carry? The potential for any one to speak and sway others, of course, is ever-present. But the chances of such a dynamic is slight. Ultimately, what will be the impact of this communication-divide?

Communication Etiquette

One of the forms of etiquette stressed at the gym I go to is that when people finish using pieces of equipment, they should wipe them down. The thinking is this will reduce the amount of germs that spread from one person to another as well as help keep the equipment at least fairly clean. Without question this is a good idea and one, from what I observe, most gym rats follow. We are trying to use the gym with the intention of improving our overall health, so why not take this extra step to help ourselves as well as each other? It is interesting to compare this type of etiquette with communication. 


As living beings, there are no times when we are not communicating some form of message. Everything we say and do is interpreted by others as well as becomes part of their emotional and intellectual calculations as they move onto encounters with others. For example, if they observe us being rude to a cashier, then they may share this experience with another, decide to confront us about our behavior, or silently resolve not to be that way with persons with whom they interact. How and what we communicate is passed onto others. It has some level of impact that cannot be wiped away as one attempts to do at the gym.


There are few, if any, clean slates when it comes to communication. Even when we meet another for the first time, that person has already begun assessing us by the way we dress, our facial expression, the firmness of our handshake, etc. Then, as soon as we speak, their assessments only increase in intensity. Thus, while at the gym people ideally approach each piece of equipment with a clean slate, when it comes to encounters with others, at best, there are only evolving slates. Without question, this reality makes the act of communication all the more challenging as none of us want to give out messages that are misinterpreted.

Photo Ops

I am probably most people when I say I sometimes find myself getting tired of photo ops involving politicians who are obviously using them to gain what they believe is positive visibility. For instance, nearly every year we see the President of the United States posing with members of the team that won the Super Bowl. Or we will see a picture of the President or another prominent politician chatting with "regular folk" in the check-out line of a grocery store. Lately, I find myself wondering if these things really work. Do they make me feel more warm and fuzzy toward that elected official?  


Before attempting an answer, it is important to point out that photo ops are something in which all of us partake. If you do not believe me, then open up any one of your family photo albums and you will see a multitude of photo ops: great grandmother with her daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter; father and son standing in foot-deep snow as they prepare to shovel the driveway; or mom in the kitchen readying herself to fix what looks like the family Thanksgiving turkey. In my case, there is a picture of me standing in front of a sign at the foot of the Grand Tetons warning hikers to be wary of bears. (The purpose, of course, is to make everyone think I am a brave soul.)


Sure, photo ops are blatant attempts to generate free publicity. At the same time, they are also designed to bring attention to a particular topic or unique occurrence in a way that is fun and, depending upon the quality of the photo, interesting. Public officials live or die based on the amount of good will they are able to generate from those they seek to serve. We should not be so harsh in our rush to criticize them for using photo ops to do this. After all, we do it, too. The trick is for us to not rely solely on that one photo to judge the official or the topic it is attempting to showcase. Photos are a snapshot. More to the point, they are a window to gaining deeper insight into what is being displayed.  

In Defense of Public Relations

Talk about not pulling any punches, in a recent interview, Robert Preston, an economics editor with the BBC, sure did not hold back in his assessment of public relations practitioners. Among other things, Preston called these professional communicators "the nearest thing to prostitutes you can find in public life." He explained they "have no concern for the truth because their sole purpose is to defend their employer's interests." As rough as Preston's assessment is, to be fair, it should be noted that he is not the first to make such an observation. Others have declared public relations workers to be nothing less than hired guns who will say or promote most any sentiment for the right price.


There is no question that there are those in public life that fit that bill. In addition to public relations officer, they go by an array of other names, including politicians, pundits and, most broadly, employees. Not all, but these and other workers conduct their professional lives by being loyal to those that pay their salaries or support them on a some level. The question is, in being loyal, do these people lie on behalf of those for whom they work? If their boss tells them to go out and purposely tell a falsehood, do they do it? Sadly, some do. But to suggest that public relations practitioners and others who speak on behalf of others regularly delegate the truth to the backseat is a gross and unfair perspective.       


If a person is going to have anything close to a successful career as a professional communicator, then their credibility must be beyond approach. This means they must be perceived as being honest in what they do. No question, there are bad apples in every bunch, including journalism. But organizations do not hire public relations practitioners because of their ability to lie. Rather, these entities seek the service of professional communicators because these women and men are creative and effective at enhancing the reputation of those for whom they work. This is done by emphasizing what is true.

Wants and Needs

The kind of communicator I would like to be is one who is never misunderstood, always says precisely what he means, and never has to re-explain or restate anything. Every one of my utterances would be a bulls-eye in terms of not generating any confusion on the part of those on the receiving end of what I say or write. This, of course, would mean I would always have to have a solid grasp of what I am talking about. While I agree in my case that would a giant stretch, it does not change my desire to be that good at communicating. Unfortunately, wanting to be that way does not always mesh with reality.


Even if I were always understandable and clear speaking, there is no guarantee this would be compatible with how people may need to be communicated with in any given situation. People are in a constant state of flux in terms of contending with a range of internal and external forces. For instance, internally a person may be worried about their job, fighting a cold or trying to decide where they want to go to dinner that night. Externally, they may be dealing with a traffic jam, a fickle computer or nasty weather. These are among a multitude of circumstances and/or forces that shape our days, moods, perspectives and, more to the point, ability to send and receive messages.


If a person is grieving over the loss of loved one, how they need to be communicated with will be different than a parent who is celebrating the fact their son just pitched a no-hitter for their little league baseball team. Going into such scenarios, I or any one of us might have ways we want to communicate, but given the state of mind of that grieving person or happy parent, if we truly want to connect with them, then we are going to have adjust our "perfect" way of communicating to fit the state of mind of these individuals. Such a task represents the fundamental challenge of communicating effectively. Wanting to communicating a certain way is fine, but having the ability to adjust and best meet the needs of those around you is better.

Voices in Our Head

It is one of those things that sounds a bit insane, but the reality is it applies it all of us. In fact, it is true of all of us. That being the case, I guess that does not make it or us insane after all. What I am talking about are the voices in our head. They are there for all of us. At times, what they say is sensible, sensitive, forthright, courageous and dispassionate. Other times, they are totally off-the-wall, inappropriate, mean, petty and spiteful. Our challenge, of course, is to wade through our inner noise box and ultimately decide which voice or voices to listen to and which ones to ignore. Sometimes that is easy and sometimes not.


The choice we make is ultimately driven by a kind of "voice vote" in our head. Those deciding include the intellectual part of our brain, the emotional part, the morale part, and external voices that have infiltrated our psyche. Each of these entities can represent one or a few voices or many. Given that cast, it is easy to see why sometimes we have trouble making up our mind about an issue or even determining what exactly it is we want to say about it. One can also understand why, at times, what we eventually do say does not always represent the best of our thinking. After all, with all those voices in our head, particularly when they all have strong opinions, it is no wonder responses we finally do emit sometimes need to be amended.


No question about it: communication is a complicated act. As tempting as it might be, it is important that we do more than at least consider the voices representing our own emotions and intellectual base. Ones that originated from others must be given equal time, too. This is important if our ultimate communication goal is to be heard and establish a connection with another. That means the voices that originate in other's heads must be weighed along side those that come from us. No question about it, that is a lot for any of us to wade through. But the good news it is a process that we all share.