Saturday, November 28, 2015

Let's Raise the Communication Bar

There is always something very special about political campaigns and elections in our country. Free elections reinforce what was and is most unique about the United States: at designated intervals citizens gather to caste ballots without fear of retribution or harmful acts being taken against them. Voters determine who will represent the general population in matters ranging from national security and economics to international relations and creating opportunity for people to improve their station in life. More than any other in the world, our nation comes the closest to representing the best of pure democracy. This reality remains a constant source of pride. 


This, however, is not to suggest that our elections and how they are conducted can not and, yes, should not be improved. This begins with the candidates themselves. On the one hand, these men and women are well-intentioned and genuine in their desire to improve life in America. At the same time, they are also flawed, ambitious, and prone to narrow-minded thinking, pettiness, and levels of dishonesty. Their inconsistencies and desire to separate themselves from their competitors, though understandable, can take them and their followers down paths that do harm to the overall landscape of our country and the very process that is part of our greatness. 


Our current presidential election season, still at the beginning phase, is the latest example of this. Name calling, purposeful ignorance, false claims, misleading characterizations and mean-spirited assessments of others have been dominating far too much of many of the candidates communication efforts. Generally, voters seem to shrug-off this reality with the off-handed comment, "That's politics." That may be true but it does not have to be. Not only should we demand more from our candidates, we should also demand more from ourselves in terms of what we accept from them and ourselves. Being a great nation demands the best of its citizens and those wishing to represent them. The communication bar must be raised.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Talking

All things being equal, it remains our best way of communicating. It is direct. It combines tone, nuance, emotion, expression, and sound. It, of course, is talking. Two people talk and walk away from that encounter with a good idea and understanding of what was said. While this may not always be the case, the fact is the odds are much greater than when talking occurs, meaningful understanding follows. A big reason for this is that talking often includes efforts to explain and provide description. Those who talk do so with the purpose of being understood and even validated. They are looking to make a difference.


Talking, more than other forms of communication, is the one that is most personal. We talk and it is us live and in-person. Talkers see right away what kind of impact, if any, they are having.  Writers do not have that luxury as often what they put down on paper is read, if at all, by others outside their presence. They are not able to experience how their words and thoughts are received. Talkers can and do. When people talk, they risk criticism, disrespect, disagreement, and disapproval. Singularly or collectively, all of these are downers. On the flip side, there is also the chance of receiving affirmation, validation, and approval. What is better than any one or all of those?


Our esteem is on the line when we talk. Because of that, it is no wonder that some have difficulty expressing themselves orally as well as they would like. This is probably the main reason so many people fear speaking in a public setting. None of us wish to look less than we are. Yet the opportunity to elevate our standing before others and actually make a difference in the lives of folks beyond ourselves is an intoxicating temptation. Talking is not to be taken lightly even though we all do it every day, often times with little or no preparation or thought. In the world of communication, talking remains the great game-changer.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Listening to Alarm Bells

For many years now I have been fascinated with the famous "running of the bulls" festival that happens annually in July primarily in Saint Fermin, Spain. Started in 1910, this event was started originally as a way to transfer bulls from outside the village to the bullring where they would be killed for purposes of eating. Surprisingly, the actual running normally lasts no more than five minutes as the distance the bulls travel is quite short. This is not to say there is not an element of danger attached to it. Over the past 115 years, over 15 people have been gored to death by the bulls. Nevertheless, it is an exciting activity that continues to generate much attention and even celebration.


Thinking of this event, I am reminded of a recent study on stampedes by Caesar Saloma, a physics professor at the University of the Philippines. As an expert in this area, Saloma's expertise has been tapped into over the years by officials needing guidance on issues of crowd-control. Saloma's bottom-line advice for persons finding themselves in big crowds are to note where the exits are and, should a stampede erupt, not to do what the person next to you does. It is Saloma's belief that people need to do a little internal risk management if and when they attend events, such as religious assemblies, concerns or sporting contests.
Without actually using the words, what Saloma speaks of falls under the umbrella of risk communication. It is here where communicators attempt to educate various publics on potential danger situations and what actions they should take if that risk becomes an actual crisis. A current example of that are the men and women who are ringing alarm bells regarding global warming. Another example revolves around contending with possible terrorist attacks. Risk communicators perform a valuable service even though they may not always be listened to as well as they should. I am sure those poor folks who died at the running of the bulls events wished they had paid greater heed to the risk communicators.   

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Being Yourself

"Just be yourself." How many times in our life has some one given us that sage advice? My guess is a lot. We nod and reflect for a few moments at the simplicity yet profound wisdom of such guidance. The fact is of all the things that could be said, there are, by far, a lot worse. For instance, I have never been a fan of  "Fire when you see the whites of their eyes!" If we literally do that, won't they be practically on top of us? Won't it be too late by then? To my credit, I can proudly say I have never given that advice. (Of course, I have never had reason to, but never mind that.)


But being ourselves is another story. Taken literally, it suggests that one should be behave the way they normally behave, speak the way they normally speak, etc. regardless of the circumstances or who you are with. I am not so sure that is a good idea. I, for one, know enough to not eat soup at a fancy restaurant the same way I do when I am at home. As a result, when I am out in public and am almost finished, I don't pick up the soup bowl and slurp down the remains like I do at home. Given that, the question is: Which one represents me being myself? Is the bowl slurping me or the me who is content not to consume that dish down to the last drop?  


Looking at this from a communication standpoint, it is important to remember that effectively connecting with others involves flexibility and adjustment. People, as one example, do not always hear or process messages the same way. Consequently, the sender of a message needs to frame their words or point in a way that the one on the receiving end will be best able to grasp what has just been said to them. As the message's sender, this means being ourselves requires an ability and even a willingness to not behave and/or speak in the same way all the time.  We need to be nimble and sensitive to our surroundings. Being who we are calls upon us to tap in multiple layers of behavior. "Ourselves," then, wears many hats.  

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Two Tiers of Questions

Two days ago terrorists struck again. This time the site was Paris, France. And this time nearly 130 innocent people were murdered. It is fruitless to try and make sense of such a barbaric act. Whatever their beef, cause or vision, the people behind this and other similar acts of violence are nothing less than murderers. The fact they even exist is a blight on all of humanity. The challenge, of course, is to deal with them in a manner that is precise and definitive. My hope is enough nations will put aside their own differences, embrace the reality that terrorism is a problem they all share, and squash that kill just for its own sake.


The violence in Paris served as a blunt reminder of  how vital communication is during such times as this. When there is panic and uncertainty, the need for useable and understandable information is essential. This is what the communicator can provide. Specifically, there are two tiers of questions that they should strive to provide. The first tier is designed to help folks deal with what has just occurred. Addressing these questions represents an immediate response. The second tier speaks more to more providing a greater understanding of what happened. Addressing these questions takes place in the aftermath of the crisis.


First tier questions, all from the perspective of the individual, include: What is going on? How will this affect me? What should I do? How much danger is there? How much disruption is there?  Am I going to be all right? Second tier questions, from the point of view of both the individual and broader society, include: What happened? Who needs to know? What are the best ways to tell all elements of society? What are the best ways to help people contend with what has happened? None of the questions in either tier are simple. But if they are tackled in a timely and sensitive manner, answers to each will help give people the confidence and hope they need to move forward. 

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Truth Today

If I had to name something that triggers an avalanche of controversy, the very last thing I would cite would be "truth." After all, isn't the whole essence of truth, by definition, supposed to be "black or white" or "it is or it isn't?" Either two plus two is four or it isn't. Either the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s or they didn't. Either someone is pregnant or they are not. No wiggle room. There is no nuance when it comes to truth, or as it is described in the dictionary, "that which is considered to be the supreme reality." A fact is put forth and everyone, even if they do not like it, nods in agreement. End of discussion.


In today's world, however, it turns out the truth no longer sits atop its mantle unchallenged. In fact, it turns out truth spends all its time taking on one challenger after another. In these times in which we live, truth has lost its crown of being that which it is not to be questioned. More and more, it seems, people carry around with them their own truth as to what constitutes indisputable, uncontestable reality. They seem to be less and less bound to what used to be unbiased, universally-accepted facts. Such a reality sure makes being a teller or communicator of truth a lot more difficult and challenging than it used to be.       


In the November 8 edition of The New York Times Magazine, author Mark Leibovich discusses the rise of people adopting their own variations of truth rather than simply continuing to agree upon that which is true. A case-in-point is the so-called debate about whether President Obama was actually born in the United States. Birthers insist he was not. Obama's birth certificate, a document that in normal times constitutes reality, says otherwise. For me, this particular dispute and so many others like it, says more about all of us than it does about rock-solid truth. Perhaps we are becoming more interested in self-expression than we are on building upon that which is firmly in-place. A final word, then, to truth: it is us, not you.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Information Gap

You might refer to it as a kind of no-man's land - a span of time when no concrete information exists. Such a gap occurs in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. For instance, let's use the case of an active shooter on a government facility.  The crisis has just occurred, yet no information about it has been released to the general population due to the fact those on site are still trying to cope with and make sense of what has happened; yet people are aware of what has happened. The existence of such a gap potentially brings with it confusion, uncertainty, irrational behavior, rumors and chaos. It is a dangerous stretch of time.


Michael Doble, director of corporate public relations for the Raytheon Company, is one practitioner who has written of the gap between an event of great threat and when information about it is collected and shared with the principles involved as well as external publics. Doble notes the task of making that gap as brief or short as possible is the ultimate challenge for the communication professional. With the existence of a threat, panic is rarely far away due to two primary reasons: the threat itself and the lack of knowledge as to how wide spread it is and what preventative steps, if any, can be taken.


To help reduce the size of this inevitable gap requires the public information professional to become actively involved in contending with the incident. Their instinct, understandably, may be to hide under a desk, yet their responsibility is to serve their publics by working closely with the first-responders in order to collect as many details as possible that they may share with others. Just as it is the first-responders job to quell the crisis, it is the communication professional's duty to let the public know what is going on, what is being done about it, and what they can do to ensure their own safety. The communicator, in such a scenario, is vital.  

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

The Art of Tact

We will never know for certain, of course, but it is my hope that when physicist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton took his final breath at the age of 84 in 1727, he did so with the satisfaction of knowing that he contributed much to the world. After all, coming up with what we now term the law of gravitation was and is no small thing. Another gift was a comment he once made regarding communication: "Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." When it comes to the interaction between individuals and even publics, this observation says much about the value of effective communication.


All of us communicate non-stop. Verbally and non-verbally there is never a time when we are not putting forth some type of signal. While we do not have total control over how others interpret our messages, the fact is we carry the heavy part of responsibility when it comes to the framing and intent of what it is we are trying to say. As this applies to tact, there is the matter of how sensitive we are to what is proper and appropriate in regard to our interaction with others. Ideally, the fundamental challenge with communication is to do so in a manner that ensures it will continue or "leave the door open." As social beings, the last thing we want is to communicate in such a way that shuts out others.


Obviously, there are times when people argue or disagree. After all, everyone brings their own perspective to a conversation. In addition, as creatures driven much by emotion, we tend to communicate at times without always giving as much thought to what we are saying or doing as we might. This is why at least some of our communicating lacks tact. The challenge, then, is for us to strive to be as tactful as possible or, to draw from another quote (author unknown). "to disagree without being disagreeable." I know. This is certainly easier said than done. But then, is that not the ultimate communication challenge?

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Professional Listeners

How often have any of us wished we had someone who really listened to us? Sure, we have co-workers, friends, family members,and partners with whom we interact on a regular basis. And, yes, we share information with them, discuss our feelings and perspectives. But do we believe any of them genuinely listen to us as well as we would like them to? Sure, they may be nodding when we talk, but are they really hanging on every word coming out of our mouths? Granted, not all of those words may be golden, but never mind that. When we speak we want to be heard just the same. After all, sometimes we actually put thought behind what we say.


According to researchers, it is estimated people spend less than half their time in a listening mode. That means we devote more than half of our time trying to be heard. That reality sure does not bode well for the act of listening; nor does it help support our desire to be heard as well as we want. What are we to do? Is there anything to be done? An answer, I am glad to report, seems to be emerging. As is the case with every generation, ours has created a new job or profession. This one in-particular speaks directly to the need we have to be heard: professional listeners. There are now folks out there who actually hire themselves out to do what many of the people in our lives only pretend to do. 


A quick check on the Internet reveals a growing list of men and women providing the service of listening to us with the promise of not interrupting, checking for any incoming emails, texting others, or blurting out their own comments - all those annoying things the people who care about us do. I saw one person charging $40 per hour for this service. Given the newness of this service, it is hard to say how reasonable that is. Still, there is comfort knowing we now have the ability to sit down with someone who actually will listen to us. I suppose our next challenge will be to begin coming up with stuff worth listening to.