Body Language

Non-verbal communication is never not a fascinating topic - at least for me. Looking at how people react without speaking to what is going on around them, for instance, can be a great source of fun. People being people can and do let loose with the greatest and most creative facial expressions, often times without realizing it. And then there is how they reposition themselves based on who or what is near them. At times, you would think they are auditioning to become a member of the cast of Cirque du Sole. Such communication often is quite telling in ways that old-fashioned words cannot be. Even more, body language can even trump verbal communication.

Recently, I had occasion to attend a speech in South Korea given by an executive. As the audience was comprised of Koreans, the speech was given in their native language. (I was the only non-Korea present though not the only one who spoke English.) The speech took place at the end of a business day and lasted nearly 45 minutes. In terms of content, even now, days after this happened, I am still not totally sure what the focus of the speech was other than it seemed to revolve around education and language. Approximately 25 men and women, not including me, were in the audience. Being present, at times I felt as if I were watching a foreign film without the sub-titles.      

So, how was the speech? Based on my own assessment of the audience members, my sense is was well received. Audience members seemed to be focused on the speaker and nod and even chuckle at various times as a result, I assume, of questions he raised or jokes he made. There was no sneaking looks at cell phones, checking of wrist watches, or, worst of all, dozing. At the same time, when the speaker finished, no one rushed up to the podium to ask questions. Without speaking, everyone made a bee-line for the door. Based on that, perhaps the audience was not as enthralled by what was said as I first concluded. To me, these mixed signals reinforced the notion that some times what we say does not always jive with what we do.       

What in the World!

It seems as if almost daily I ask myself, "What's this world coming to?" Recently, for example, I saw where the prestigious Westminister Kennel Dog Show, which goes back over140 years, for the first time allowed cats to enter into the competition. That's right. Dog lovers everywhere got to see a bengal cat flaunt its booty in the "meet the breed" category. What's next? An all-dog version of the musical "Cats"? While there is a big part of me that would actually be interested in seeing that, there is another part of me that hopes such a scenario never happens. Somethings need to be left alone. Something's are meant to remain as they are.

One example of that is a free press. The day we begin tampering with that is the day our form of government makes its first step on a slippery slope. My concern is that first step is now happening. The Trump administration has launched an all-out offensive against the press, specifically, press outlets that they deem to be critical of their actions or policies. Not good. Not good at all. Such outlets as The New York Times and CNN are being banned from press briefings by the White House. Hardly a day passes when Trump himself when he does not lambast the media with a fury that should be directed toward such targets as terrorism, poverty or a declining infrastructure.

No doubt the press makes for any easy target. It is imperfect at times. Who among us is otherwise? What entity within our society does not fall short from hitting the bulls-eye? At the same time, the mainstream media is a powerful force for good and should not be kicked to the curb. It represents communication at its most vital. The press needs to fight back. So, too, do all of us who believe in access to unfiltered information. Without restriction, we remain a free society. With it, then we don't. This is not going to be an easy battle. Yet is is one that is necessary. None of us should turn our cheek on this one.

Wanted: More Angels

Thee are lots of topics people debate or argue over. Some are fun. Others are more serious. Yet they all seem to generate passion. If one, for example, believes the 1927 Yankees was the best team of all-time, then heaven help any one who disagrees. Or who is the best James Bond: Sean Connery? Daniel Craig? Roget Moore? And so it goes. One particular topic of debate was triggered 230 years ago by one of our Founding Fathers: James Madison. In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison talked about the necessity of government. "If men were angels," he famously wrote, "no government would be necessary." Of course, men (and women) are not angels. Consequently, some sort of oversight entity is required to prevent folks from behaving badly with few if any consequences.  

It is this point by Madison that represents the crux of the difference between America's republican and democratic parties. While both agree some form of government is necessary, where they disagree is over the question of how much. How much government do citizens need in their lives, dictating what they can or cannot do? To cite one example, should small business owners be free to accommodate whoever they choose or must they be available to any one? Depending upon one's perspective, the answer to this question speaks to the issue of whether people can discriminate against others if they so choose.

In the world of professional communication, it is quite clear that there are many practitioners who are not angels. Such folks lie, mislead, insult and censor. They represent the worst of the broad "club" of those who communicate for a living. Presently, there is little that exists that prevents them from carrying on in such a manner. Yes, the Public Relation of Society has its Code of Ethics, but the reality is that document has few teeth. It is my observation that the field of public relations is becoming more and more like the old Wild West where anything goes. It is time for leaders in this profession to begin taking steps to make it more difficult for non-angels to do what they do. The credibility of the profession and those who practice it is at-risk.        

Our Social Identity

It is probably the most fundamental question that we ask ourselves of all: Who am I? We look into the mirror  and see one who laughs, cries, interacts with others, wants to be alone, is wise, foolish, confident, uncertain, etc. and, not surprisingly, wonder who this person really is. It is a great question and one many of us wrestle with our entire lives. (And as we try to formulate an answer, there is also the question of whether we like that person "in the looking glass." That, too, is one that triggers much internal debate.) "Who am I?" is part of our quest and need to identify and ultimately embrace our social identity.

As a range of scholars over the years have suggested, one's social identity helps a person fit it with the world around them, a world in recent years made much more intimate as a result of our ever-growing connectinesness. In a recent paper, scholars Karen Rosenblum, David Haines and Hyunyiung Cho discuss how our social identity helps each of us better understand "where" we are, "who" we are, and "how" that will matter when it comes to our many interactions. To add to that, gaining a full understanding of our social identity helps us better come to grips with our fundamental "home;" that is, who exactly we are.

This is a big deal in determining how well we communicate to ourselves and with others. Taking myself as one example, if I am uncertain or confused in any situation, then I tend to be more quiet and, at times, a bit defensive if I sense others might recognize that insecurity within me. On the other hand, I am more apt to initiate engagement if I feel to be on more firm ground when it comes to a subject matter or my sense of self in a given situation. This is why that most fundamental question is not only good to ask, figuring out an answer is extremely important. Bottom line: it helps shape our ability to succeed and, of course, communicate.

Swimming

I was pre-school in age when I learned how to swim. In the years that followed I spent many hours in the water: local swimming pools and even in the ocean on family vacations. Yes, playing in the water was fun, but just as gratifying was actually swimming it in. Free style, backstroke, breast stroke and even the butterfly were among the various strokes I could do (not great by any means but well enough to get me from one end of the pool to the other). As the years passed, however, my opportunities to actually swim grew fewer and fewer.

Recently, I joined a swimming club and have started swimming again. I confess the first couple of times have been pretty rough. While I can remember how to do a backstroke or butterfly, for instance, the actual doing of it has been the opposite of smooth or pretty. My form is awful. My breathing is erratic. And my speed is, shall we say, non-existent. My lesson here is that no matter how proficient one might be at something, it is essential that they remain active - practice - if they are going to continue being any where near as comfortable or good as used to be. The fact is our skill level in anything erodes if we do not do what is necessary to make sure our skills remain fine-tuned. This is why, for instance, professional baseball players take batting practice and golfers spend time at driving ranges.

The same thing can happen when it comes to communication. We all know how to listen. You simply do not speak while others are talking and you pay attention to what is being said. Yet if one does not practice listening, then their ability to do this even reasonably well is going to decline. The same holds true for speaking. Communicating is a physical act that requires focus. These days as I strive to regain my swimming mojo, I am sensitive to how much this resembles the desire most of us to communicate well throughout our lives. They key is found in the practicing.         

Dueling Perfumes

It was a typical Saturday afternoon at the mall. On this cold day, there were lots of folks of all ages milling around. Some making purchases while many others seemed content to simply give the various pieces of merchandise before a good look-see. In one particular department store, directly across from each other, were two salespersons trying to sell their brands of perfume. Each was young, nicely dressed, and very engaging. They were also both happy to comply with any request from potential customers wishing to sample the fragrance of their product. Neither seemed to lack for interest.

It was, if nothing else, competition at its most direct. Two entrepreneurs trying to attract customers from the other. Other than their specific brand, their strategies seemed interchangeable. So, too, did their specific messages. From my unscientific observation, neither seemed to be getting the best of this duel. Yet each carried on as if all was going smoothly. I could not help but wonder how exactly they measured their success for a day's work. Amount of sales is the obvious answered, of course. Anything else? Going into their day, what expectations did these salespeople have? Any thought about reviewing their message? What about customer feedback? Return business?

This scenario seemed typical of one we all face in our world of message bombardment. Lots of words. Similar themes. Urges for us to chose one over another. How are we to do it? More to the point here, what can the message senders do to make their communiques standout from the rest? That question hits to the heart of any communication effort: what can one do to be heard and how best can a message be framed to generate the kind of action by the receiver desired by the sender? These questions point to the importance that so much of our communicating should be driven by thought and with the receiver in-mind. In the context of those two perfume salespeople, I am not all that certain that was on display.

Helping Public Debate

I read some interesting insights put forth recently by Matt Bai, a political reporter, comparing George Orwell and Aldous Huxley in the context of the political climate these days within the United States. In "1984," Orwell outlined a world where books are banned and people's access to information is compromised. In "Brave New World," Huxley painted a world where people choose to ignore information in favor of technologies that eliminate any need for them to think. Both are far from rosy scenarios as in either one mankind is portrayed as being controlled by those in power in terms of actions and thoughts.

The good news, of course, is that neither currently exits at least at least in the U.S. I note this with the full understanding there is no guarantee that this current state will never change and that people must remain vigilant if they are to ensure we continue living in a land where freedom of thought and open access to information exists. Having said that, particularly in the U.S., there is ongoing debate as to identifying ways to make citizens not be more secure but feel that way, too. At the same time, citizens are always on the look-out for ways to make their lives more comfortable and less demanding.

This is a good and even healthy debate to have not just in current times but for the future as well. All of us want to be happy and live lives that bring us the most satisfaction. But such a discussion to be as good as it can and should be, it is important that is be carried out in a most respectful manner. It is here where there is a breakdown within the U.S. People, simply put, are not being nearly as respectful toward each other as they should. Professional communicators can help with this - assuming they do not allow themselves to be caught up in the name calling and non-listening that seems to define so much of public discourse these days.     

Playing Nice

Getting along is not always easy to do. Making an extra effort to keep connections  positive with others is even a greater challenge. Yet that is the job of a professional communicator, at least ideally. More and more, unfortunately, we see spokespersons whose job seems to be attack dogs or hecklers. They put forth their talking points but in a way that is cutting, antagonizing or, at times, downright mean. Such a tact runs counter to what should be the ongoing goal of any professional communicator: bridge building. Instead, in today's climate of constant alienation, we see a good deal of bridge burning going on.

Let me give an example. Recently, a spokesperson for President Trump gave an interview in which she misspoke about the cite of a mass shooting in the U.S. A number of people quickly pointed out the error. One of them was Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Trump's opponent in the recent presidential election. Kellyanne Conway, the Trump spokesperson, immediately fired back by saying, "I misspoke but you lost the election." How does this help bring people together? The answer, of course, is it does not. Instead, it's tone only reinforces the anger currently being felt by both sides of the divide.

In fairness to Conway, my guess is she was doing her job in a way outlined by her boss. In such a climate, it is no wonder people of differing political persuasions continue to be unwilling to reach out to each other. Yet no one of any of any rank or with any clout seems to be willing or capable of doing that. Conway could have taken the high road but did not. She is not alone. Folks on the "other side" do not seem to be all that different either. We are all losing because of this. I am not saying people can't and even shouldn't disagree. But the trick is to do it without being so disagreeable. Professional communicators especially need to be doing than they are.

A Word from "The Duke"

One of the most enduring and popular motion pictures actor ever was John Wayne. The Duke, as he was known by friends and fans alike, appeared in over 200 movies, a number of which film experts continue to identify as being among the best ever made. While Wayne may not have been the best actor the world has ever seen, without question he had a screen presence that few could or to this day can match. Near the end of his career and life, at a social gathering, Wayne was asked what he thought was the secret to being a good actor. His one-word response was profound. "Listening," he said.

To me, that answer demonstrated that Wayne understood acting as a form of communication, men and women up on the screen or on stage acting out lines in an effort to make audiences feel certain emotions, learn various lessons, take particular actions or simply escape from the reality of their own lives. Often, we think of actors as performers who spout various lines. Though true, that is only part of what they do. The other part is being on the receiving end of those lines and reacting in ways not only add to the story-line but also the believability of the dialog itself. Such interactions are no different in "real-life."

Ideally, people talk with each other. Lots of back and forth. Respectful talk and equally respectful listening. Such a dynamic defines effective communication. In a movie or play, of course, the listening is set as it is a matter of the actors memorizing their lines and following the guidance of their directors in how they should both say them and react to what is said. In real-world exchanges, there is little or no direction on either end. How well people listen is totally up to them. But as studies continue to show, when they do it well, people do better at work, have happier personal lives, and are better able to connect with others. To add to what Wayne said, perhaps listening is also the secret to living a more fulfilled life.