Sunday, July 30, 2017

What But Also How

It was a fun scene in one of the early James Bond movies: two baddies are standing before the chief baddie, who is calmly sitting behind his desk stroking his white cat. The two underlings are nervous yet doing their best not to show it. After all, they are with "the boss" and are eager to show they know what they are doing, have everything under control, etc. It is clear the big boss  has his concerns and is deciding which one of the two employees he should trust. Finally, he makes his decision by pushing a button under his desk. The floor underneath one of the employees opens up and that unfortunate soul falls into a pool of hungry sharks. So much for his Christmas bonus.

Leading by fear is certainly one way to guide others. I have worked in that kind of environment as have many others. It is not fun and, ironically, does not bring out the best in employees. Instead of trying to be creative or show initiative, workers tend to do only what is expected of them for fear of being punished if what they attempt does not go completely well. Further, leading by fear compromises any sense of team spirit among workers because they are much too busy looking out for themselves. Their own survival is what is most important rather than the greater good of the organization itself.

A more effective to lead revolves around providing workers with greater moral support. The better able the boss is able to communicate support for and confidence in those who he or she oversees, the more likely the workers are able to be the best they can be or at least try to be. I have worked in that kind of environment, too, and it is the opposite of functioning in a fear-driven atmosphere. This revolves around the kind of message that is communicated by the of person in-charge. More than the specific message itself, organizations are also successful based on how the boss communicates. That means no more pool of sharks.   


Thursday, July 27, 2017

Disney World vs Trump World

As I write this, I am spending a week with family at Disney World in Florida. At the same time, I have been doing my best to follow the news of the day so as not to fall too far behind on what is going on in and with our country. With almost each passing moment, I am struck by the stark differences between the land of Mickey Mouse and his counterpart, President Trump. Before I go too far with this, I realize so much within Disney World is geared toward perpetuating unreal visions as seen with the number of folks wearing mouse ears, for instance, and that the United States as directed by President Trump is "real life."

Here at Disney World, I am struck at how friendly, engaging and eager to help employees at all levels are. They give the impression they are here to serve and make our lives as stress-free as possible. From my perspective, they are doing a great job. In Trump world, however, there is constant bickering, threats, name-calling, and disenfranchment underway. Trump's message via actions and words seem to be geared toward exclusivity. Ironically, Trump himself as President is supposed to be our ultimate public servant. Yet there he is on national television ordering reporters to leave events and taking away the rights of those not to his liking.

So, what is the take-away here? Should Trump World be more like Disney World? Of course. But, to me, a bigger question is why do we allow it? The two entities communicate opposite messages that are stark in their attitudes, goals and values that drive them. While Disney World promotes fantasy, it is very much tied to reality in terms of being profit-driven. I have no problem with that just as I have no problem with Trump trying to be a good leader. Sadly and tragically, his style is awful and seems to be hate-driven. He seems to be motivated by a lesser vision. Disney, at least, strives to promote a more positive message.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Comic Books

There is a soft spot in my heart for comic books. Growing up, I was a big collector and reader of them. My particular interest revolved around stories involving super heroes. As it was for many kids my age - and perhaps even today - my comic book world revolved around two primary universes: DC and Marvel. On the one hand, there was Superman, Batman, Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman. On the other, Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Iron Man, X-Men, and Thor held sway. There were other heroes on each side, of course, but these were among the main ones. It was all fun and, to me, made for lots of fun reading. But as I aged and moved through the latter part of my high school years and then onto college, my interest in comic books waned.

Now, here I am a grandfather and not all that far from entering into full-time retirement. Guess what I did just a few days ago? That's right. I went down to a local comic books store and purchased a bunch of old comics. Since then, I feel as if I have been visiting with old friends. Fun stuff. I confess, however, I am not finding the writing to be as compelling as I remembered. Nor are the plot-lines quite as gripping as I recall. Still, these many years later, I can appreciate this form of communication perhaps in a way I did not when much of my world revolved around these special communiques.

Creating these characters and coming up with adventures for them month after month required a great deal of imagination. Even more than that, such vision did a great deal to spur my imagination and, no doubt, that of many others like me. Now, coupled with the many super hero movies being produced these days, it is as if the imagination industry is one steroids. To that I say "bravo!" Active imaginations coupled with a clear sense of reality is a good thing. Together they provide the basis for brighter tomorrows.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Talking

I saw the other day where the government of South Korea has offered to sit down and talk with representatives of the government of North Korea. If this actually happens, it will be the first time since 2014 that reps from these countries will have done this. Great news. Right? Maybe. Before any chest bumps or high-fives are passed around, let's see what the North Koreans say. Given the unpredictability of their current regime, anything is possible. After all, this is the same government that is striving to gain a seat at the table where countries with nuclear capability sit at the expense of its people.

Make no mistake. Talking is a good thing even though it does not guarantee success or mutual satisfaction on the part of either party. When representatives of opposing sides sit down to interaction, it usually means they are not fighting. It also suggests they are open to identifying and embracing some type of understanding or agreement. Again, this is good. In the case of North and South Korea, the two countries have been split for over 60 years - the result of what is often referred to as the Korean War. This conflict, you may recall, never did end in any kind of peace accord. Rather, the two sides settled on a cease fire that has been in-place all these many years.  

Talking is an act we all do. At times, we do it well and at other times we do not. Further, at times it does not lead to reconciliation but, instead, only leads to greater friction between the various parties. This is always unfortunate. For parties to have a successful talk, it does not mean they have to like each other or suddenly want to begin hanging out together. It signifies an acknowledgement that they will be working to build on points or areas which they have in common. More to the point, this will be done in-place of any open hostile actions. Whether it is North and South Korea or even a couple that is at loggerheads, talking has great potential.  

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Jokes

If I begin this entry by saying, "Jokes are funny things," then my guess is most folks would respond by noting, "Not always." That, of course, is true. I for one have heard many jokes that I considered to be duds. In fact, I have been known over the years to blurt out many things that I thought were funny only to quickly learn that my opinion was shared by no one. This begs several key question: What makes a joke good? Is there such a thing as a good joke that is not funny? Are jokes only good if they elicit a laugh? How much of a role does the teller of a joke play in determining whether it is funny? For instance, if we both told the same joke, would I generate just as a favorable response as, say, Jerry Seinfeld?

Humor is a form of communication. Much like singing. Any one can tell a joke just as any one can sing. Does that, then, make everyone a comedian or a singer? I think not. Lots of us can even put on a glove and catch a baseball. But only a select few actually do that well enough to earn a living at it. One point to all this is that while all of us can and do communicate, it does not mean we are all communicators in a professional sense. Besides the matter of remuneration, one defining criteria for such a distinction revolves the success of one's efforts. Whether it is laughter, applause, a pay check or mutual understanding between publics, it all revolves around the effectiveness of the effort.

To return to the initial topic of jokes - as a form of communication -  I believe one can be well constructed and even well delivered yet still not be funny. "Why did the chicken cross the road?" is arguably one of the first jokes many of us are told. Though "to get to the other side" makes perfect sense as a punch line, I have yet to hear it elicit any genuine laughter. One lesson here is that using jokes to connect with others does not always guarantee success. As is the case with communication in-general, to be effective requires research, hard work and, of course, a sense of humor.  




Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Woes for Trump, Jr.

It is a classic public relations move and one I have advised clients to take from time to time. Whenever bad or negative information is about to be made public, the move for the focus of that potentially harmful disclosure is to release the material first. This is often referred to as "getting out ahead of the story." By releasing negative information without being forced to, one seeks to give the public the impression they have nothing to hide. It is a way to neutralize or minimize whatever impact the bad news might otherwise have. Does such a strategy always work? No. But it does often help one regain control of an unwanted situation.

As I write this, a day ago Donald Trump, Jr. released negative emails about himself that were about to be released by the Washington Post and other national media outlets. While I understand the thinking behind Trump's decision, I also recognize the riskiness of such a decision. It is very possible it may actually make matters worse for the President's son. His decision may actually be one of those times when being proactive in this way does not work. Young Trump's classic PR move may escalate or increase the amount of negative press he had been receiving up to this point. In other words, it may add fuel to the fire rather than extinguish that flame.

Given that, what should his next move be? If asked, my advice would be for him to be as cooperative with the authorities who are currently investigating him  as he can. Should he do media interviews? Maybe. But if he does, then it needs to be with members of the press viewed as not being sympathetic to Trump, Jr. and his father. If one wants to be viewed as being open and transparent, then they need to be willing to face tough interviews. Whether he takes that remains to be seen. My guess is he will not be doing that simply because that is not a strategy the Trump family has taken up till now. To appear strong, sometimes one needs to put themselves in a vulnerable position.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Doing Better

As we all know, there are many ways to communicate: speaking words, body language, facial expression, billboards, movies, etc. In fact, one of the great things about communication is that we all do it and, generally, at times, do it well. I use the qualifier "at times" because the truth is none of us do it as well as we might think or do it as well as often as we want to believe. How I wish that were not the case, but nonetheless, that's how it is. I state that as a truism because if it were not the case, then there simply would not be nearly the intensity of  disagreements in the world as we see.

Case in-point: the Confederate Flag. Largely in southern parts of the United States, there are those who believe the Confederate Flag should be displayed in town squares and in state capitals. After all, they argue, this is part of our history and should not be glossed over. Others disagree. They contend because of what the Confederate Flag represents, its proper place is in museums rather on view as a act of celebration or honor. You might argue that these perspectives represent two sides of an honest disagreement. Good point. Would such a difference exist if folks were better communicators? Of course. The point of communicating effectively is not to eliminate differences of opinion. Rather, it is to help all of us deal with those differences in a more civil and/or respectful manner.

To put in bluntly: competent communication does not erase or free the world of counter perspectives. Such a reality should not come as a surprise to any one. My sense, however, is it does. I believe all of us at times are genuinely surprised and even puzzled when another disagrees with us after we have, to our satisfaction, clearly articulated why we feel the way we do about a certain issue or matter. If only it were that easy. The odds are that other person is thinking the very same thing about us. When this happens, it means both parties need to "up" their communication game. Unfortunately, it is at this very point where communication often breaks down. People either get frustrated or blame the other party for not embracing what, to them, is the proper way to view something. All of us need to do a better job of doing better.



        

 

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Risk

There are few things more enjoyable than a nice walk across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City (Where else?) on a sunny afternoon. Lots of fellow walkers along with bike riders helped make it a fun jaunt. Without question, if I lived in NY, I would try and make this scenic walk a regular part of my week. But this is not to say every sight I saw while on the bridge brought a smile to my face. At one point, I saw a pretty young girl posing for a photo. The problem with that she had propped herself on one of the bridge's railings for the picture. One unexpected occurrence such as being bumped by another walker and she would have fallen to the lower level of the bridge that cars use to go over the bridge. Had that happened, this young girl's story no doubt would have been over.   

Fortunately, that did not happen. The picture was taken, she hopped down from her temporary perch, and then continued walking with her friend. My guess she will share the photo with family and friends and it will elicit lots of smiles and positive comments. Just as easily, of course, what turned out all right could have been far more tragic. If I had to make another guess, I would say the girl and her friend considered that option only briefly as they figured nothing like that would happen. After all, the photo would take just a few moments. What, they must have asked themselves, could go wrong?

When it comes to communication, often times most of us belief we have everything under control. We will say what we are going to say, folks will hear our words, and understand our meaning. Again, what could go wrong? In a word: plenty. The fact is people being people hear and process messages from their own perspectives. Rarely do their vantage points totally line up with ours. Such a reality makes the possibility of misunderstanding and disagreement all the greater. This is why we all must be as vigilant as possible to think before we attempt to communicate. How will my comments resonate with others? Is there a way I can articulate my thoughts to avoid conflict? It is a simple matter of better assessing the potential risk of what we try to say.     



Saturday, July 1, 2017

Equal Opportunity

Arguably, it is one of the most famous sentiments ever expressed in a government document" "All men are created equal......" This appeared in the United States' Declaration of Independence as penned by the country's first secretary of state and third president, Thomas Jefferson. The words and their meaning remain as powerful today as they were when first expressed. In fact, it seems fitting to reflect on this passage in the Declaration as America approaches its 241st birthday even though, at the time of its writing, not all persons were viewed as being equal due to the newly-formed country's acceptance of slavery. 

It is important to note that while the U.S. still has serious problems regarding race and equality, without question opportunity in the country is better than ever. But one example of inequality revolves around communication. More to the point, are all voices created equal? When persons speak or send out messages of some sort, are they heard equally? Do they have the same impact? Further, do people have equal opportunity to communicate? The answer to the first two questions is "no," but "yes" to the third.Obviously, whatever I might communicate - such as in this blog entry - has no where near the impact of, say, any of President Trump's tweets. To say the least, there is little interest in my entries but much in what the President has to express.

Comparing the impact that the sentiments of an ordinary citizen with those of the President of the United States is no doubt unfair. But what is worth noting is that my opportunity to speak out and be heard by potentially thousands if not millions of others is real. In theory and perhaps in practice, my voice can make a difference. Such is the case for all of us. When it comes to communication, equal opportunity in the U.S. is very much alive. As a result, as America adds another candle to its most impressive birthday cake, it is that I celebrate. To me, at least, it is no small thing.