Year-End Thoughts

One year ends and another begins. See ya, 2017, and pull up a chair, 2018. On a multitude of personal and professional layers I have a number of thoughts when it comes to the past 12 months.  In our my own limited corner of the world, 2017 was largely positive. This blog, for instance, was recognized as being one of the top 30 on communication on the entire Internet. That's pretty cool. I started "Why Communication Matters" in 2008. Just a few days ago, I put forward entry number 1,000. I feel proud of both milestones even though to this day I still do not know how many people other than me actually read this thing.

Stepping outside my own "space," particularly as it applies to communication, I am not all that sure 2017 was all that good. At the very least, it sure seemed like a great deal of work, not unlike pushing a heavy object up a steep hillside. Lots of folks struggled to be heard, in large part I suspect out of frustration. In a more perfect world, people would be encouraged to speak out. These days, however, they seemed to be criticized and verbally attacked for it. As a result, my sense is people responded by either pulling back or raising their voices. Too much of that escalation seemed to be in the form of personal attacks and cries for censorship.

One would be hard-pressed, for example, to identify a time in our nation's history when the free press has been under such heavy and constant attack by the government. And, to be fair, much of the press is not pulling many punches when it comes to its commentary on the government. Yet here we are: the general public - perhaps ironically - holds both the media and the government in low esteem. My take-away from such a state is that we as individuals along with various entities such as the media and government should not so much pull-back from critiquing everything and everyone we wish. Rather, we all need to do it in a more respectful, even-handed way.     

Our Motivating Elements

Persons of science long ago determined that genetically-speaking all people everywhere are approximately 99 percent alike. Whether we reside in Lima, Peru, Busan, South Korea, or Butte, Montana, have blue eyes or brown, long hair or no hair, are tall or short, are thin or fat, shy or extraverted, or are able to ride a tricycle or not, all of us are a great deal more alike than not. We have more in-common within our interior frames than not to the point that from a genetic standpoint, it is almost as if we are all the same person. The difference among us, then, is found in what I would our exterior selves.

It is here where we separate ourselves from our neighbors, co-workers, second-cousins, fellow voters, fellow church-goers, etc. I use the term "separate ourselves" because by all outward appearances so many of us go out of our way everyday to establish our individuality. "I am my own person and I want everyone to know it," we seem to be saying via a multitude of behavior patterns, including how we dress, express ourselves, behave toward others, and, in-general, communicate. However, what strikes me as the ultimate in irony is that despite these superficial exterior extremities, at the end of the day we still come across as being more alike than not.

Despite ourselves, we remain as close-as-close-can-be being practically the same person. I conclude this because despite what may appear to be contradictory actions, everything we do is driven by basically the same set of motivating elements: gaining acceptance, trying to feel good about ourselves, trying to survive and/or be safe, and possessing the same fundamental needs, including sleep, food and water. How does all this relate to us as communicating beings? In a nutshell, it reinforces the notion that those communication strategies that most successfully work on and with pretty much all of us are the ones that speak to the motivating elements that we share.      


 

Christmas Songs

Don't look now but Christmas is just around the corner. Actually, it is closer than that. As I write this, it is tomorrow. (Last-minute shopping, anyone?) As usual, there are a multitude of things that still need to be taken care of. Wrapping, cooking, reaching out to others, including family, and, yes, I confess, last-minute shopping. While it is all in the spirit of good cheer, it cannot be denied that not all of the chores, obligations, etc. are as fun as some of the Christmas songs would have you believe. For instance, I do not see all that many people "greeting smile after smile" or acting as if this is "the most wonderful time of the year" even if they believe it.

As is the case every time of the year, a wide variety of holiday songs dominate the air waves  and do so even here in our own house. One thing that never ceases to strike me is how many feelings those songs touch upon. Silliness, reverence, melancholy, joy, loss, reflection, love, kindness, compassion, and even nostalgia are certainly among the ones that pass through me almost like a parade down main street. In fact, I do not find it all that unusual that I experience some of those feelings at the same time. In their own special way, Christmas songs, perhaps, touch on the human spirit as profoundly as any other category of music.

Each year, of course, a new wave of Christmas songs are added to the already impressive catalogue that began hundreds and hundreds ago. They add fuel to our holiday moods as well as mirror those thoughts that define our own life-experiences, biases, and perspectives, particularly as we navigate the Christmas season. I like to think they bring out the best of what we think and feel even as we stand in long lines a the check-out counter, contend with holiday traffic and, in my case, struggle with the wrapping of presents. Overall, Christmas songs communicate a strong message. For everyone, I hope it is one that is positive.
        

Generating Attention

I just concluded a 13-hour plane ride from Incheon, South Korea, to Washington, D.C. Overall, it was a smooth flight - some movies, eating, a little reading and snoozing. Obviously, not everyone who flies experiences a journey as long as that one. But whether the commercial flight circles the planet or is a quick hop from one city to another, all passengers are subject to the inevitable flight safety presentation. It used to be given "live," but nowadays a video accompanied by a "live" demonstration of such things as the proper way to secure a seat belt to noting where the emergency exists on the plane are is shown to all passengers. The whole thing takes less than five minutes.  

I usually fly 5-6 times per year. More and more I am observing how little passengers pay attention to what, by any standard, is an important sharing of information. What to do in case of an emergency while thousands of feet in the air can literally be a matter of life and death. Yet while the video plays and the airline steward helps put forth this information, passengers fiddle with their coats, talk with each other, discipline their children - most anything but pay attention to that which is being communicated for their own benefit. Why is this? Why don't passengers give these presentations the attention they deserve?

As I have not any done any specific research on this, I can only guess as what they reasons are. I do not, however, believe it has anything to do with the lack of quality of the video or "live" demonstration. My guess is it because people do not actually believe anything bad such as an emergency landing will happen. Abstractly, they recognize that while such an occurrence is possible, the likelihood is very small. As a result, the video-demonstration is largely ignored. This is a communication problem. What can airlines do to overcome this? Whatever the solution, their presentation needs to generate a greater sense of urgency and relevance among their audience.     

      

Missing Half

Way back around 400 BC, Plato discussed how people pine for another that complements them. He referred to this in "The Symposium" as one searching for their missing half. (I thank author Sam Kean for this summary.) All these many years later, I do not think this has changed one bit. When he observed this, Plato was referring to fulfillment in the area of romance. While that certainly applies today, I think this search is easily applicable in other areas of life.  For instance, we see it in partnerships, alliances that last the duration of a specific circumstance such as a problem or a political campaign, or in communication.

In conversation one strives to be understood and gain acceptance. They offer an opinion in the hope others will be receptive to it and, better yet, agree with it. Such an act, even in such a commonplace occurrence, the search for completion is prevalent. There are few things that give any of us greater satisfaction than seeing those around nod their heads in agreement as we speak and share our thoughts. It reinforces our sense of worth, gives us a sense of validation, and, more to the point, completes an attempt to piece together two fundamental parts: outreach and acceptance. This represents one finding a missing half.

Politicians find that missing half when people vote for them. Business men and women find that missing half when folks buy their products. And children find that missing half when they seek a hug from Mom or Dad and get it. In all our conversations about communication, the central theme is quests to locate one's missing half. When we succeed, we strive to build on it. When we do not, the challenge falls to either look elsewhere or identify different strategies. As I write this, I am hungry. Soon I hope to find my missing half in the refrigerator. When it comes to an area just as basic - communication - the search is no less ongoing and important.

Disagreement

Here is one thing I do not like: when people disagree with me. I feel like what I say makes sense, is logical and reasonable, and comes from sound judgement. (I can just see any one who knows me who is reading this is laughing out loud right now.) What is there to disagree with? Nevertheless, people do disagree with me at times. People do not share my perspective on things a good deal of the time. I do not like that. Interestingly, I do not mind disagreeing with others for all the reasons I stated earlier. I just do not like it when folks disagree with me. Why is that? Am I the only one feels this way? I do not think so. (I assume no one disagrees with that.)

Viewpoints are such personal things. We put forth an opinion on most any topic and view what we have just said as being undeniably right. It represents a piece of who we are. Regardless if the topic is climate change, whether two pieces of clothing match or which painting is nicer, the perspective we put forth comes from a lifetime of thought and experience. Even if we do not have the facts at our disposal to support our view, we have little doubt what we say and think is anything less than spot-on. Yet when another either offers a different point of view or takes exception to our notion, it does not feel good.

This kind of scenario points to a real challenge of communication: offering a personal opinion in a dispassionate way. By that I mean sharing a personal view while being comfortable with the reality that when others do not see things the way we do, it is not a comment on us as a person. They are simply not agreeing with our perspective or conclusion about a particular matter. Accepting that reality may seem easy enough, but the fact is it can be pretty tough to do so. After all, look at how often people argue. Being objective while being subjective is one of the biggest hurdles we all face when it comes to communicating.

Empty Spaces

There is a special joy that comes with spending time with someone when the conversation is easy and flows smoothly and without any awkwardness. Even if the topics covered are serious or even difficult, if the exchange is, in a sense free-flowing, then it brings a deep sense of satisfaction to the parties involved. What contributes to that is both parties are actively engaged in both having a good idea what it is they want to say but also when it comes to listening. They are connecting to the point of working in tandem, building off each other to ensure their exchange is successful. It is effective communication.

As we know, however, not all exchanges go that well. People get together and their conversation goes in stops and starts. Even folks who know and like each other experience such a dynamic. Myself, for example, have experienced this family members that I have known forever as well as friends and colleagues I genuinely care about. No one, I believe, is immune from such a scenario. Given that, the questions revolve around why does this occur? what does one do about it? and can such a thing be avoided? After all, when it comes to conversation, none of all find empty spaces all that comfortable. They are, we believe, to be avoided.

Here is my take regarding such a communication bump-in-the-road: These moments occur because at times - perhaps more than we care to admit - do not always have anything to say. After an initial information exchange, we have exhausted what we have to share and want to know from the other. There is nothing wrong with that. The awkwardness revolves around both parties trying to force their interaction. My sense is short exchanges are fine. I would much rather be part of a brief but meaningful exchange then one that extends beyond either party's comfort level. It is a matter of all of accepting the notion that a brief encounter can be just as satisfying as an extended one. The key is in the substance of the encounter rather than the length.

Acting On Purpose

Communication is a physical act. Purposeful communication is an act of design. Walking across a room represents one form of communicating. So does sneezing or even smiling. Every moment of our days we communicate. What we communicate, however, is not always a certainty. People hear or see us and immediately draw some sort of conclusion.or make an initial judgement. If I laugh at a joke someone in the office tells, do I really believe the joke was funny? Maybe but not necessarily. No matter the answer, the interpretation of my act may not be accurate. Living in South Korea these days, I am exposed to a lot of Korean food. I eat some of it but do I like it?

Where public relations comes into play is when a person adds purpose to their act of communication. I may be laughing at that office joke but my intent is to let those around me know I am only being polite or sarcastic. I do not think that joke is funny. If the others accurately understand my insincerity, then I have communicated accurately. On a much broader scale, if I am the top executive of an international auto company and want everyone in the world to want one of my models, then it is vital that I do well at communicating the purpose of my communication because lots of money is riding on it.    

To add another layer to the act of communicating, the best kind of public relations occurs when one does more than simply put across their message in a way that people understand. To return to my earlier scenario, just because the people around me know I do not really believe that joke was funny does not make a public relations practitioner extraordinaire. To be even considered for such an accolade, I need to devise a way to establish mutual understanding between how all of us are reacting to the joke. This is where purposeful communication or public relations slides over into partnership or two-way empathy between the sender and receiver of a message.

Big Picture Thinking

One of the more fascinating figures from the past was a man named Alexander Von Humboldt. While he may not be a household name these days in the same way, say, Sir Issac Newton is, he should be. It was Von Humboldt, for instance, who was among the first to raise the possibility that Africa and South America were once joined. As he made this observation back in the nineteenth century, it demonstrated an amazing ability to look at a situation from a distance and put forth a new and different perspective. I call that big-picture thinking to which I have always had a soft spot in my heart.

Von Humboldt, in his inprecidented field work of studying nature throughout the world, also introduced the notion that there exists a link between science and culture. To some, in today's world, that view may not seem like much of a stretch, but it was then. (Actually, even today, there are those who disagree with that possible linkage.) I highlight Von Humboldt here because his approach to life's array of variables is one I wish were more prevalent nowadays. I particularly see it missing in the field of communication. I refer not just to the study of this social science but to the actual practice of it.

Why do some folks with one set of political opinions refuse to recognize view points of others in other area such as science or sociology, to cite one example? Is a political perspective really all-encompassing? Why do hard-line conservatives refuse to recognize the reality of man's contribution to global warming? Why do hard-line liberals fail to be open to differing attitudes toward healthcare or gun legislation? It seems folks get caught up in one philosophy that they allow it to dominate their attitude toward other areas of life. The result is closed-minded thinking that gets in the way of open dialog.  One answer is the kind of big picture thinking demonstrated by Von Humboldt.