The Necessity of Order

No doubt because the U.S. federal government is shutdown at the moment, the whole concept of government has been on my mind lately. First of all, it is appalling that government officials have allowed this to happen. Their complicit behavior in all this represents the ultimate in irresponsibility. As public servants their "bottom line" job is to "keep the lights on." Yet here we are. Over 800,000 federal employees are now out of work with no income for who knows how long? Maddeningly, those same public or elected officials who are responsible for the shutdown will continue to receive their paychecks.

Yes, I am quite angry at this. That aside, it raises the question of why mankind chooses government in the first place. How would life be without government? Government represents the ultimate in order. It is an entity that provides and maintains order and structure in the lives of people. It represents, I believe, an acknowledgement on the part of all of us that we need an overseeing body to protect us from descending into lives of chaos. As much as we may complain about government, the fact is we need it. To return to the current situation for a moment, as I see it, the problem is not government per se but rather the low caliber of a number of people who are elected to serve as leaders within it.

From a communication perspective, government provides order or guidelines that help establish how all of us interact. It is much like the basic rules of grammar that provide the rules by which we speak and/or write in the most coherent and understandable ways possible. While communication without such rules would continue, it would be far less civil. Much like government itself, we need grammar. This is not to say it cannot and should not be improved, however. We the people should never stop searching for ways to do that.

Maintaining the Bond

Whenever I experience an example of positive customer in-action, there is part of me that feels as if I just stumbled across a unicorn. It is always a pleasure to see a person of authority provide some level of assistance to another who either happens to be in-need or who feels they have been wronged. The actions of that person in authority represent a particular level of communication that speaks to genuine two-way interaction. The person in-need is upset and is taking their story to another for help. The person on the receiving end of the complaint provides the sender with their full attention and then initiates action to try and right the wrong.

Such an incident happened to me recently. Without going into too much unnecessary detail, it involved two movie tickets that had been issued for an incorrect date. Popcorn and soda had already been purchased when the incorrect date was discovered. Upon being made aware of the situation, the theater manager apologized for the error, reimbursed me for both the incorrect tickets and refreshments, and then allowed me to keep the refreshments I had already purchased. Plus, she did it all with a smile. I walked away feeling good about the experience and no longer miffed at the inconvenience.

I acknowledge that part of the reason I felt good about this episode is that I largely came out of it with everything I wanted. But more than that, my positive feelings were based on the attitude and actions of that manager. She made me feel as if I had been heard and that my feelings were important. She did that with the wisdom that regardless of how her exchange with me was going to go, the most important element was maintaining the connection between me as a customer and the business that she represented. She was pitch-perfect. She recognized the present and future bond was at-stake and communicated accordingly.

The First Light

Way back in the 1600s, the name of the shore land of what is now Massachusetts was "Dawnland," the place where the sun rose. According to author Charles Mann in his wonderful book, "1491," (2005), the inhabitants of this region were called "the people of the first light." This is because they were believed the first ones to see the sun rise every day. though we now know that is not true, I have to believe the folks back then must have enjoyed that distinction. Who among us would not like being among the first to know what a new day was going to bring? That is good and useful information to have.

A number of years ago in a previous job in higher education, during times of inclement weather, it was my responsibility to contact the media and announce whether our institution was closing that day. I guess you could say I was one of "the people of the first light" during that time. During the years I had that responsibility I admit to enjoying being the one who knew before most everyone else what the instituion's plans were in those times of uncertainty. I was certain when others were uncertain. I was secure when others were insecure.

This reality drove home several lessons to me: Being in such a position carries with it a great weight of responsibility; and Being in such a position should not be taken lightly. When the time came for me to communicate what I knew to our public, it was essential that I get it right. Far too many people and families were planning their days around the information I was communicating. Plus, the fact I knew what was going on and few others did, did not make me smarter or better. Thus, those who did not know what I did needed to be treated with respect and given the information in a timely and understandable manner. Anything less than that would be a gross disservice to them and the information itself. All communicators who belong to the "first light" should never forget that.

Communication Between Strangers

One of the scenarios regarding communication that has long fascinated me revolves around strangers, two people who do not know each other. How do they communicate? What drives whatever dialog they may have ? What signals do they give out that represent, in essence, a mutual agreement that neither one will speak to the other? But if talking does occur, then how do they know what to say? Who initiates a conversation? What makes one person make the first statement rather than the other?

I recognize that while what I call the "strangers in the night" dynamic may not necessarily top the list of research-worthy topics within the vast of field of communication, the fact is it is something that faces us all on nearly a daily basis. For myself, sometimes I will initiate or engage in conversations with strangers and sometimes not.  How come? Why not talk with everyone or, the flip side, no one at all? Sometimes it depends upon the other person. I may find them to be friendly-looking or just think of a particular comment to make that seems to fits that moment. In other words, it varies. I vary. I suspect the same is true for others. Internally, all of us are a constant source of motion. The presence of a stranger probably even adds to that.   

Then there is the matter of what to say. Generally, dialog revolves around what participants have in common. It could something simple like "the weather" or a topic more complex like a specific task at-hand. Either way, a commonality is nearly always the starting point when it comes to any level of interaction between individuals. What happens after that, of course, varies for a multitude of reasons. Participants may find what the other says to be of interest or they may simply find that other to be engaging. The result, as I am sure all of have experienced, is a dialog that goes from brief to extended. 

More on Families

In my most recent blog entry I talked about the challenges that come with communicating with family. Specifically, I believe, a great deal more sensitivity is called for because the dynamic between family members is driven more by the heart than it is the head. This, however, is not to say that communicating with non-family members does not have a lot of similarities with communicating with family members. Being respectful and open, helping establish a two-way exchange, and not making any effort to deceive are elements that can and should be found in any kind of exchange. The difference, generally, is found more in expections or anticipated results.

When it comes to communicating with non-family members, a matter of driving home specific points comes into play. Winning an argument. Competition. With non-family members there is more of a concern for maintaining the relationship. While such a consideration certainly comes into play, it is not the primary factor regarding non-family. All of us argue or have differences with family members, of course. But when we do so it is with an understanding that this person with who we are butting heads is always going to be part of our lives. Consequently, how they are feeling throughout and after a negative exchange matters.

While I do not like arguing with co-workers, to pick one non-family group, I recognize my relationship with that kind of person will never be permanent. That means, with them, my focus is far more on the topic than it is the feelings that are fueling the debate/discussion. I know that five years from now my brother - if I had one - is still going to be my brother. I cannot say that about a co-worker. I want to make sure my brother is ok both me and overall after whatever heated exchange we might have. With a non-family member, it is not nearly as critical. How a family is feeling outweighs whether I may have "won" our disagreement.

Families

I am the first to agree that families are great. They often accept us despite ourselves and provide us with a kind of safety zone to which we can turn when we need to, at least temporarily, detach ourselves from the stresses of life. On the other hand, families can and do drive us crazy and can and do add stress to our lives. Because families represent our point of origin, they occupy a place in both our hearts and our psyche that no one can match. Interestingly, we spend part of our lives running away from our families and part of our lives running toward them. Given all that, there is no question that as an entity for all of us families are unique.

One big reason families are unique is that when it comes to communication, different rules apply to them. This is especially true when it comes to disagreements. In the world outside of family, often when disagreements occur we find ourselves in a position to determine right and wrong. For instance, there is discussion at the office over which strategy to follow. The boss asks staff members to provide evidence as to why one proposed path is right and the other is either wrong or less-than-best. In another scenario, two teams compete for the championship. Which one is best? They compete and soon an answer is provided.

When it comes to families, however, the matter of right or wrong or best and not-best does not so readily apply. When it comes to our kin, "feelings" take centerstage. When husbands and wives butt heads, determining who is right often ends up creating tension that goes beyond whatever is being debated. Families remain tight based on their feelings; the emotions each member feels in their heart. Outside that bubble, our connections are often driven by intellect. Consequently, we assess issues and actions largely with our heads rather than our hearts. That is reversed when it comes to families. Thus, when it comes to communicating, a much more sensitive approach is required.

Compassion

One of the primary goals of any public relations effort or plan is to trigger action on the part of a particular audience. We see this all the time. A candidates blasts the airwaves with a range of ads designed to get folks to vote for him or her. A department store urges potential consumers to take advantage of an upcoming weekend sale. A neighbor asks another neighbor for a ride to work because their own car is under repair. The list of examples is endless. Further, while they may not represent traditional public relations campaigns, each does illustrate an attempt by one to generate action on the part of another.

In doing this, what "button" is the initiator of a campaign trying to push? What inner trigger is the candidate, department store or even neighbor seeking to appeal to via their outreach? Plausible and even logical answers might range from empathy and intellect to kindness or even a sense of duty. All those are definitely factors when one appeals to another. But the bottom line "button" by far is compassion. Compassion goes beyond understanding or feelings of empathy. Those, while important,  denote a level of detachment. For instance, just because one understands how awful it might to be trapped inside a burning building or grasp the fear that that person be experiencing, does not suggest they are going to actually do anything about the person's predicament.

Compassion, on the other hand, does equate with action. This intense feeling or emotion is what drives one to do something about electing a person to office, taking advantage of a sale, or giving one a ride to work. Professional communicators should recognize that while instilling support within others for a cause is a positive thing, it is not nearly as powerful as motivating another to step forward and deminstrate that support. All of us carrying inside the ability to be compassionate. The constant challenge of the communicator is to make contact with it.

Justice and Communicaion

Rolling around in my head recently is the concept of justice. How, for instance, does it relate to communication? Is there justice to be found in how one communicates with another? Does it relate in any way to the manner or effectiveness of a communication effort?  If one were to lie to another, then end up not getting the result they wanted, would that be justice? Perhaps. Drawing from the definition of this concept found in the dictionary, justice refers to how fairly one is judged as it relates to a negative act on their part. If one robs a bank, then the degree to which they are punished would speak to the level of justice applied to them. More to the point, if a public figure lies to their constituents, then it seems the reaction of those people would determine the level of justice imposed upon the liar.

In his musing, the notable philosopher Plato viewed justice as one yardstick for measuring the quality of one's soul. He saw justice as a virtue that speaks to the level of goodness in a person's behavior. Given that, how much justice is found in the soul and/or actions of one who lies or purposely deceives? As best I can interpret Plato, it would seem the mere act of communicating falsehoods would be enough to label a person as being unjust. A more conventional interpretation of "justice," however, seems to point to the consequences of one's behavior rather than simply the actual behavior itself.  

For myself, I tend to give the concept of justice a broad interpretation. One can behavior unjustly and not suffer any consequences. In addition, one can both behave in a purposefully harmful way as well as be punished for it and be the recipient of justice. In other words, justice applies to both behavior and consequences of behavior. For communicators to be viewed in the most positive light possible, then they must be sensitive to the concept of justice in all that they say and do. Professional communicators can operate under no less important standard.

Promoting a Shared Goal

There are so many ways that people are "funny." I do no mean in the "ha-ha" sense, but rather in the odd or peculiar way. For instance, it has long been established that we humans are social creatures. We need regular interaction with others for reasons ranging from validation and security to companionship and information. Therefore, given that need, it would seem a safe assumption that working or collaborating with others is something we do well. Of course, it goes without saying that that is not the case. Mankind has a far too well documented history of interactions gone wrong. This not only applies to large populations but individual co-mingling as well.

Author Robert M. Sapolsky in his wonderful best seller "Behave: the Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" (2017) notes that not even getting to know each other well guarantees people will get along more effectively. Instead, he wrote, interactions work best when there is a shared goal within a group. A shared goal creates a stronger "combined us" that serves as a kind of unifying element for members of a group. It decreases preconceptions and prejudices and provides group members with a point with which to rally around. Based on Sapolsky's research, studies have shown that the benefits of a shared goal remain in-tact despite group differences in race, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity.

As this applies to communication, it seems critical that whatever a group's goal might be, it must be communicated properly and effectively to all members. The members need to know what the goal is, need to understand it, need to recognize how it applies to them, and ways in which it might be achieved. None of these, mind you, are small things. Effective and well-planned communication can address these matters. Further, it can not only bring together folks but also keep them in the same room and operating from the same play book.

"Me and Them"

Here's an old joke: There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two groups and those who do not. While I will concede that may not be the greatest knee-slapper ever, within that statement there is what I view as a profound observation, particularly as it applies to communication. In most every encounter or interaction between folks, people bring their own perspective. We all have our own points of view regardless of whether the topic is "safe" such as last night's ball game or something more touchy like religion or politics. As a result, with most every exchange there is the potential for conflict.

People see things differently and therefore are apt to disagree. Consequently, as each encounter brings with it a genuine chance of conflict, it is not surprising that much of the time we view life as a kind of "me and them" dynamic. "I have my perspective," we tend to think, "and therefore must be prepared to defend it at any given moment." Therefore, such an attitude, regardless of how logical or even justified it might be, does suggest the existence of underlying tension that hovers above, under and all around most any kind of conversation. Further, it is my contention that such tension, regardless of its level of intensity, shapes our approach to others as well as the tone of exchange between "me and them."

Differences, by definition, serve as the seed of conflict. Our challenge is found not just in how well we deal with that conflict, but in how well we actually recognize or acknowledge it. Given that, I can easily understand a person's choice to talk at the person with whom they are with so as to drive home their point of view or opinion. Such a choice, by one or both parties, makes effective communicating more difficult and perhaps less satisfying. To deal with this, one important key is to acknowledge the existence of possible conflict. Doing that, I believe, adds an important layer of openness in which all parties can more easily pursue connecting with others.    



            

Unhelpful Hints

Communicating effectively is tough enough without outsiders constantly stepping in and telling you how you should be doing it better. It reminds of life as a new parents. Establishing your own rhythm with your new born is both challenging and wonderful. Leave it to others to muck up such an exhilarating time with one piece of unsolicited advice after another. I say "thanks but no thanks." Just because folks are parents themselves does not necessarily make them expert enough to begin telling new-parents how to do their job. One great thing about being a new parent is discovering new dimensions of life with your child. But I digress.

I concede that one purpose of this blog is to offer unsolicited guidance as to how to communicate more effectively. While I agree my so-called advice may be unsolicited, another goal of mine here is to instill in others a deeper appreciation of communicating well. Attempting to do this, however, I must acknowledge that not everything I say may be helpful. For instance, do people really need to be reminded how important it is to listen to others? Do people really need to be told two primary purposes of public relations are to persuade and to establish relationships? Perhaps not. Perhaps people already know all that.

Still, there is the reality that all of us need to be reminded of ways to communicate more effectively, particularly when so much miscommunication seems to swirl around us. This brings me back to "Unhelpful Hints." Here are a couple worth ignoring: people should not talk over others; people should not ignore the priorities or interests of others; people should not concern themselves with ways to sustain strong ties with others.  This kind of list, you might notice, is easily just as long as one of what people should do. To better reconcile this, perhaps we should all at least agree that communicating well is in the best interest of us all and that tolerating unhelpful or unwanted advice is  one of those things we will simply have to do.

Promoting That "One Thing"

In the business world, there is a phrase called "core competence" that some scholars refer to when discussing a particular company. For instance, what is the core competence of, say, Apple, Monsanto or General Motors? What is that one-thing or aspect of each entity that separates it from its competitors? Is there one thing that it does better consistently than any one else?  I confess to not being all that knowledgeable in a specific way about those or the great majority of other businesses or corporations that currently dominate the international landscape. However, I can say with authority that all successful or profitable companies have that "one thing." Otherwise, they would not be enjoying any kind of sustained or meaningful financial success.

My goal with this entry is to not delve into the specifics of any company's specialty. Rather, it is view that "one thing" from a communication perspective. More to the point, how does a company communicate that specialty both to the public and to its internal membership? I find this to be an interesting challenge. On the one hand, it would seem any entity wants to be viewed as being highly proficient in all areas of its existence. On the other, suppose it does, in fact, do one thing above all others extremely well. Should it not be as open about that as possible? Should it not go out of its way to promote that one area?

Promoting one particular aspect of an entire entity is a tricky dance step. Coca Cola is extremely successful and has been for many years. In large part, this is because the company does a superb job of promoting the taste of its product. But what about such aspects as the distribution of this product? How it is manufactured? How well its employees are treated? All this is to say, is there a danger or downside to, say, a company's internal morale if it appears to be promoting the work or efforts of one set of its workers over another? A company's communication experts needs to be sensitive to this possible problem.

The Element of Luck

I begin with an interesting question. A young 28-year-old man named Tsutomu Yamaguchi was living in Hiroshima, Japan, at the time the United States dropped an atomic bomb on that city in 1945 to expedite the end of the second world war. He survived. Wisely, he decided to flee the city to go somewhere safe. Where did he go? Nagasaki. A few days later the U.S. dropped its second atomic bomb on - you guessed it - Nagasaki.  Yamaguchi somehow survived that, too. He ended up living another 65 years until his passing in 2010. So, was young Yamaguchi lucky? Or would we consider him to be a very unlucky chap?

Personally, I think you could argue this one either way. Whatever the answer, I suspect he is the only individual in history who can make the claim of having survived two nuclear explosions. One cannot help but be impressed. Perhaps not to the extent of Yamaguchi, but his story got me to wondering how much luck is there involved in successful or effective communication. By "luck" I means aspects of an act by which we have no control. In this case, we are talking about an act representing an attempt to generate mutual understanding and respectful exchange. For example, how "lucky" is, say, a retail store that advertises a sale that results in people actually going to their store to make some cost-savings purchases?

Obviously, the store has no control over anyone's actions. Perhaps a family saw the ad but was committed to going out of town to attend a wedding. Consequently, they had to pass on the sale. Bad luck for the store. On the flip side, perhaps the family had no plans so decided to check-out the sale. Good luck for the store. The point is no matter how much we plan out our acts of communication, there is always an element of risk or the unknown at-play. Simply put, we cannot control everything. What we can do in our planning or research is play the odds, try to influence by making what we share as listener-friendly as possible.

"Word-in Edgewise"

Trying to be heard - never mind be understood or even agreed with - can be so exhausting. It makes me think about the old expression "word-in edgewise." This revolves around being involved in a conversation with another or perhaps several others. Not only is everyone actively engaged in the conversation, but they are talking over each other just to get their points across. Ironically, with everyone talking at once, the result is no one is really being heard. You are aware of all this, of course, and recognize that if you are going to make an impact with the others, then you are either going to have add your voice to the mix or raise your voice to a higher volume.  At that point, maybe - just maybe - you will finally be heard.

So, in you go. Your voice is now part of the bubbling-over noise. What happens next? When does this scene end? How does it end? Does anyone really remember what has been said? Do people walk away and honestly believe, "Hey, that was good."? I tend to doubt it. When I was younger I rarely hesitated to jump into that pile of verbal chaos. At some point, I thought, the strength of my comments will cause others to stop talking and focus entirely on what I am saying. (I am now trying to think if that ever actually happened. Off-hand, I think not.) Nowadays when conversing with others and everyone begins talking at-once, my tendency is to stop talking. Doing that is less exhausting. Plus, I reason, if anyone really cares what I think, then they will ask.

We all want to be heard, but for that to happen the audience needs to be in a listening mood. They have to be "up" for hearing what others say. On the various news talk shows that we see on cable and the various network channels, it is a rare day when the guests come prepared to listen. They are there to talk, be heard, talk some more, and finally, talk even more. Their unwillingness or, at best, reluctance, to listen sabotages any chance of genuine communication. The guests are not there to listen. Rather, their focus is getting a word-in edgewise. How nice for them. How unfortunate for the audience and the topic under discussion.     





  

"Teamwork Phobia"

According to the student newspaper at the university in South Korea at which I currently work, apparently there is a virus among students going around that is threatening one of the fundamental purposes of the institution's core mission. The name being given this "bug" is "teamwork phobia." It refers to an apparent and growing unwillingness among students to participate in group projects.This is how it works: teachers divide the students into groups but rather than work together to fulfill their group's assignment, the students, as explained in the newspaper, "divide the work and get it done. That is all." There seems to be no group meetings where progress reports are given or problems are shared.

One student, who declined to be identified, explained that it is "a pain to do something together with people of all different characteristics...…...It is not teamwork any more." Never mind that the university encourages student collaboration as it believes working together makes for stronger scholarship and helps prepare its graduates for careers in the professional world. I understand students' logic. Working without having to contend with input, including questions and even criticism of others, can be frustrating and cumbersome. In many ways, working solo is much easier. Still, the university has a strong point when it points out that much of working in an office setting, for example, involves collaborating with others.

In no way do I believe the university should back away from giving group assignments to its students. Young scholars should be taught the value and reality of tackling a challenge or assignment with others. Further, as part of this education, they should become familiar with steps needed to take to help ensure their group experience is positive rather than negative. I suggest three: be clear in identifying the specific role each group will play; make sure everyone clearly understands the group's overall goal or mission; and, above all, communicate, communicate, communicate. Members should keep each other well-informed of any questions, problems and/or successes they are having in their efforts. Adhering to these three points will help ensure greater cohesion and chances for success.

Elements of Leadership

The subject of leadership has been on my mind lately. This concept, as described by authors Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson in their 2009 text on this topic is a "fundamental element of the human condition." Anywhere there are people, there is some aspect of leadership being exhibited. Good or bad, slight or over-the-top, we see it in virtually any interaction between folks. One person sways another or attempts to. People gather and perhaps without even realizing it begin deferring to one or another. That person to whom others defer or who becomes the one others look to for guidance or information, is the leader - even if their role as leader is for just a brief period of time.

What ingredients go into making one person a leader over others in most any given situation? "Why that guy?" many of us may ask. There are multiple reasons, of course, that include a person's expertise, the amount of resources they may have at their disposal, a particular attitude of apathy of those around him or her, or, we cannot forget, contacts they may have that others do not. However many reasons there might be, one key one revolves around how well they communicate. Are they articulate, knowledgeable, and engaging? Are they empathetic to others? A good listener? How transparent are they? Are they credible?

Depending upon one's answer to those questions and ones like them, it is these answers that help determine whether a person is embraced as a leader. If they are, then they are thrust into a position of being able to make difference in the lives of others. It must be noted that some people with all those qualities simply may not want to be in a leadership role. Just because they might be the smartest or most articulate,  they simply may not want to be the one at the microphone or behind the big desk.  This, however, does not mean others do not view them as being leaders. Possessing and utilizing effective communication skills can raise most anyone's profile and reputation.

  

Random Thoughts

Lately I see the world divided into two kinds of people. On the one hand there are those who spend idle moments enjoying the quiet by gazing at the world around them and taking-in what they see and hear. On the other, there are those folks who use idle time by fiddling with their cell phones, either reding or re-reading messages or sending out messages to any one they can think of. While sometimes I am part of the latter, on my better days I prefer being part of the former group. Life has enough hustle-bustle in it as it is. Why not embrace idle moments when they come along rather than muck them up with making unnecessary use of a cell phone. We do not need to be on it as much as we are.

Here's another thought. According to author Steven Pinker in his fine book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature" (2011), mankind is fighting far fewer wars than ever in our history. In fact, this has been a notable trend for well-over a half century. That, of course, is a good thing. While I accept Pinker's analysis as being true, I wonder if we as individuals are arguing any less as well? Are we experiencing fewer disagreements? My sense is we are not. While I have not seen any statistics on this - assuming any actually exist - I cannot help but speculate that individually seem to be at-issue at a high rate that does not seem to be experiencing any noticeable decline.

Finally, I would like to give a shout-out to the field of conflict analysis and resolution. It is a field of study that focuses on the act of dealing with and reaching a settlement on disputes. Such conflicts can be among individuals, communities or even nations. Conflict anaylsis and resolution revolves around the kind of elements that make for effective communication: mutual respect, research, active listening, willingness to compromise, and clear-cut messaging. It is encouraging that this academic area is growing in popularity.

Instant Whatever You Want

"I want what I want and I want it now." How many times have many of us heard that statement or one close to it? It refers to instant gratification - the kind that micro ovens or toasters give us. We want our food heated. Press a few buttons and within seconds you have heated bread or most any other kind of food or even drink. What's on television? Click the "on" button on your remote and instantly the television set is up and running to give you hours of entertainment. Is the hour late but you are having trouble falling asleep? No problem. Take a pill and within minutes you are snoozing away as if you invented this form of relaxation.     

These days, perhaps the best example of instant gratification is the Internet. No question this is a powerful communication tool. People all over the world use it. The amount of information on virtually any topic that it allows us to access immediately is nothing short of remarkable. The Internet matches this by allowing us to connect with thousands and even millions of others within moments. These people can be folks we do or do not know. We articulate our thoughts or ask questions on a given topic on, for example, Facebook or You Tube and before you can take another sip of coffee it is not uncommon to be receiving feedback of all kind from literally throughout the world.   

This feedback can take issue with your initial communique or even validate your perspective. It can provide you lots of negativity or support. Instantly. Either way, particularly if you are a person who believes is not listened to, the Internet not only give you a voice but also an ear. Actually, it has the potential to give you lots of ears. From a technological perspective, this is amazing. It is also a bit scary. The reality that any one can send out communiques that are purposely false or misleading, ugly in tone, defamatory against individuals or segments of the population, and theoretically receive support and encouragement certainly gives me pause. It also is why I have a love-hate relationship with the Internet. 

Billiards and Pool

I have always considered billiards to be more of a gentleman's game. My image of it includes well-dressed men with expensive cigars and brandy in an expensive club playing this game of angles, bank shots and nuance. Pool, on the other hand, is more of a game of and for the so-called common man; guys with beer and loud music. My own experience, by far, is with pool. In general terms, these days, pool is more much popular than its exclusive "cousin." I have played both, enjoy both, and truth-be-told, am not particularly good at either one.

Billiards is a game of finess. To me, it calls upon its players to be more strategic in determining ways to hit the other two balls on the table while, at the same time, making as many bank shots as possible.  Pool, of course, requires strategic thinking, too, but, generally, its playing is more straightforward and  power-based. Billiards calls upon its players to follow a more subtle approach to scoring points and, ultimately winning games. Looking at the two, they represent primary public relations strategies that are often carried out in today's world. One is a more nuanced strategy while the other is more of what one might characterise as an in-your-face approach. Nowadays, the in-your-face approach is much popular.

We see examples of it in the many political campaigns being conducted right now. At rally after after candidates call their opponents awful names. "My opponent is a liar, uncaring and corrupt." Nothing subtle about that. On the other hand, rarely, it seems, do we hear candidates carefully outline the differences in, say, their economic or immigration positions. Granted, the "pool" approach seems to resonate much more with audiences these days than what I would consider the "billiards" style. In fairness, I suppose, candidates seeking votes need to do what works best. I acknowledge this reality with regret. It does not speak to either the players or those of us who are watching and accepting.

The Voluntary Aspect of Relationships

When someone mentions the word "relationship," regardless of whether it is personal or professional, the notion of a connection lasting a long period of time pops into my head. I view them as being much more substantive than, say, encounters that many of us experience throughout each of our days. Perhaps because often times a solid relationship is the result of an extended effort on the part of all parties, I view them as being long-lasting. Relationships are usually things we seek-out and view as being a positive force in our lives. Consequently, the longer they last the more we see them as being beneficial to our lives. Plus, particularly because they are of benefit, they are aspects of life we do what we can to perpetuate.

Granted, relationships can be negative. But when that is the case, such connections are ones we all tend to either avoid or active only as is necessary. But positive or not, there is one thing that all relationships have in-common: they last only as long as we want them to. Relationships are a voluntary act much like voting or deciding to wear tennis shoes. The fact is we can conclude any given relationship we might have at any time we want. How? Simply by no longer engaging with that other person. Yes, it may be awkward or inconvenient, particularly if that "other" is a family member or co-worker. Still, we maintain them because of the perceived benefit we see in them.

I note the voluntary aspect of relationships because of the kind of communicating involved in establishing and maintaining one entails. This includes research: learning of a person's interests and priorities, gaining a sense of how they wish to interact, and, most importantly, gaining their confidence and trust. Yes, achieving such objectives can be and often is work. But such work, when carried out under the mantel of being done voluntarily, becomes more of a building block then it does drudgery. This, then, is part of the joy of public relations work whether it is for one's self or another.    

    

Communication's Natural Order

Let me begin by acknowledging the act of communicating with another is, at times, is enough to make any one's eyes cross. On the one hand, ideally, successful communicating results in mutual understanding and exchange between multiple publics. But on the other, the questionsof how often that happens or how easily is that attained represent major hurdles. To communicate effectively, in my view, calls upon participants to place greater emphasis on achieving a "greater good" than they would toward satisfying their own self-interest. This speaks to placing the goals of effective communication over one's specific objective.

But how realistic is that? In his wonderful autobiography, Thomas Merton observed that the natural order of man's behavior is to "...live for themselves and for their own interests and pleasure, and therefore are constantly interfering with another's aims, whether they mean it or not." (Merton's book is "The Seven Storey Mountain" and I highly recommend it.) As I agree with Merton's opinion, I readily acknowLedge the innate challenge we all face when we attempt to communicate with another. If one accepts Merton's point of view, then the matter of group interest versus individual interest comes into play.

In fact, not only is this contradictory thinking at-play, it is part of the communicate challenge. Perhaps one could even describe it as THE ultimate communication challenge. If one is going to carry out their own goal, then doing so must be done is separate steps. First comes group or mutual interest and second comes one's specific goal. Anything less than that, at best, will most likely result in less then satisfactory or effective communication. Therefore, the natural order of communicating includes efforts to address both group and individual interest. The trick now is get everyone to recognize that so that all efforts to communicate can occur much more smoothly.

Taping into Sun Tzu

A key concept when it comes to communication is flexibility. Yes, people often are predictable but at the same time they can and do the unexpected. In addition, life itself can and does provide more than enough twists and turns to "keep us on our toes." In the most famous "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, the author writes about how victory should be achieved by methods "regulated by the variety of circumstances." I interpret this observation as highlighting the importance of flexibility, that is having the ability to adjust to the unexpected. As part of this, Tzu notes one should not be locked into repeating tactics that initially gained them a particular goal.

By alluding to "The Art of War," I am drawing a slight parallel between communicating effectively and war. Both "sides" as it were are striving to achieve a set goal: to be heard and understood. Sometimes this can lead to a conflict as, for instance, how I wish to be understood may not be in-sync with how you may wish to be seen. In giving an employee a pay raise, a supervisor may feel they are rewarding good behavior. Other workers, however, may view such an act as favoritism. These differing interpretations represent conflict and call for flexibility on the part of each "side" if they are to make known their logic and achieve some level of mutual understanding.

As part of this, as noted by Tzu, in warfare there are no "constant conditions." Such an observation certainly applies to life itself and the ability each of us has to alter any set of circumstances. We also, I believe, have the ability to adjust to changing circumstances in order to achieve effective communication. In this sense, as much as possible how we communicate should be similar to water in that it has no constant shape because in its movement it is constantly adjusting to its circumstances. Again, I draw from Tzu here. While we may have a particular goal in each attempt to communicate, we must be flexible in how we go about achieving it.

Dark Thoughts

Dark thoughts. We all have them. I am not necessarily talking ones of a sexual nature though they would certainly fall under that umbrella. They can revolve around comments about individuals or groups of people. They can focus on the characteristics or qualities of individuals, including ourselves. They can include actions we could take regarding our own preferences as they apply to ourselves or even others. The list of examples is pretty much endless. Whatever the specific subject or focus of  these kind of thoughts, generally a striking similarity they all share is that they are thoughts we keep to ourselves.

We keep them "dark" because if known to others, then would either be very embarrassing, lead others to think less of us, or possibly trigger negative actions toward us. Consequently, as a rule, we keep them safely tucked away in our own minds. One interesting characteristic of these kind of thoughts is that we do not mean them or, even if the opportunity presented itself, we would not act on them. So, one might ask, why have them? Despite their inappropriateness or even ugliness, they can be fun to have; serve as a safe release to help us deal with our anger or frustration. For instance, would I really want to "kill" that driver who cut me off in traffic? No way. Not ever.

Dark thoughts represent a common step in our own internal communication process that we often take on our way toward formulating thoughts much more appropriate for public consumption and even action. Dark thoughts, then, are nothing to be ashamed of unless they do see the light of day and end of being used against us. Sometimes folks make the mistake of sharing inappropriate or dark thoughts that should never be unveiled. Generally, this is a mistake unless the person on the receiving end can be trusted not to pass them onto others. Dark thoughts, then, are ok so long as they are kept in their proper place.

"...intention of the mind"

If there is anyone who had insight into the mechanics of good painting it was Leonardo Da Vinci. The mere fact he had "Mona Lisa" and "The Last Supper," two of the most famous art works in world history on his resume, is easily enough to establish his credentials. When painting a subject, Da Vinci said a good artist has two primary challenges: "man and the intention of the mind." The first, he noted, is easy in the sense it speaks to properly capturing the physical appearance of the subject. The second, however, is a different story. It involves properly interpreting the actions of the subject. What are they trying to communicate in their actions, including their expression?

This is the essence of what any of us face in striving to be a effective listener. A person, for instance, states emphatically that "I did not rob that bank." What could be more straightforward than that? The meaning of those five words is very clear. But in making such a declaration, what is behind it? In other words, is it a statement of truth? Is the speaker being honest? As one on the receiving end of the statement, how do they go about answering that question? As Da Vinci would say, how do receivers of that message determine the intention behind those words? This is where being an effective listener becomes rather tricky.

The expression on the speaker's face, the tone of their voice, our own base of knowledge, and other facts that may be known at the time are among the chief clues from which most of us draw in assessing the truthfulness of the initial statement. Sometimes that is easy and sometimes not. Bottom line: what is the intention of the speaker? Is it to tell the truth or is it to deceive? Making the proper or correct choice can be a guessing game. An accurate guess helps facilitate an act of communication. An incorrect guess can compromise that act. All this adds fuel to the reality that communication can be and often is difficult.

Wanted: Slow Thinkers

Take a person who is standing around doing nothing. Suddenly, unexpectedly, from out of nowhere another person appears out of nowhere and throws a baseball at our first person's head. If that first person were to either catch the ball or duck, then in all likelihood he would be praised for either being a fast thinker or having quick relaxes. Instead, however, if he reacted slowly and ended up getting bopped on the head, then the judgement would be he was slow thinking. In such a scenario, of course, it is much better - not to mention less painful - to be quick thinking. Contending with a speeding baseball requires nothing less than that.

Thinking case, in this instance as well as many others, often is instinctual. We react because our "gut"  tells us it is the proper course of action. The action we take is not necessarily based on painstaking research. It is not the result of deliberate consideration in which one weighs the pros and cons of various courses of action. Rather, it is the result of whatever information we can quickly access and then making a snap choice. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, other than the fact not all situations call for fast thinking. There are times when the opposite of that is actually the best way to go.

If you are thinking communicating effectively is one of them, then you deserve a high-five. Despite the fact, there is a kind of romance we associate with fast-thinking, the challenge of connecting with others is the best way to go. Determining ways in which another prefers to receive information, how they like to be addressed, what their top interests and/or concers might be, and even how they like conversing with others requires unsexy, unglamorous slow thinking. Just because one "thinks fast" does not necessarily make them smarter than those who think with greater deliberation. In some ways, it may even mean just the opposite.

Whitney Balliett

I always get a kick out of reading what I consider to be good writing, especially by a writer that is either new or unfamiliar to me. These days I am enjoying a journal of writings on jazz by the late Whitney Balliett. (He died in 2007 at the age of 80.) Balliett wrote hundreds of reviews and articles on jazz for The New Yorker. While I have long admired his insights and communication flare, wading through a collection of his work serves as a very nice reminder of just how strong he was with pen-in-hand.

"He nodded, and clapped his hands soundlessly." "The old Half-Note.....it's narrow, trestlelike bandstand, and it's lowering ceiling, a set in a German Expressionist movie." "Its irresistible and original characteristics seemed to imply endless spaces and crazy weather and the howdy openness of Southwesterners." "It was full of his usual devices - the slamming chords, the agitated staccato passages, the breathtaking arpeggios, the blizzard density - but it had two new qualities: lyricism and gentleness." Who writes like that? I am not sure anybody does these days. But Balliett sure did. As a former drummer, he took his love for music and made it sing with his writing. On top of that, he was enlightening.

Going back to the beginning of this entry, then, what is good writing to me? It is communication with flare, insight, good and useful information, heart, and thought. All these qualities jump out in the works of Balliett. Too bad he is no longer with us as effective communicators are always needed. Studs Terkel once called Balliett "one of our most trustworthy guides." In a literal sense, Balliett's work pertained to the subject of jazz. More broadly, however, he painted word pictures that inspired his followers to learn more about the complexities and layers of life itself. How I would love having even half of Balliett's great skills.

Macro, Micro Communication

Generally, when we hear the words "macro" and "micro," many of us associate them with the field of economics. Macro-economics, for instance, speaks to a general, large-scale overview of economic factors.  On the other hand, micro-economics refers more to an examination of single factors that pertain to economic matters. I believe those same terms can be applied to the field of communication. Nearly every day we all assess our own specific communication strategies through macro and micro lenses. The difference is the two terms are not used by communication scholars and professional practitioners all that often - if at all.

So, because or perhaps despite that, I would like take a few moments to apply each to how the practice and subject of communication is addressed. Macro-communication refers to looking at the act of interaction from a broad perspective. One entity communicates with another. Perhaps it does so in a way that is not smooth or even off-putting. Nevertheless, their message is understandable and received correctly. With that, scholars and practitioners examine the mechanics of the communication effort and assess how it may have been done more effectively or, at the least, differently. Such a step moves one into micro-communication.

Specifically, this involves the matter of individuals within an entity go about communicating with others within the same entity as well as outside. First, there is the obvious question of whether the communicating was effective or successful. Beyond that, the matter of specific strategies used becomes an important point of focus. Such a step is not unlike what economists do when they examine single policies put forth by individual bodies. This, then, is broadened into studying the efforts or actions of multiple entities. An initial conclusion here is that macro and micro communication scholars are not all that different from their peers in the field of economics.


 

Dialogue Versus Debate

Of the numerous forms of interaction, two of the most distinct are dialogue and debate. The former refers more to a cooperative exchange while the latter speaks more to defeating or overcoming what the other participate has to say. One is about working together while the other revolves around working against. Despite the differences, the two can and many times do lead to greater enlightenment and understanding. Because on various levels each of us engages in these forms of communicating almost daily, in the realm of communication both forms have a firm and permanent place. A world with neither dialogue nor debate us unimaginable.    

In a chapter in "The Warrior and the Pacifist," author Lisa Schirch outlines a specific set of differences between the two. In dialogue, she begins, there is a goal of understanding different perspectives. During the interaction, each participant accepts the experiences of the other as valid and real. Further, participants often at least give the impression they are open to changing their mind. Debate, however, is a very different matter. Participants here are opponents. As part of that, according to Schirch, emotions can and do run high as one side is constantly trying to prove how the other is wrong.  This kind of exchange can be intense while in dialogue, generally, all parties are more relaxed and feeling far less under attack.  

Can an exchange start out as a dialogue and  evolve into a debate? You bet. Perhaps one key characteristic of dialogues in that they can quickly evolve into a different form of communication and, at times, revert back to their original form. Ideally, however, there is no winner in the traditional sense at the end of a dialogue. Instead there are simply several folks who emerge with a deeper understanding of each other. Is one better form of communicating more appealing then the other? While I will leave that for others to decide, I will note each is vital to our ability and need to connect with others.

   

Darkness Into Lightness

Trying to assess folks in reference to how well they communicate and how they strive to communicate is always a challenge. Comments made over 25 years ago regarding the character of individuals are applicable to that challenge. It was during one of his peace walks in 1992 when the now-deceased Cambodian monk, Venerable Maha Ghosananda, observed there are four kinds of people in the world: "One in darkness who is headed for darkness, one in darkness who is headed for light, one in light who is headed for darkness, and one in light who is headed for light." The reference for this comment by the monk, a Nobel prize recipient, was "Tamonata Sutta."

I see a definite correlation between this observation and the manner in which many of us either strive to or do communicate in our day-to-day lives. Sadly, I see numerous incidences when people seem satisfied they were able to impart a particular message to others without regard to whether they actually communicated as well as they could have. (At times, I fall into this category.) Never mind that how they communicated their thoughts was punctuated by anger, impatience and perhaps even an insult or two. Doing emotional harm to another, at these times, is secondary to communicating a particularly perspective.  

Make no mistake, such communicating is darkness. Such darkness can be turned into light if the communicator recognizes their behavior and tries to apologize for it. Darkness remains darkness when the communicator takes no responsibility for their behavior. Every time we communicate represents an opportunity to do so with as much light as possible. Each of us should ask ourselves: How often do I succeed? How often to I fall short?  Moving toward the light and then remaining there is a challenge that, ideally, all of us should take. Because communication is so much apart of our lives, the least any of us can do is be the best we can at it.

Boy on the Floor

The other day I was walking through our neighborhood mall when I came across a scene that had caught the attention of a number of shoppers. A young boy, probably no more than three, was rolling around the walkway of the mall. His mother was just a few feet away watching him have what looked to be for him a fun and relaxing thing to do. Shoppers, myself included, were forced to walk around him. I have no idea how long his moment of bliss lasted, nor what, if anything, caused it to come to an end. I can only hope for the sake of the mother and other shoppers that whatever happened was without drama.

This little boy was doing his thing without regard for others (with his mother very much playing the role of enabler). Looking back on this very minor incident, I was and am reminded of times when people communicate the same way that boy behaved. Without regard for others. At times, people talk and do not give those around them a chance to respond or participate in what is little more than a mini-filibuster. All talking and no listening is not any more of a way of communicating effectively than that boy's behavior was a way of shopping. Nevertheless, I remain puzzled. One the one hand, I doubt any one would disagree with that. But on the other, I witness far more of that than I care to admit.    

One could characterize the act of speaking at rather than with as a blatant example of selfish communication. It illustrates an undeniable level of disrespect for others much in the same way as constantly keeping people waiting despite the fact a specific time to meet has been set. That boy's behavior can be excused due to a lack of maturity. But what excuse do adults who talk at others without even attempting to listen have? Besides being rude, it suggests a lack of full understanding as to what constitutes effective communication. This cannot be allowed to continue.

The Power of a Good Label

Ulysses S. Grant was the eighteenth president of the United States. Prior to that, he was the top general of the North in America's Civil War whose strategies on the battle field ensured that the nation remained "a perfect union." These two factoids alone make Grant one of the best known figures in U.S. history. But what is not known by many is that the name he is known by was not the name with which he was given as a new born. His actual name was Hiram Ulysses Grant. Grant felt very self-conscious about that, particularly after his acceptance into the West Point Academy. As many cadets were known by their initials, the last thing he wanted was to be called HUG.  

Grant decided to reverse the order of his first and middle names and therefore avoid what he figured would be non-stop jokes from his peers. Coincidently, just as he was being formally enrolled at West he discovered a clerk had mistakenly listed his middle name as "Simpson." In a quick decision, Grant then confirmed his full name as what he came to be known as throughout the U.S. and even much of the world. Beside this being an interesting story, I connect it to communication in that it represents how much a label or name of something can have. Would "HUG," for instance, have been so highly regarded by soldiers during the Civil War or by the American public after that terrible conflict? 

I do not think it is much of a stretch to note how much people seem to love good labels. Think of some of the more famous ones over the past 75 years or so: "New Deal," "The Great Society" and even, most recently, "Make America Great Again." We as a people seem to gravitate to them much in the same way a moth is attracted to bright lights. Often, once a phrase does catch on, it no longer seems to be matter its origin or even how credible it might be. Without question, labels can be and often are effective vehicles for communicating specific messages. Ideally, however, they should be built on firm ground and then fortified with tangible success.

The Right Kind of Glue

Have you noticed that lately it is hard to find good glue. By that I mean something that happens or is said that brings people together and leads them to actually remain together. Over the past few days much has been written and said about the late John McCain, a United State Senator of long standing from Arizona. McCain, a former Presidential candidate and decorated war hero, passed away. Since then, politicians from both major political parties have been coming together to talk about McCain, the man, and McCain, the public servant. This sad event represents an example of a glue that brings people together.

The question, however, is whether this particular glue is strong enough to keep people together. Will it serve as a catalyst to lead them to embrace and build on all that they have in common? The dreamer in me very much wants that to happen. The realist in me, unfortunately, does not see that occurring. What would it take to lead to the result that I and so many others long for? At this point, I am not sure. But what I do know is that for there to be greater harmony in society, then there must be better communication. People must talk "with" rather than "at." If that happens, then, yes, perhaps McCain's death could be the glue we have been waiting for.

Communicating effectively is often about taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves unexpectedly or without warning. McCain's passing is such an opportunity. As part of the celebration of this man and his life, communicators from both of the political spectrum need to keep stressing the message of ongoing collaboration. If points such as this are left unsaid, then another opportunity will be lost. Gone. From my perspective, such a scenario would definitely not be the first time. I wonder how many missed opportunities do we as a society have before they are all used up?  Whatever the answer, one thing for sure is we need to keep shopping for the right kind of glue.

Read Before Writing

In his autobiography, "Reporter," Pulitzer-Prize winner Seymour Hersch said it best in various comments about writing he made throughout this highly-readable book: read before you start to write. My take away from this advice is that if one is going to communicate effectively, then they must first know what it is they are talking about. Do not just plop down in front of a computer and begin banging out the first thoughts that come to mind. Do not grab a microphone and begin yammering away without first having a good idea what it is you want to say and a respectable understanding of whatever facts you wish to share.

An oft-used expression we hear these days is "shoot from the hip." It refers to persons who persons who say whatever it is on their mind without first taking a few moments to collect their thoughts or take into account how well their words might be received. I recognize there is a kind of romance surrounding the image of a man or woman who is able to communicate fluidly without having to refer to notes or a prepared next. All of us, I am sure, fantasize at times about being able to ignite an audience with a heartfelt speech about some important topic,  We have certainly seen such a scene played out countless times in an array of movies over the years.

The hard truth is that rarely in real-life are any of us able to sway others as well as we might like without first being prepared and well-versed on whatever it is we are talking about. Influencing others is rarely possible without first talking the time to prepare. Who is it you are attempting to communicate with? What is the audience's key interests? What information can you collect and even master to add strength to your communication effort? Read before writing. Homework before presentation. Look before leap. All these catch-phrases point to the same message: effective communication rarely occurs by accident.

Achieving Control

One would be hard-pressed to identify a feeling that feels better than being in control. Think about it. So much spins around us each day over which we have no control: the way people behave, rules that we have to follow, even how people perceive us. Imagine being about able to control all that, not necessarily for any negative reasons, but in a way that fosters good will, harmony and order. For instance, how great would it be if  as a supervisor we were able to control how people liked working for us? Or suppose, as a parent, you were able to control how your children felt about doing their homework; instead of resisting it, your kids would actually look forward to it?

Generally, I believe people approach each day with the best of intentions. They genuinely want others to be ok and carry out their days in ways that do no harm to their fellow man. To have an opportunity to actually ensure that such a scenario happens would be hard for any of us to resist. Such a goal is what each of us strives to meet when it comes to how we communicate. We want others to think well of us, so we choose to be polite and positive, for example. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that. But what causes such a good-faith effort to go off-track is when our individual communication strategies fall short of our expectations.

"I gave my boss a big smile and he still ignored me." or "I patiently explained to my daughter that doing her homework now would help her for what the family has planned later today, but she kept texting her friends any way." We try to control or at the very least influence via these communication efforts, yet fail to achieve what we view as reasonable goals. This points to a hard truth: not all communication works. As great as benevolence might be, there remains no guarantee the end result will be what we want. No wonder those rare times when we can and do control outcomes feel so good. The trick, then, is not to forego kindness or good intentions. Rather, for all of us, it should be seeking ways to communicate effectively.

Negativity Begets Negativity

Even by climate change standards, Korea has had a rough summer. Since the beginning of July, temperatures have hovered consistently in the mid to high 90s. The result is many folks have spent their free time indoors. Chores were carried out only when necessary and outings have been kept to a minimum. Even the lore of getting a nice tan lost its appeal due to the blistering and uncompromising heat. In commenting on the weather, it is worth noting how it does have a ripple effect. The extreme heat just did not happen in a vacuum. In the case of Korea, it triggered changes in behavior.

In my time of living and working in Korea, one source of pleasure was and is the close attention that people give to maintaining a clean and neat environment. For instance, sidewalks and pathways are usually kept clear of brush to help make it easier for walkers and bikers to travel. This has not been the case this summer. It has simply been far too hot for people to work outdoors for any length of time. Consequently, the Incheon area in which I work and live simply has not been as clean-cut as it normally is. The weather has caused people to cut back on what normally would be regular behavior. While I understand the change, nevertheless find it to be unfortunate.         

Looking at this cause and affect, I am reminded that one of the consequences of negative behavior is that it can and does have an equal impact on communication. It is not uncommon, for instance, for rude actions to shut people down. When a person yells, insults others and acts in unpleasant ways, it is not unusual for those around him or her to turn the other way. Some may go silent while others may yell back. The point is unacceptable or inappropriate communicating often begets more and equal negative communicating. When this happens, nobody wins. The trick, then, is for all of us to keep doing all we can to choose civility over incivility.

Swimming in the Ocean

Not too long ago I had the thrill of swimming in the Pacific Ocean. It is something I have wanted to do for years now so when the opportunity finally arose, I eagerly took advantage of it. Mind you, I only splashed around for a short period of time. Still, it was fun and felt good to cross one more item off my personal bucket list. I won't go into much detail as there is not much more to share other than this: swimming in the ocean is a challenge, one much more difficult than being in a swimming pool. In the ocean, one has to contend with strong currents, deep waters, the fact the water is salty, and living creatures that may not always be friendly. In a swimming pool, other than perhaps other people, the resistance is minimal.

Putting aside opportunity, my theory is people are more attracted to swimming pools because they are far easier than oceans. Pools are known and oceans are not. In this sense, such a construct does relate to communication. People seem to much prefer communicating with those with whom they agree than those they do not. Communicating with those on the "same page" is so much easier and, let's be honest, often more enjoyable, then trying to connect with one who does not see things the way we do.  Having to defend our perspective and put together some sort of cogent argument is not nearly as easy as having talk off the cuff and have what we say met with nods and reinforcement.

Perhaps one lesson here is that it is human nature to choose an easier path. Not for a moment will I deny that is not the case with me in many ways. Having said that, however, such a reality is unfortunate. All of us would better serve ourselves and others if we attempted to communicate "in the ocean" rather than in "swimming pools." The harder we work at interacting effectively with others the greater are the chances of our establishing lasting harmony. As a result, all of us need to do far more ocean swimming than we do.

Panama Hats

How many people can say they have actually and held a Panama hat being sold for $7,000? Whatever the answer to that is, my name can be added to the list. At a Panama hat shop located inside the famous Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Honolulu, this treasure is waiting for some lover of hats to claim it for their own. There are, of course, other, similar Montecristi hats - all fine - in this shop but none quite like it. You may wonder, what makes this particular hat so much more special than its lesser-priced counterparts? The answer is founding in the weaving; specifically in the tightness and consistency of the weave.

I am definitely no expert on how Panama hats are made, but I do know enough to know they are made with a great deal of care. The process followed, according to the shop manager, involves hand-weaving by what he called "master artisans." Very impressive indeed. What I found most impressive is the attention to detail given in the construction of these hats. The result is, as best I can tell, are products of the highest quality regardless of whether they sell for $50 or $7,000. How bad of a pun would it be for me say, "hats off" to the folks at Montecristi and the work they do on behalf. Of their product?

Montecristi is successful because of their detailed effort. This is not unlike effective communication plans. To be as successful as possible requires much attention to detail. For instance, communicators must focus on their message in terms of its tone and presentation. At the same time, equal attention must be given to ways in which intended receivers of the message prefer receiving new information. Among communicators, it is not uncommon for more attention to be given to the best ways to send a message rather than how it might best be received. Such a shortage of detail should not be tolerated, particularly as this relates to how well people connect.