Actors and Critics

Without question, one of the most ambitious public figures over the past 150 years was Winston Churchill. From his years as a young man to when he assumed the reigns of England before and during World War II, Churchill believed in his greatest. He saw at his destiny and, consequently, conducted himself in ways to draw attention to himself so that others would see what he saw in himself. In his rise to national and international renown, Churchill was heard to say the world was largely divided into two kind of folks: actors and critics. He very much saw himself as an actor for it was they who generated attention.

Taking a cue from England's former Prime Minister, how would one characterized public relations professionals? Actors or critics? From my perspective, I largely see them as being both. These communicators are actors but largely the behind-the-scenes variety. Generally, they seek to control all elements of stage management, including script writing and directing the key players on stage. Much of this is acting in that they strive to determine the words and actions of others toward a result that they and their clients have envisioned. This kind of acting is often difficult because their ability to control is limited.

This leads us that other category: critics. Clearly, public relations professionals are more critic than actor. They bring together key players, such as a client, and strive to create a particular image of that person or product that will be well received by the general public. This involves being a tough critic because often clients have their own set of limits, too, that can only be stretched so far. Their role as critic is not to be taken lightly any more than what the actor does in their effort to be credible. While "actor" and "critic" do capture the role of the public relations professional, perhaps a better descriptive, with apologies to Churchill, would be "choreographer."

Bill Buckner Moment

The year was 1967. I was on the junior varsity basketball team of our high school. The game was tight as both teams were trading points fast and furious. At one moment in the game the players were crowded at one end of the court - all except me. They missed a shot and one of my teammates grabbed the rebound. He spotted me down at the other end of the court alone and threw the ball to me.  I caught the ball and turned to make a can't-miss, easy lay-up. Even now, nearly 52 years later, I can still remember the cheers of the crowd as they anticipated my adding to our team's lead. Did I mention I had a can't-miss shot?

I missed. Not only did I miss but for some inexplicable reason I also fell down after tossing the ball up to the net. The cheers of the crowd quickly turned to moans and even laughter. It was not unlike what happened in the 1986 World Series between the New York Mets and the Boston Red Sox when the Sox's first baseman Bill Buckner flubbed a simple ground ball that would have allowed his team to win the game and the Series. (The Mets won the next game and the Series.) I can only imagine the inner anguish Buckner felt and perhaps feels to this day on some level from messing up on national television. At least my flub happened at some unimportant junior varsity game that probably no one but me remembers.

I suppose we all have our Bill Buckner - or should I say "Dan Walsch"? - moments. We find ourselves facing a task that we have achieved thousands of times in the past and unexpectly mess it up. This certainly happens in efforts to communicate. We misuse words, mispronounce or forget a friend's name or blank on a key fact that we had previously memorized. No question these times can be embarrassing or, depending upon the circumstances, costly. The best thing to do is own the error. Do not attempt to make excuses. Correct the mistake and move forward. The error - even a silly one - does not harm one's credibility. Not taking responsibility for it does.

Black Elephant

This may sound like the set-up of a job, but it is not. What do you call a serious problem that no one wants to talk about? If you guessed, "black elephant," then go to the head of the class. Even better, you may want to consider becoming a professional communicator. To cite an example: Think of a person who is such a heavy smoker that his coughs are so extreme that he spits up blood. Now picture those around him who simply do not say anything about it. Not only is this man's circumstance the "elephant in the room," it is also an extremely serious situation. This illustrates the phrase, "black elephant." It is a serious matter that cries out for attention, yet is one that folks do not seem willing to address. Another example, at least among some, would be global warming.

All of us can think of issues within our lives that are difficult to discuss. For many, weight might be an example. Confronting it in an open way makes us feel comfortable and, no doubt, is a bit embarrassing. Consequently, often times we do not do it. In a more professional setting, it is not unusual for work places to have their own black elephants: serious matters that no one wants to discuss. An example of this might be safety hazards that are allowed to fester. Workers ignore them in the hope nothing bad will happen.

What can and should be done about this? The obvious answer is these kind of issues need to be confronted. This is where the professional communicator comes in. There are times when this professional needs to be the one who raises the awkward topics, the ones that make people squirm, angry, or both. There are even times when the big-boss does not want to raise tough topics. Professional communicators - the good ones - do not and should not allow themselves that luxury. Not only do they need to be ready to raise the tough issues, but also put forward suggestions on how best to address them. Just because black elephants may be uncommon does not mean they should be allowed to linger.    

Isolation

In a 2015 interview, the Surgeon General of the United States was asked what the biggest disease facing America was. As reported by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Vivek Murthy gave a surprising and attention-grabbing one word answer, "isolation." Off-hand, I would have guessed heart disease, cancer or even increasing obesity as the answer to Friedman's question. One wonders how in these times of great technology and folks having the ability to almost instantly connect with another or friend how feeling isolated could happen. Aren't we supposed to be, in fact, the connected generation?

Yes, we are. Yet in Murthy's view, feeling alone is the biggest thing from which people suffer. How ironic is that? To me, this points to several of my own observations. One is that people are not using technology to connect as much as they are to express themselves. Connecting with another requires placing greater priority on building a relationship than it does focusing on one's own feelings, perspective or interpretation of the surrounding world. I do not see that happening as much as it should. Another observation, clearly related to the first, is that people are placing less importance on listening. They would much rather be in the role of message sender than message receiver. This is understandable, yet unfortunate.

Therefore, the growing ailment of isolation is directly linked to a decline in our interpersonal skills. The less effort we makes in making and sustaining connections, the greater our sense of feeling alone. Given this, it leads so many of us to wondering why more folks are not reaching out to us. Instead, we should be trying to figure out ways we can more effectively reach out to others. Does this mean we all should become social butterflies? No. But it does mean we may want to begin viewing what we see, hear and read with a perspective that goes beyond our own. To do so calls for an adjustment in how we go about communicating with all those around us.

Ping Pong Communication Challenge

Growing up, my parents kept a ping pong (table tennis for you purists) table in our basement. I spent many many hours playing and for a while was actually pretty good. I remember my Uncle George used to have what I considered to be epic battles. Upon further reflection, it is very possible that my "second father" held back so as to keep things interesting for me. I take this quick trip down memory lane as next week all of us at work are participating in what we hope will be a fun table tennis tournament. Strictly an internal event, this event is being organized as a team building exercise to help boost office morale.

Another primary purpose is to strengthen inner-office communication. This is why all the matches in our so-called tournament will be one team versus another. By random drawing, everyone, including our president, has been teamed up with a co-worker not of their choosing. This means for the duration of their games, people are going to have to work closely with another in a situation that will certainly be fast-paced, hopefully fun, and perhaps even a tad stressful. Plus, some folks at our workplace claim to be good players while others, like myself, describe themselves as being are less than that in ability. Given all these elements, each team is going to be faced with a genuine communication challenge.

Such a challenge is going to be one faced by all players and all teams, regardless of their ability or whether they win or lose. Each player will need to communicate verbally and non-verbally with their partner as well as be able to assess the actions of their opponents. While there is no question each person's level of skill will be a determining factor in who ultimately wins or does well, how well they communicate will also play a major role. Such an observation applies to a multitude of life's scenarios, not just ping pong.  

  
 

Less Fear, More Understanding

So, the ultimate goal of communication is to generate better understanding between individuals and publics. It is not necessarily to create agreement though that would certainly be nice. People have their own perspectives, opinions, etc. and that is ok. Despite that, it should not be an excuse to not at least "get" where another person is coming. Effective communicating from all sides - and this includes active listening and mutual respect - can pave the way for genuine understanding. The ultimate result of that is what Edward Bernays mentioned when attempting to define public relations: it creates a harmonious adjustments between publics.

When it comes to understanding, perhaps Madam Curie said it best: "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." With so much shouting at, name calling and stereo-typing within our world, unnecessary fear, in many ways, seems to be having a field day. While I would love for it all stop immediately, as a society we would definitely be on the way to eradicating it if all of us were more dedicated to better understanding that and those which we tend to fear. The question, it seems, is how best to begin making that happen. What role can communication play?

My suggestion is for communicators - the ones who get paid to do that for a living - is to begin dedicating more of their abilities to inform or educate rather than persuade. Such a request, I know, is a tall order. But it is not an impossible one to work toward. It can be done. People are more at their best when they are informed. Generally, they tend to make better choices and behave more kindly and rationally. So many miscues and divisions occur more out of ignorance. Ignorance and false and misleading information also breed intolerance. And all this leads to the fear to which Madam Curie referred.

Enough With the "Fake News" Label!

There continues to be much talk about "fake news" these days. Without question, it is the voice of President Trump that is the loudest when it comes to the use of this term. Others, of course, have picked up on it, but his remains the one that is most dominant.  In theory, the phase refers to those media outlets that make-up stories and then print, post or air them tough knowing they are false and/or misleading. In reality, at least when used by Trump, the term now seems to largely pertain to those stories that are critical or unfavorable rather than inaccurate. When it comes to the media, our President seems to have a low threshold as to what he considers to be "fake."

Presently, the general public seems to hold the media in low esteem. (In fairness, according to the Pew Research Group, it seems to hold the government in even lower esteem.) What makes this so hurtful to our nation is the fact it is the media that provides almost all of us with the information and context we depend upon in order to try and make informed decisions. But with the President so heavily and consistently critical of the media or press, it is understandable that many citizens are beginning to share his negative perspective. The result is this is not a good time to be working as a reporter or editor. 

With these sources of information seeing their credibility erode (along with that of government officials), it is no wonder that there is a disturbing portion of our society that seems lost when it comes to either having information it can count on as being accurate or fair. Many even seem to have difficulty identifying those media outlets that are honorable and trustworthy. All this represents a breakdown in communication - a social science we as a people need more than ever. The road to betterment needs to be navigated on truth. Truth is only as effective as how willing people are to give it their confidence. For that to happen, my hope is that all this "fake news" business will stop.

Reality Check

I tend to put a great deal of stock on communication. At times, I come across as viewing effective communication as a panacea for contending with all problems between people and even nations. If people communicate openly, fully and respectfully, then there is little that cannot be addressed and, if conflict is in the air, solved. After all, what obstacle could withstand such an assault, especially when coming from all sides of an issue? That tends to be my mantra. But is what I suggest true? Maybe. Actually, make that a very big maybe. As wonderful as communicating effectively is, it is important that it be discussed with a heavy dose of reality.

The hard truth is effective communication does not magically tear down walls, eliminate disagreement, or solve problems. Assuming two people are arguing in good faith, for example. No one is lieing, being closed-minded or disrespectful. They simply see an issue from a different perspective and believe their view is right. The reality is no amount of effective communication can or will change that. The opposing parties will continue to be on opposite sides. Even if each focuses on the so-called greater good of an issue, disagreement will remain. Effective communication, in truth, is not going to change or "fix" that.

I need to not lose sight of that or event hint that that is the case. Effective communication, in essence, is not the magic pill that will turn conflict into resolution. Having embraced that reality, however, this is not to suggest communicating effectively does not have its pluses. At best, it can and does lead to greater understanding and that is no small thing. Far from it. Two parties may agree to disagree, but at least by understanding and even respecting the other's perspective, they have a better chance of carrying on in a more harmonious way. Particularly in much of today's world, I, for one, will take that. That is not a bad reality to embrace.

Moving Beyond Noise

My parents were like many that try to encourage their child or children to play a musical instrument. Looking back at what seems like a hundred years ago, one Saturday morning my parents had a man over to our house who specialized in selling musical instruments. For whatever reason, he brought with him an accordion. (I have to assume he did this at the suggestion of my parents. Where they got the idea that I would be interested in learning to play this particular instrument will forever remain a mystery.) I remember the man had me strap on this thing and showing me how to run my fingers up and down the keyboard and make what can only be described as noise come out of it.

Even though with his coaching I did play a few notes, I would not characterize that as playing the accordion any more than I would describe a monkey sitting in front of a piano and banging on the key board as "playing the piano." (I say that with no disrespect intended toward monkeys.) Playing any kind of musical instrument calls for far more than simply making sounds. Such an act requires a certain level of knowledge regarding notes and scales as well as an appreciation of the discipline required in learning to play even the simplest of compositions. Most any one can produce sound but not everyone can actually play an instrument.

This brings me to communication. All of us can make sound. We can all even communicate meaning even if we are uncertain of what specific words to use. But does having the ability to do this make us communicators? My answer is "no." As it is with musical instruments, effective communicating requires knowledge of language and grammar and even an ability to see/hear things through the eyes/ears of others. Without that knowledge base, generally the result is not all that different than what I produced as a child with that accordion. These days there are many noise makers in the world.  Is there any one who does not believe we need less of those and more actual communicators? As a people, we need to move beyond the ability to make noise.