Monday, December 31, 2018

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.

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

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.



Friday, December 21, 2018

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.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

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. 

Saturday, December 15, 2018

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.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

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.

Friday, December 7, 2018

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.


Tuesday, December 4, 2018

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.