There is a classic study where a group of people are brought together to witness a singular event. The event occurs and these witnesses are isolated and asked to describe what they just saw. Invariably, numerous versions of the same event are described making one wonder what, in fact, really happened. People have their own lenses and their own biases. As a result, these traits help shape what they feel, experience and, in the case of this experiment, see. For instance, one person may perceive a particular act to be more important than another. The result is they either minimize or even omit it in their description of what they witnessed. To another person, that piece of information may be extremely important and, as a result, is given a high priority in their version.
One thing these two witnesses of the same event in this experiment have in common is they are describing what they saw from their own perspective, not anyone else's. Often times, communicators or professional public relations practitioners do not have this luxury. In putting together a particular message, it is essential communicators maintain a strong awareness of how their publics perceive a particular matter. An example would be a public issue such as global warming. When putting together a communication strategy with carefully crafted messages, communicators need to know such things as the questions and/or concerns a public might have about the issue; the perspectives the public might have; their level of knowledge; how the issue might currently be affecting them; and other sources of information on this issue to which they have been exposed.
With this insight into a particular public, the communicator can shape their message in a way that specifically addresses some of the concerns and questions the public might have. As a result, it makes the message more relevant to the public and raises the odds people pay more attention to it and possibly even support it. All this is to say messages devised by professional communicators require thought, research and an awareness of what others are thinking and perceiving. It is vital, of course, for communicators to create messages that accurately reflect their own views. But it helps when one has a strong sense of how others are perceiving that same issue. Messages should not be things that are quickly thrown together the same way a quarterback launches a Hail Mary pass at the end of tight ballgame. The quarterback takes the hike, drops back, tosses a long pass to a receiver and hopes for the best. Communicators - good ones - do that, too, from time to time, only their effort should be much more strategic.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Longevity
There is something to be said for being around for a long time. For instance, living a long time generates a certain level of respect. Having a few years under one's belt does tend to bring with it at least a smattering of wisdom and valuable experience. These are no small things. Wisdom and experience, for instance, help all of us develop a sense of what actions work better than others or teaches us how to interact with others in ways that keep unwanted conflict or resistance to a minimum. Neither one of these are small things, either. Talking with people who have obtained some degree of longevity has its benefits as well.
As part of a work-related project, I recently interviewed five individuals who have worked at the same place for forty years. That, needless to say, is an extremely long time. Think of all that has transpired in our country and world during that time: Nixon's resignation, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of social media, and the beginning of a new century. On a personal front, during that time period I became a parent, lost both of my own parents, and moved from one state to another. Yet these individuals have worked at one place for all that time and from the gist of their conversation are not yet ready to enter into retirement. I say "good for them" and for all others who choose to hang their hats at one place or in one situation for what we often call "the long haul."
Long-term connections, long-term relationships and long-term efforts very much have their place in our world. From a communication standpoint, it is my sense that one important lesson that comes with longevity is a greater appreciation of listening. Though I am not old enough to be mistaken for Father Time, I have come to learn a couple of important tidbits: often times the perspectives and insights of others make a lot more sense than mine; a very effective way to increase one's knowledge base is by listening and gathering information; talking is not always what it is cracked up to be; and the sound of my own voice - either out loud or in writing - does not always sound as good to others as it does to me. For me, at least, those lessons came about through longevity.
As part of a work-related project, I recently interviewed five individuals who have worked at the same place for forty years. That, needless to say, is an extremely long time. Think of all that has transpired in our country and world during that time: Nixon's resignation, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of social media, and the beginning of a new century. On a personal front, during that time period I became a parent, lost both of my own parents, and moved from one state to another. Yet these individuals have worked at one place for all that time and from the gist of their conversation are not yet ready to enter into retirement. I say "good for them" and for all others who choose to hang their hats at one place or in one situation for what we often call "the long haul."
Long-term connections, long-term relationships and long-term efforts very much have their place in our world. From a communication standpoint, it is my sense that one important lesson that comes with longevity is a greater appreciation of listening. Though I am not old enough to be mistaken for Father Time, I have come to learn a couple of important tidbits: often times the perspectives and insights of others make a lot more sense than mine; a very effective way to increase one's knowledge base is by listening and gathering information; talking is not always what it is cracked up to be; and the sound of my own voice - either out loud or in writing - does not always sound as good to others as it does to me. For me, at least, those lessons came about through longevity.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The State of Conversation
Recently, I was reading an article AARP's monthly magazine (Yes, I am old enough to receive that publication) about the state of conversations in our society. Generally, the author expressed concern at how the rise of such social media outlets as emails, twittering and blackberries and the in-hurry lifestyle of so many people have contributed to an overall deteriation in the quality of conversations that people have as well as in people's ability to converse in ways they used to. In short, it was suggested, we do not seem to talk as well as we used to. I tend to agree with the premise of the article though only in part. There is no question, for instance, that the various forms of social media we now know have contributed significantly to the state of communication. This includes verbal interaction between people. Further, as lifestyles do influence so much of what we do and how we do it, the fact that so many people seem to be juggling multiple balls in the air on any given day makes taking time to sit down and converse with others in a meaningful way much more of a challenge.
Having said that, however, I think people can and do talk effectively with each other - when they have and take the time. But finding the time is not always easy to do. And then there is the matter of being in a situation where conversation is welcome. For most of us to do anything where we feel safe and comfortable and free to not be at our best requires effective communication. As it is with the tango, there must be two to make it happen; a sender and receiver for communication to take wing. Specific to conversation, there must be at least two committed to helping make a shared understanding or a connection take place. Thus, face-to-face conversation as we know it remains alive. In today's frenetic world, however, there is much that competes with it. The result is we all have to work harder to make it happen.
All of us are communicators even if we do not have that label in our various job titles or job responsibilities. So, if we as members of society still value conversations, then we must continue to dedicate or commit ourselves to making sure they continue to happen as well as to playing an active part in ensuring their quality remains as high as possible. I know. I know. All of us already have enough on our plates as it is. Paying our bills. Being nice to others. Trying to be responsible citizens. The list goes on and on. Does helping keep conversations alive and well have to added to that endless list? Without question, the answer is "yes." And, just for the record, it should be at the top.
Having said that, however, I think people can and do talk effectively with each other - when they have and take the time. But finding the time is not always easy to do. And then there is the matter of being in a situation where conversation is welcome. For most of us to do anything where we feel safe and comfortable and free to not be at our best requires effective communication. As it is with the tango, there must be two to make it happen; a sender and receiver for communication to take wing. Specific to conversation, there must be at least two committed to helping make a shared understanding or a connection take place. Thus, face-to-face conversation as we know it remains alive. In today's frenetic world, however, there is much that competes with it. The result is we all have to work harder to make it happen.
All of us are communicators even if we do not have that label in our various job titles or job responsibilities. So, if we as members of society still value conversations, then we must continue to dedicate or commit ourselves to making sure they continue to happen as well as to playing an active part in ensuring their quality remains as high as possible. I know. I know. All of us already have enough on our plates as it is. Paying our bills. Being nice to others. Trying to be responsible citizens. The list goes on and on. Does helping keep conversations alive and well have to added to that endless list? Without question, the answer is "yes." And, just for the record, it should be at the top.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Matchmaker Matchmaker
One of the catchier and more durable tunes to come out of Broadway over the past 30-40 years is "Matchmaker Matchmaker" from "Fiddler on the Roof." Even today I think one would be hard pressed to find someone who has not at least heard of the song. In the show, it is performed by a young female who is hoping to find a true love who she can marry and live happily with forever. At its most effective, communication does much the same thing with one exception. It does not focus on romance, nor is its primary purpose to serve as a catalyst that brings people together for matrimony, hanky panky or just plain hanging out. (Although, in all fairness, none of those things can or would happen without communication.) On a more global level, communication is a primary tool for bringing together publics and, yes, even individuals to face common challenges, build on shared interests and even explore areas of mutual concern.
Town hall meetings are a case in point. These are forums in which people gather to communicate. Many have been held throughout the country over the past year regarding health care, for instance. In them, people travel to a particular location to discuss this topic, raise questions about it, voice their concerns, and make known their views on it. Sometimes the communication that goes on here is not pretty or is even off-putting. At other times, it is inspiring and informative. Either way, the communication that occurs reflects efforts to build a bridge or match people by helping them identify points around which they might rally.
Communicators are match makers. They devise strategies and message points to share as well as to elicit support and agreement. Matchmaking. People come together often on the basis of what is communicated and how something is communiated. Even if people or publics disagree about something and ultimately decide not to maintain a connection, the mere fact they have come together at all is often a good thing because more often than not greater understanding is the by-product.
Town hall meetings are a case in point. These are forums in which people gather to communicate. Many have been held throughout the country over the past year regarding health care, for instance. In them, people travel to a particular location to discuss this topic, raise questions about it, voice their concerns, and make known their views on it. Sometimes the communication that goes on here is not pretty or is even off-putting. At other times, it is inspiring and informative. Either way, the communication that occurs reflects efforts to build a bridge or match people by helping them identify points around which they might rally.
Communicators are match makers. They devise strategies and message points to share as well as to elicit support and agreement. Matchmaking. People come together often on the basis of what is communicated and how something is communiated. Even if people or publics disagree about something and ultimately decide not to maintain a connection, the mere fact they have come together at all is often a good thing because more often than not greater understanding is the by-product.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Job Interviews
To my mind, I have no doubt that in the history of mankind a candidate has ever walked out of a job interview and thought to him or herself, "That was fun," and actually meant it. Maybe it happened one hundred years ago. Maybe it happened yesterday. I do not know. What I do know is I have yet to meet such a person. The closest I have come to that is hearing someone indicate they felt the interview went well or that it was interesting or that the time really flew by. But fun? Not yet any way. Certainly the traditional job interview process is not designed to show the candidate a good time. It is stressful, a bit intimidating and, in many ways, unrelenting. The candidate sits down in front one person or a committee who may be smiling but are thinking thoughts that range from "Show me" to "What can this person do for us?" to "I hope this doesn't take long cause I have a lot of work piling up on my desk" to "I hope this isn't a waste of time." Without question, interviewers are a tough crowd.
The reality is job interviews are challenging situations for any and all candidates. There simply is no getting around that. Candidates need to be prepared, have a good idea what it is they want to say about themselves, be well versed on the job and company to whom they are applying, and take these interactions very seriously even if they happen to know people who are doing the interviewing. From a communication standpoint, one piece of advice I give people who are preparing for upcoming interviews is to always keep in mind one truism: interviews are a lot more about the people doing the interviewing then they are about the candidate. I understand this may seem at odds with conventional wisdom, particularly since the candidate is there to promote him or herself and do most of the talking. But think about it. The prospective boss wants to know what you can do for them. How can you make their professional life easier? How can you help their company produce a record number of widgets next year? What skills do you have to help make their company regain its mojo?
The candidate must know their audience. By this I mean answers or responses to all questions or comments from the interviewers must be framed in a way that speaks to their needs and wishes. For example: Question: "Tell us about your background, candidate X." Response: "Since graduating from college I have gained experience and developed skill sets that speak directly to the responsibilities of this position and to the mission of the company." Here's another: "Why are you interested in this position?" Response: "Your company is seeking an employee who is creative and who works well with others. My background melds perfectly with what you are seeking." All responses should be framed in a way that first speak to the needs of the company and then to the strengths of the candidate. Doing this consistently still may not make a job interview fun, but it will certainly increase the odds of making it successful.
The reality is job interviews are challenging situations for any and all candidates. There simply is no getting around that. Candidates need to be prepared, have a good idea what it is they want to say about themselves, be well versed on the job and company to whom they are applying, and take these interactions very seriously even if they happen to know people who are doing the interviewing. From a communication standpoint, one piece of advice I give people who are preparing for upcoming interviews is to always keep in mind one truism: interviews are a lot more about the people doing the interviewing then they are about the candidate. I understand this may seem at odds with conventional wisdom, particularly since the candidate is there to promote him or herself and do most of the talking. But think about it. The prospective boss wants to know what you can do for them. How can you make their professional life easier? How can you help their company produce a record number of widgets next year? What skills do you have to help make their company regain its mojo?
The candidate must know their audience. By this I mean answers or responses to all questions or comments from the interviewers must be framed in a way that speaks to their needs and wishes. For example: Question: "Tell us about your background, candidate X." Response: "Since graduating from college I have gained experience and developed skill sets that speak directly to the responsibilities of this position and to the mission of the company." Here's another: "Why are you interested in this position?" Response: "Your company is seeking an employee who is creative and who works well with others. My background melds perfectly with what you are seeking." All responses should be framed in a way that first speak to the needs of the company and then to the strengths of the candidate. Doing this consistently still may not make a job interview fun, but it will certainly increase the odds of making it successful.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Special Ingredients
Recently I attended a concert that was a celebration of the songs of Frank Sinatra. The singer had a pleasant voice. The song selection was good and the band behind him was strong. Watching the performance, I recalled a story I once read about Sinatra that happened many years ago. He had left the Tommy Dorsey orchestra and been on his own for several years. In an interview, Dorsey was asked about the singer he hired to replace Sinatra - Dick Haynes. "I don't understand it," Dorsey said. "He's (Haynes) doing the same songs with the same arrangements but somehow it's different." Indeed. This is not meant as a criticism of Haynes or of the singer I saw the other night. They were and are fine. But they were and are no Sinatra.
As much as anything when it came to doing what he did best, Sinatra's greatest strength was his ability to communicate. As a communicator of lyrics - upbeat or sad - he was credible. He was believable. Lots of singers, past and present, have and have had great voices. Lots of singers, past and present, perform and have performed great songs. But one would be hard pressed to name any as consistently credible as Sinatra when it came to communicating the essence of a particular song. It was his great gift and our great treasure. In the world of communication, Sinatra's talent represented the ultimate goal of any one's attempt to connect with others.
It is tempting and perhaps a bit accurate to characterize Sinatra's gift as pure and simple magic. But the fact is throughout his 60 year-long career Sinatra worked extremely hard at his craft and at maintaining his level of excellence. Even with the magic that was him, he would not have been nearly as successful as he was without also having a very strong work ethic. Communicators everywhere can and should take note of this. Being consistently credible, personable, engaging and inclusive in how one communicates takes practice, practice and more practice. It also requires a commitment to expanding one's base of knowledge. Those are the so-called special ingredients that go into successful communication. The career of Ol' Blue Eyes serves as a perfect example.
As much as anything when it came to doing what he did best, Sinatra's greatest strength was his ability to communicate. As a communicator of lyrics - upbeat or sad - he was credible. He was believable. Lots of singers, past and present, have and have had great voices. Lots of singers, past and present, perform and have performed great songs. But one would be hard pressed to name any as consistently credible as Sinatra when it came to communicating the essence of a particular song. It was his great gift and our great treasure. In the world of communication, Sinatra's talent represented the ultimate goal of any one's attempt to connect with others.
It is tempting and perhaps a bit accurate to characterize Sinatra's gift as pure and simple magic. But the fact is throughout his 60 year-long career Sinatra worked extremely hard at his craft and at maintaining his level of excellence. Even with the magic that was him, he would not have been nearly as successful as he was without also having a very strong work ethic. Communicators everywhere can and should take note of this. Being consistently credible, personable, engaging and inclusive in how one communicates takes practice, practice and more practice. It also requires a commitment to expanding one's base of knowledge. Those are the so-called special ingredients that go into successful communication. The career of Ol' Blue Eyes serves as a perfect example.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
A Tale of Two Universities
How many us hear or see the fantastic amounts of money one can win in some of those multi-state lotteries such as Powerball or Mega-Millions and fantasize - at least for a few moments - of how great it would be to have the winning ticket and take home all that money? How could we not? I bet most people even play out in their heads what they would do with the money if they were to win. Of course, going from a life of living from paycheck to paycheck to suddenly no longer having a financial care in the world would be a positive turn in anyone's life. But as good as becoming financially-independent might be, it would still carry with it its share of stress and challenge. In other words, even good things can be stressful. Good things, not just bad, can be viewed as a crisis.
This observation is the focus of what I hope to turn into an interesting dissertation. By way of illustration, I am going to conduct an extensive analysis of what were arguably two of the most widely covered incidents in American higher education in the past decade: George Mason University's amazing 2006 run to the NCAA Final Four and, one year later, the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech. The two occurrences brought unprecedented attention to each institution. One was a time of great celebration and triumph while the other was gut-wrenching and tragic. Both, coincidentally, happened in Virginia. Both provided each institution with unique communication challenges in terms of striving to manage events and messages.
As I am at the very beginning of researching this topic, it is far too early to speculate on how well each institution, from a communication standpoint, performed under such broad and intense public scrutiny and overwhelming pressure. But my sense is it is going to be interesting to find out. I am also guessing George Mason and Virginia Tech faced many of the same communication challenges despite the fact one was contending with something very positive and the other with something very negative. Did each institution have a communication plan? How well did they stick to their plans? How similar were the publics and stakeholders with which each institution contended? What were the specific communication strategies of each institution? These are just a few questions I wish to explore. A tale of two universities. Opposite ends of the coin, yet similar challenges.
This observation is the focus of what I hope to turn into an interesting dissertation. By way of illustration, I am going to conduct an extensive analysis of what were arguably two of the most widely covered incidents in American higher education in the past decade: George Mason University's amazing 2006 run to the NCAA Final Four and, one year later, the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech. The two occurrences brought unprecedented attention to each institution. One was a time of great celebration and triumph while the other was gut-wrenching and tragic. Both, coincidentally, happened in Virginia. Both provided each institution with unique communication challenges in terms of striving to manage events and messages.
As I am at the very beginning of researching this topic, it is far too early to speculate on how well each institution, from a communication standpoint, performed under such broad and intense public scrutiny and overwhelming pressure. But my sense is it is going to be interesting to find out. I am also guessing George Mason and Virginia Tech faced many of the same communication challenges despite the fact one was contending with something very positive and the other with something very negative. Did each institution have a communication plan? How well did they stick to their plans? How similar were the publics and stakeholders with which each institution contended? What were the specific communication strategies of each institution? These are just a few questions I wish to explore. A tale of two universities. Opposite ends of the coin, yet similar challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)