Perpetual Conflict

I always enjoy coming across new ideas that provide greater insight into the challenges of communication. Recently, I "discovered" biologist E.O. Wilson who has put forth a new theory on man's behavior. Wilson says man is driven by what he labels "group selection" and "individual selection." Group selection is characterized by man's recognition that we need each other to survive. As a result, we create connections with others in the form of such things as clubs, neighborhoods, family units, shopping centers, and even Facebook. On the other hand, individual selection speaks to our drive to do our own thing, stand out from the crowd, be noticed, and, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, "march to the beat of our own drummer." These two internal drives encapsulate a fundamental struggle within all of us, according to Wilson.

It is no wonder, then, that communication is such a challenging enterprise for all of us. Whether we are a professional communicator or a so-called regular person doing what they can to interact well with others, it is important to understand this internal reality within humans. Years before Wilson came on the scene, psychologist Abraham Maslow also touched on the duality within us in his hierarchy of needs. Maslow said we all possess a need for self-actualization as well as a need for acceptance and membership in a group of some sort. The idea of picturing how this internal dual personality of ours reconciles all efforts to communicate with us is intriguing.

Campaigners urge us to support their candidate. Advertisers beg us buy their product. Children try to talk other children into taking their first puff of a cigarette. The examples are plentiful. A big part of our internal decision making process is reconciling whether we want to go along with or stand apart from others. Sometimes this decision is not easy. What is interesting is that just as our eventual decisions come from one of those two places, appeals made to us are often triggered by an acknowledgment of the existence of our innate duality as articulated by Maslow and, now, Wilson.

Classic Mistake

How often do people have to make the same mistake before it finally sinks in that that is not the way to handle revelations of criminal and bad behavior? I'm talking to you Penn State. This institution and its highly-acclaimed and successful football program has been rocked to the core because of the alleged criminal behavior of one of the coaches on its team. It seems as if over a number of years he has been sexually abusing young boys. Just as tragically, folks within the organization knew about it and did little of note to stop this man's perverse behavior or did what should have been done from the beginning: go to the police.

One early consequence of this scandal is that the team's legendary coach, Joe Paterno, has been dismissed. Many are protesting this decision because of the affection and regard they have for this man who is the most successful coach in college football history. I, however, believe his removal was the best and right thing to do. From a public relations standpoint, this decision demonstrates the institution's commitment to running a clean program and the seriousness in which it is taking this matter. Further, their decision to dismiss Paterno illustrates that no one, regardless of their reputation or standing in the community, is deserving of special treatment when the law is involved.

Looking at what is happening at Penn State, I am reminded of the scandals involving the Catholic Church. It, too, has had problems with people of authority sexually abusing young boys. Church authorities also demonstrated poor and immoral judgment when dealing with their internal challenges scandals involving the sexual abuse of young boys. Both organizations tried to protect themselves rather than deal with the problem in an honest and forthright way. In the case of Penn State, it has suffered a major setback in its reputation. It now has an enormous hole of of which it is going to be digging for years to come. Good public relations is about being honest and transparent and placing those values above all else. Penn State needs to get on board with that.

Zombies

I confess I do not understand the zombie craze that seems to be sweeping our nation. Zombies seem to be everywhere: movies, television shows, video games, numerous books, and even as the subject of college courses. To me, these flesh-eating undead creatures have little going for them. They walk around stiffly with their arms extended looking to chow down on any poor living being in their path. Their gait is slow, they do not speak and their level of intelligence is about the same as a door knob. If those deficiencies are not enough, they are also highly vulnerable. A simple bash to the head of a zombie with a baseball bat seems to be enough to stop them. Off hand, I would say vampires have a lot more going for them than zombies, even on their best day.

Yet in the fickle world of pop culture, zombies definitely seem to be the belle of the ball these days. Perhaps one thing zombies do have going for them in terms of terror is that they are so relentless and single-minded even more so than, say, sharks. Sharks, at least, do sleep from time to time and, for the most part, eat only when hungry. But not zombies. For them, it's eat eat eat. Do not get me wrong. Despite their limitations, I definitely label zombies as bad things. I sure would not want to find my house surrounded by them.

In terms of communication, I equate zombies with lies except lies can be worse. Sure, lies can be stopped, but often it takes the equivalent of a baseball bat to the head to do it. They are relentless and can do a great deal of damage if left unchecked. I am concerned this kind communication zombie - lies - are infiltrating our public discourse. Professional communicators, especially ones who are hired to represent the views and positions of clients, need to be extra careful about not unleashing any zombies - even little ones. I understand the temptation, but I also understand the damage they do regardless of whether they are designed to serve a positive end. An example is when the false that former Vice President Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. He did no such thing. Not once. Yet this lie, in some circles, seems to be accepted as fact. It is not fair to Gore or to the people on the receiving end of this communication zombie who do not know any better.

Zombies that seem to be so popular these days are notable because they are undead creatures. But untruths have a way of taking on life that does real and lasting damage to our entire society. This is why all of us, especially professional communicators, should never be far away from a baseball bat to squash them.

Occupy Communication

Looking back over 2011, it seems as if our country has seen a lot of protesting. More to the point, our country has been the subject of much protesting. We have seen thousands of people raising their voices against what they view as a federal government that has gotten far bigger than it either needs to be or should be. And then there are those who are speaking out against the fact the government has not played enough of a role in curbing the social and economic inequality that seems to have gripped our nation. Lots of angry people, all with valid perspectives, passion and comfortable in the certainty of their arguments. Either way, the various groups are doing all they can to be heard, in part, because they feel no one is listening. What's a country to do?

I do not see this situation as being hopeless or impossible to address. Despite their differences, one of the handicaps shared by both camps of concerned citizens is that neither seems to have the right kind of advocate in the halls of power: Congress or the White House. By "right kind," I mean leaders who are willing to try and rise above the raw emotion of their constituents; leaders who are compassionate and are capable of working toward the greater good of the nation rather than their own self interests. Such leaders could strive to dissect the dissatisfaction being expressed by those they represent, encapsulate what people are articulating, identify those main points that are similar in tone or substance, and then begin seeking ways to transform those points into action plans. I understand such a process is not as easy as it may sound just as I am aware that such selfless actions by elected officials are not carried out over night. But the good news is our country possesses the capability - the technology - to carry out such a massive communication effort.

Through such mechanisms as facebook, twitter, you tube and even good old fashion television, a series of townhall forums could be organized and hosted by leaders of both political parties. Such efforts could be their time to put on their listening caps rather than using comments from voters as a springboard to make campaign speeches. Conservatively, I estimate such a collective effort would attract millions of participants. Rather than simply react or try and address what is said to them, the host leaders could dialog with the participating citizens as well take extensive notes to accurately capture all that is said. Implementing such a communication process would enable all who care to regain or occupy much-needed communication and begin addressing our nation's concerns in a more inclusive way.

The Value of Instability

Our lives are not stable. Our world is not stable. Our days are filled with issues all of us worry about constantly. They range from the well being of our loved ones, the security of our jobs and our ability to meet our financial obligations to world peace, the mysterious sound our car engine makes in the morning and whether our favorite sports team is going to do well. The list, of course, is endless and is filled with issues of consequence as well as those that some might view as trivial. Either way, these worries are a constant part of our days. They fill our moments and if, by chance, they go away, they will be quickly replaced by others. To live a life of non-worry is to not live in reality. Is this a bother? At times, yes. Does it cause us stress? No doubt about it. But would I, for one, have it any other way? Not for a second.

My reason for that is articulated quite nicely in Aldous Huxley's classic, "Brave New World."The premise of this book is that people dwell in an environment of total and controlled stability. As the leader known as "the controller" says, "People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age...........they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave." This monologue is all part of the controller's rant against liberty. In his so-called brave new world, stability trumps happiness.

It is an interesting argument. To me, however, it reinforces the reality that is man's own innate desire for happiness. Just as we contend with a constant string of sources of worry each day, we also do what we can to move toward a greater level of happiness. But happiness does not come easy because it is constantly under siege from those very issues that cause us to worry. The two, in many ways, are our constant companions. This relates to communication because the act of communicating, no matter how well planned, is fraught with all manner of noise and potential interruptions. But the challenges that those hurdles represent are what often inspire us to communicate more effectively and then instill in us deeper levels of happiness and pride than we would otherwise have known.

The Numbers Game

The statemebnt "it takes two to tango" has been stated so often and for so long that it - and math - seem to be beyond refute. Still, I do find myself wondering every so often if it would be possible for three to tango. I suppose the choreography might be a bit trickier, but I bet it could be done. This leads me to wondering: how many does it take for communication to occur. One? Two? More than two? My sense is the answer to this question might not be as clear as the tango question. After all, in a pure sense, one person can make noise and therefore be said to be communicating. But if there is no one else around to hear that noise and possibly react to it, then did an act of communication actually occur?

I will leave it to others to wrestle with that. Instead, it seems more beneficial to speculate on the act of communicating itself rather that on whether a verbal or non-verbal act from an isolated individal constitues communication. Such an act, to be purposeful and successful, requires more than one. A sender and receiver need to be part of the mix. An actor and reactor. This is especially the case if one accepts the concept - as I do - that there are two primary purposes of communication: to persuade or to establish/maintain partnership. The scholar James Grunig and Todd Hunt are the ones that set forth this notion. It continues to be relevant today.

This, then, brings me back to numbers. There is the sender - one - and a receiver - two. However, suppose one is attempting to connect with multiple people? Does that grow the number of people it takes to communicate to a potentially unlimited total? My answer, based on the effectiveness of communication, is two. Every act of communication is based on the premise of reaching or connecting with another. One person responds to an overture such as an outreached hand. One person acts buys a product in respond to a fancy advertisement. Depending upon such variables as the range of the communication act first triggered by the sender, the effort can include multiple numbers. But at its most fundamental, communication, like the tango, comes down to one plus one.

Old Timers & Up and Comers

I guess you can say it is another example of the circle of life. Perhaps coincidentally, lately I have attended a number of meetings at which in attendance were veteran supervisors and their recently-hired assistants. Throughout the meetings, I was struck by several things: at how often the veterans deferred to their less-experienced assistants; and how articulate those young assistants were. While I am in no way suggesting these particular supervisors are in any way representative of all veteran supervisors, I did find it interesting they seemed to be making a conscious effort to let their underling have the spotlight.

Being professionally generous is a good thing on many levels. From a communication standpoint, it is an effective way of letting the assistant or person who is not the boss know they are valued and appreciated, that their abilities are recognized, and that their professional growth is a priority to the office. Further, it lets others know that the assistant is to be respected. Also, for me, watching those supervisors voluntarily relinquish the spotlight demonstrates the particular veteran places great importance on the needs of their office rather on just feeding their own egos.

Communication is an act of sharing. Connecting with others and then taking steps to maintain that connection requires what I call a "we" mentality rather than an "I" one. This perspective is better served if it comes from the person who is either in-charge, has seniority, or who is older-in-age. Generally, it is that person who has the clout or power. Consequently, power is better served when it is shared generously rather than used as a hammer over others. The supervisors I witnessed demonstrated a generosity that greatly benefited their own status, that of their staff member, the organization which they both serve, and the communication efforts between them.