"Communicating Something Larger"

A new book on the trials and tribulations of speechwriting recently hit the book stores. Appropriately called "The Speechwriter," author Barton Swaim talks about his time writing speeches and talking points for then-Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford. Sanford, who currently is serving as a member of Congress, gained national recognition - and was the brunt of a lot of late-night talk show jokes - for the time he told everyone, including his staff and family, he was going hiking along the Appalachian Trail when, in fact, he was flying down to Argentina to visit his mistress. It did not end well for him. Swaim was his speech writer when all this happened.


One part of the book that struck me was a particular conversation between Swaim and Sanford when Sanford discussed his desire to "communicate something larger." As someone who has given talks before various audiences as well as written remarks for others to make before an array of people, I can completely relate to Sanford's wish. All of us, I believe, want to say things that are profound, have impact and, ultimately, are remembered. Writers, without question, want to write "large" in the sense that their words will live far beyond the seconds it takes one to read and/or hear them. Such a desire revolves around our own hope of being remembered beyond our time.


The truth, of course, is that this rarely, if ever, happens. How many writers, for instance, have penned something as lasting and memorable as "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."? How many of us have articulated a concept that comes even close to "......to hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal......"? These are examples of "large" writing. Is such a phenomenon  a fluke? Yes and no. Yes, in the same sense a winning lottery ticket is. But, no, in the sense that for the winning ticket to appear, we first much purchase it. In other words, communicating "large" requires constant effort.


    

One More Purpose of Writing

Traditionally, the act of writing has been viewed as a way of recording past events and sharing information. Certainly there is no denying the logic of such a conclusion. After all, anything most any of us read contains tidbits that help expand our own knowledge base. Earlier in his career, however, the late anthropologist Claude Levi-Srauss, identified by many as "the father of modern anthropologist," concluded that writing has had another significant purpose: the exploitation of human beings rather than the enlightenment of them. (This is discussed in a fine new book by scholar Matthew Battles called "Palimpsest.")


Levi-Strauss made this observation while connecting with natives as he and his group traveled down the Amazon River. The chief of one particular tribe, he noticed, mimicked the note taking that Levi-Strauss was doing by making his own scribble marks on various pieces of paper. The scribbles were just that. They were not words or sentences or even drawings. Rather, according to the anthropologist, the actions of the chief represented his attempt to further solidify his authority over his tribe and make them believe he was pretending to communicate in this manner as a way to "facilitate slavery."


For me, such an observation adds a unique dimension to this form of communication that I had never considered. Man's early sounds were often inarticulate grunts. Words, on the other hand, represented - and still do - an attempt of establishing order in how and what one communicates with another. The tribal chief that Levi-Strauss observed used his so-called ability to write in order to impress his followers and reaffirm the notion that he, and only he, was able to communicate at this higher level. Thus, the members of the tribe were wise to continue to support his position of power. This is very much in-keeping with how many of us in today's world defer to those who write books even if what they put-down on paper is little more than scribble.  

Unnatural Act

Each day all of us wake, we are driven by one fundamental goal: to survive. We want to get through the day. Of course, we want our day to go well; we want to have fun; we want to achieve an assortment of goals; we want to feel good about ourselves; and we want to feel good about ourselves. While all these and perhaps other objectives are worthy and universal, they represent add-ons to the one basic goal that serves as the primary force that compels us to put one foot in front of the other: survive. To live. All of us are born and devote each day, save for some type of mental and/or emotional trauma, to doing all we can to keep that going for as long as we can.


Such a truism represents a basic truth about us: we are driven by what is best for us. Each of our days and the actions we take within him are fundamentally shaped by our need to do what is best for us. In other words, each days our number one priority is us. This, I should note, does not make us bad. Simply, it makes us who and even what we are. What, then, does this have to do with effective communication and the field of public relations? In a nutshell, those who fancy themselves as being professionals in the communication business function in a way that runs counter to the bottom-line truth about us as living beings.


Those in public relations do what they can on behalf of others. Their goal is to help others meet their goals. Yes, they put forth their recommendations and suggestions, but the client, ultimately, tells them what they want for "me" and the public relations practitioner then devotes their energy toward carrying out the client's wishes. In reference to communicating effectively, the challenge revolves around how well one listens and relates to those with whom they are speaking. The kind of selfless acts taken by professional communicators are not easy as they go against our own instinctive motivating forces. One could even go as far as to say they are unnatural.

Mother Hen

Few of us like walking into most any situation unprepared. What are people going to be talking about? What is going to be expected of me? Am I going to have to talk? If so, what should I focus on? Who else is going to be there? What are there backgrounds? These are just a few of the many questions that pop their heads out of the ground whenever we find ourselves looking ahead to an upcoming event or meeting we are scheduled to attend. In many cases, they are very basic questions that by themselves may not seem all that vital. Collectively, however, they can often spell the difference between confident and making a good impression and not.


Not surprisingly, often times chief executives and other leading administrators and officers find themselves about to participate in some sort of activity but lack all the necessary background information they need to feel at-ease in terms of their own performance and how well they represent their company or organization. One of the vital roles of any public relations worker is to help give the "big boss" greater peace-of-mind during these times. They do this by anticipating those kind of basic questions, producing answers to them, and then reviewing them with the executive so they will be better able to do well.


At these times, the public relations worker takes on the role of "mother hen." They are very protective of their boss because they know if the boss does well, is satisfied and feeling secure, then it will bode well for all who report to them. Also, it enhances the image of the organization, which is a leading goal for any public relations professional in their efforts to promote a client. Taking on the role of the executive's protector is not always easy. One does not want to be overprotective where the executive feels as if they are being manipulated or used. Being a good protector requires establishing a viable working relationship with the executive. Establishing such a positive connection benefits everyone within the organization.

How Can I Help?

There are different ways all of us can choose to go through life. One is from a "What's in it for me?" perspective. In this case, the person approaches the challenges of their day with a single-minded focus of doing what is best for them, making their goals their biggest priority. While there is nothing wrong with this, such a mindset does suggest a vision that leaves little room for what others might want or need. Another way, perhaps on the other end of the spectrum, is to approach the day with an attitude of, at least, giving the goals of others equal priority to one's own. There is nothing wrong with this, either, though it does suggest an openness that makes it difficult for one to take care of themselves.


When it comes to communication, of the two, which one is more applicable? Which vision should, say, a public relations practitioner have? Given that these professionals are in the relationship business, their attitude needs to be more of "How can I help?" As is the case in any relationship where individuals or even groups come together to content with a mutual concern or simply because they enjoy each other's company, for the coupling to truly work, each side must view things from a perspective of "us" rather than "me." In such a dynamic, what is best for the group often takes precedence over what is best for an individual member.


For those in public relations, the work day for these professionals is not about them. While they have a to-do list just like any one else, the difference is that which is on their agenda for the day is driven  by the wants and needs of others. The success of  a communicator's day is measured by how well they help others advance and, ultimately, succeed at achieving their goals. The moment a public relations worker gives their own goals greater importance or priority over others - specifically a client -  then their ability to manage how well others connect and collaborate is comprised. "How can I help?" represents a vision that helps ensure that will not happen.

Loss

There are few things in life more permanent or definitive than loss. In sports, for example, one team loses to another. Than cannot be taken back. Once the final tallies are in, one of the participants has sustained a loss. In another scenario, a person loses, say an ear ring. It is gone not to be found again. Thee losses are irreversible. On a deeper level, there is the loss of life. A loved one passes away and that person's physical persona becomes a memory. Sure, there are photos of them, artifacts they once owned, and perhaps even recordings or videos of them. But the actual presence of them where they can be experienced first-hand is gone. It is a loss.

A communication challenge everyone faces in life is helping others cope with the loss a loved-one. What words can adequately fill the gap that has suddenly appeared in their lives?  What message can be put forth that truly balances the pain and sadness they feel from the passing of one close to them? If specific words that do all this exist, then I have yet to hear them. I certainly have not yet been able to conjure them up when talking with one who is attempting to come to grips with such a severe loss in their life. This is not to say I do not try. Everyone does in these situations. To my mind, however, it remains a communication goal that has not yet been met.


Perhaps the best communication strategy at these times is found in not trying to come up with specific words. Instead, it is a time to let feelings - non-verbal communication - take over. The one suffering the deep loss is overwhelmed with feelings. Perhaps it is simply best to match them with like-feelings. Let the feelings take center stage and save the words for another day. At these times, people do not needs words as much as they need hugs and permission to let their emotions takeover for awhile. The experience of loss is a common denominator for us all. Our struggle to properly communicate during such reality is another.

Relationship Managers

Almost by definition, any one involved in communication should be involved in cultivating and maintaining relationships. Such people concern themselves with disseminating information and/or examining how those messages are received. Give and take. Consequently, they spend their days working to gain a better understanding of who and what those on the receiving end of their output are. The result is these communicators are tied to others if for no other reason than to be better at what they do. As what they do is connect with others, then the greater amount of information they have about others, then the better the chances are they will be successful communicators. 


I mention this as a way of suggesting this is one more quality that public relations practitioners and journalists have in common. Both are in the business of cultivating and maintaining relationships. In essence, they are relationship managers. My guess is this shared quality is not something many have acknowledged. Still, it has existed since the beginning when public relations agents first began hounding reporters to write something about their client nearly 200 years ago. Before then, journalists worked as relationship managers though they probably never thought of themselves in that capacity. The coming of those pesky PR types only added to that aspect of their work.


So, in addition to being able to write well, having to often work under the pressure of meeting deadlines, and producing work that is highly visible to others, journalists and public relations workers also need to do well at interacting with others but ensuring those interactions, generally, are positive. The two do not operate in a vacuum. Because they need others in order to do their jobs, this calls upon them to display some level of niceness. So, to any journalists reading this, play nice. To any public relations practitioners also taking a few moments to wade through this entry, do not be put off if reporters seem to fluff off any of your overtures. Their relationship with you is just as vital as yours is to them.