Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘International’ Category

President Obama’s speech to the United Nations was an impressive, far-reaching and complex statement that ranged from Ukraine to extremism in every corner of the Middle East. He challenged governments to act, and young Muslims to resist extremist recruiters.

Words can influence, but actions often speak much louder.

My long-standing fear has been that even when warfare eliminates an extremely ruthless group, fighting violence with more violence will only inspire the appearance of still another group that is just as violent, or even worse.

Many in the Middle East think that well-intentioned past initiatives of Western countries to export their cultural values seriously backfired. Referred to now as imperialism and colonialism, they argue that there has been a naive belief that one country’s democracy can be transferred to another. And while it may be true that there is widespread desire for freedom, justice and opportunity, many around the world believe there is more than one way to achieve it. They argue it must grow more naturally out of local traditions and ways of doing things. The process can only be supported by the West, not imposed.  Apparently, selling American democracy as “exceptional” all along has been perceived by Islamic cultures as arrogant and naive.

When Western imperialism and colonialism failed there was no democratic system relevant to the culture  ready to fill the void. When dictators also failed, the resulting chaos paved the way for the strongest extreme group to develop and flourish. And when it became a real threat, the warfare necessary to eliminate it began a never-ending cycle of violence. When one extremist group fails, another takes its place.

If all this is correct, what now can break this cycle of violence?  Educating globally savvy leaders, getting people together to experience and enjoy each other’s culture, and focusing research and expertise on solving the world’s problems, may be the only hope we have. Thankfully, all this is both the short and long-term potential of the expansion and globalization of higher education.

So we better get on with it. Given current realities, the airstrikes that began this week might be necessary.  But the cycle of violence will also likely continue. And we may be running out of time!

 

Read Full Post »

Weeks ago I mentioned here that I was writing another book about how those involved in advancing institutions will need to help prepare their constituents for dramatic change. As I was developing my ideas about changing government roles, the influence of technology, and internationalization, I found myself also taking a fresh look at the role leadership plays in effective strategic communication.

I urged that professionals in this field should be fine tuning their own leadership talents because they will need to use them to find support for what they can do, as well as to take advantage of the new opportunities that change can bring. But I also came to see even more clearly that the behavior of chief executives can make all the difference in the results:

1. CEO behaviors become a symbol of an institution’s brand identity. CEO words and actions both model and protect it. But they can weaken it as well.

2. Listening to constituents is an important overall CEO characteristic… but a firm and timely response is even more important when addressing urgent issues and crises.

3. The visual presence of the CEO in urgent situations is simply expected.

CEO’s certainly are entitled to their recreational activities, vacations, and to attend unrelated events. This applies to presidents of institutions… and countries. In fact, photo opportunities at the right time can humanize the person and the office.

But timing in a threatening situation is everything. People demand to see that their leader is present and in charge. And how the CEO behaves becomes a symbol of either a strong institution, or of one that is uncertain and vulnerable.

 

Read Full Post »

One of today’s most vicious and destructive political communication tactics is the practice of defining the opposition in more extreme terms than it warrants… and then demonizing its intentions.

On weekends I often watch Book-TV. I recently watched and listened to an angry young author define the president of the United States and his entire administration as criminals, and that they all should be put in jail. He then went on with even more vicious and angry charges. And then he followed those by generalizing his charges to include “all liberals,” each minute struggling to intensify the anger in his rhetoric.

Freedom of speech in our country insures his right to speak. And I defend his right to do so. But the tone and anger in his approach destroyed any possibility of finding any way to heal this already seriously divided country.

I have no political agenda. I write solely from a communication dynamic perspective. Politically I have come to think of myself  as a pragmatic independent who is desperately seeking solutions to this destructive polarization.

There are constructive approaches he could have used. There are words he could have chosen to harshly criticize the administration, but do it more constructively. There is a tone he could have used that would have enabled helpful conversations. Debate can be healthy. Uncompromising angry debate is not.

When extremists leave no room for holding a country together, their logic leads to collapse. This has been the consequence of a thousand years of extreme and vicious tribal conflict in the Middle East, and to follow their logic is to head down the same road.

Read Full Post »

This week I have been at Chautauqua in upstate New York listening to speakers on the state of foreign affairs. Different parts of the world were discussed, but one theme emerged loud and clear: The current hostilities, from Ukraine to Gaza to Iraq, are the result of a thousand years of conflict between rival groups… and there will be no quick solutions.

In past blogs I have argued that the problem we face understanding each day’s events is that we lack knowing their “contexts.” This is especially true in our 24/7 breaking news world. The more complex the situations the more we need to know their context in order to fully understand them. And so daily statements from the White House (or anywhere else) offer little insight into what is really going on.

I wish everyone could spend at least a week every year at a place like Chautauqua. Providing context for complex problems and issues is what this place does best.

Imagine a small village with an extremely diverse population where everyone was interested in ideas. Each week during the summer a different theme is examined, and gaining a broad understanding of the history and background of that theme is generally what happens by week’s end.

And Chautauqua also surrounds this experience with enrichment for the whole family. There are concerts, theatre performances, films, short courses, and special interest events. There are recreation facilities and programs, including plenty of activities for children and teenagers. And many religious faiths also provide programming and housing for those who want them. You can do all of this… or as little as you wish.

So at this week’s end here are my foreign affairs conclusions: Little insight can come from “official” government statements about  each day’s events in the Middle East or Ukraine. These problems are hopelessly rooted in ancient history and won’t go away soon. Periodic U.S. interventions are not likely to solve much of anything either. So explaining these hard lessons of history might be the better approach, along with repeated reminders of what America really stands for.

Oh, and we must also try our best to avoid making things worse!

 

Read Full Post »

“Herding” is what many critics call the tendency of the international news media to rush to the next big crisis… each one seeking a competitive advantage. One day Iraq is the big story, and the next day the gang moves to Cairo. Then a big story breaks in Ukraine, only to be trumped by a horrible crisis in Israel and Gaza.

In the meantime, chaos continues in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, parts of Africa, and more. And what about Iran and Turkey? Each one is a separate story with distinct characteristics. As the news media struggles to explain what is happening in each place, the result for most consumers is total confusion. And as  governments struggle to deal with each separate situation, the result is the impression that most are inept at handling anything.

An interview with a Libyan government official this week reminded me that while it is natural to get bogged down in the details of each event, there is an important central message that is getting lost. He said Libya desperately needs the world’s help to rebuild essential institutions and to defeat disrupting extremists.

As I listened I was reminded that there is a central message of justice, opportunity, freedom, and democratic process that has gotten lost in the details of chaos. And that staying on this message  relentlessly every day might have turned that message into a truly self-fulfilling prophesy. Experience has taught me that this can be the potential power of well-orchestrated strategic communication.

Lesson learned: Too many detailed messages turn to clutter. Staying on central messages can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

And for the USA:  Daily responses to crises have resulted in clutter and negative impressions. Simply explaining the idea of America always produces positive outcomes.

 

Read Full Post »

When must a leader be present to lead?  And what actually constitutes “presence” in this age of digital technology?

President Obama has been criticized for appearing at so many fund-raising events around the country when there are multiple crises that need to be addressed. His defenders explain that with the technology on his airplane, and his advisors around him, he is on top of world events no matter where he goes.

But even in this age of imagery does “take charge” leadership really work that way?  I suggest that in many circumstances it does not.

My experience over the years would argue that there are many crisis situations where it is essential for a leader to be physically “seen” as present, engaged and performing as the leader. Technology can maintain connections very efficiently between critical meetings, but nothing substitutes for “showing up and taking charge.” In the case of presidential leadership, it might also mean that when he is not attending a critical meeting he should be seen as physically present in his established command post directing operations.

Exceptions would be largely ceremonial events where a representative clearly is an adequate symbol of a country’s or institution’s presence. Or when the top person has a clearly more important event that conflicts with this one.  Or when an adversary has orchestrated a “photo-op” style event designed to put this leader on the defensive  Even in this situation, however, it might be possible to still show up and strategically take charge, or to create another similar event where taking charge is designed into the situation. For example, when the Texas governor tried to get the president to go to the U.S. Mexico border with him, the president might have declined based on schedule, but then travel there later with his own “take charge” agenda.

Attending fund-raisers and playing golf in times of crisis makes too much potentially negative news, no matter the justification. Incessant daily questions and criticisms begin to sound credible, and repeated explanations appear defensive. They make leaders of both countries and organizations sound and look weak… and even out of touch.

Even in these times of instant digital technology, actually showing up and visibly taking charge is essential when institutions and worlds seem to be coming apart.

Read Full Post »

As I wrote about crisis communication over the years I found myself saying early on that you must “look like you know what you are doing.” I did not mean this superficially. Rather, I meant it as an observation about how difficult it is to look confident and sound completely informed when all hell is breaking loose around you. This certainly has been a big challenge for the U.S president. And the 24/7 breaking news environment has not been forgiving.

White House responses this week to crises in the Middle East and Ukraine had me once again reviewing my crisis management “lessons learned.” Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Timing is everything. Getting all the facts together under media deadline pressure is more difficult than it looks. But speaking out too late can also allow someone else to seize the moment and put you on the defensive. There are no set rules here to follow. Experience certainly helps. But an overall predisposition to lengthy analysis can be a liability and make you look tentative.

2. Achieve a balance between looking confident and being willing to listen. Make an early statement to establish visible leadership.  Then quickly prepare a plan to take charge of the total situation. Tell them what you know. And then tell them how you will quickly find out what you don’t. Never announce an action that you don’t take.

3. Avoid direct confrontation. Confrontation allows your adversary to take the higher ground and put you on the defensive. Once there, it’s a difficult position to change. Establish your own solid ground by concentrating on making your positive and compressive plan of action look more thorough and credible.

4. Try to anticipate crises.  If it’s possible to anticipate a crisis long before it occurs you may be able to inoculate the situation by putting the matter on the public agenda yourself.  This is called issues management, a practice that includes producing a set of initiatives to systematically manage the situation before it is a problem.

5. Clearly list the other side’s errors. But be careful. After you have taken charge, presenting a concise list of the other side’s flaws can work. But avoid negative rants, and focus on facts. Attacking too soon and too often will make you look too defensive. Remember that over time some of your attacks may lose credibility with the public.

The U.S. president has the reputation of taking his time to analyze each difficult situation before deciding what to do.  While his inclination to be thorough is laudatory, he also has a tendency to wait too long to take charge. And even then, his announcements can sound more like a confrontation than a game plan for taking charge of the total situation.

In the final analysis, success depends on making good judgements about timing and substance. This is a talent that is fine-tuned with practice and experience. The communication dimensions of leadership are many, and the sophistication required for success is too often underestimated.

Read Full Post »

On a recent trip to London I met with several university colleagues. I was interested in how they saw the challenges facing the future of our industry affecting those who market and communicate our institutions.

They shared my concern that many people new to our profession are focused so intensely on social media that they may be missing opportunities to learn about strategic thinking and planning, which is what really drives everything we do.

We discussed how social media use was changing almost daily. Experience is revealing what each one does well, and what it doesn’t. Facebook is good for reaching some constituents, but can be a waste of time when overused or when your “friends” are changing their patterns. Twitter can bring people to a website or meeting, but following or tweeting too often can be more fun than useful. It’s true that you can tweet links to connect people to more substantive material, but that works only when they follow those links and respond to them. True professionals in this field will be constantly evaluating all their tools, and will be making adjustments as use patterns change.

Leadership in marketing and communication happens at the strategic thinking and planning level. Knowing how to select the tools preferred by each audience, and then to use them simultaneously to increase intensity, is the key to success. And by the way, the tools selected will almost always include a mix of both old and new media.

With the coming sea change in higher education, this profession will have more opportunities for leadership than ever. Becoming an expert in new media might get you a job today, but learning about strategic thinking and planning just might get you a really exciting career!

 

Read Full Post »

Many people have found this Pope refreshing. As a communicator he seems to possess a special instinct for relationship building and reconciliation. Here is my thinking about why he is so effective:

1. He first travels to the location of conflict or misunderstanding.

2. He focuses on “looking” comfortable and breaking down barriers. He thereby takes stress and tension out of the air.

3. Eventually he makes observations carefully worded to avoid direct confrontation and enable the possibility of fresh thinking.

4. He then invites key players to come to “his house” at a later time for conversation and prayer, where he will begin by clarifying common interests. Doing this at a later time in a neutral and private location is important.

5. He thus establishes common ground, and a “safe” place for candor and fresh thinking.

6. Finally, he also demonstrates how different religions’ history and beliefs need not divide, but rather can establish mutual respect and accommodation.

This Pope’s communication strategy is not one of how to win an argument. Rather, it is one of demonstrating how to side step confrontation and choose what unites over dwelling on what divides.

Read Full Post »

TCU honors students and I have wrapped-up our explorations of “How Media Revolutions Change Everything”  with a second week of site visits in London.  This week it was the BBC, the British Film Institute (BFI), and the CBS London Bureau.

The visit to the BBC produced a surprise adventure into the world of archives.  We were asked to consider the challenge faced by those charged with archiving a new media world where far more information is generated than can be captured and stored.  Current BBC thinking is that while the “story” or lesson of a great work scholarship, literature, or other media might be digitized for posterity, the details of all these great achievements cannot. This contradictory idea of a significant loss of history in a “big data” world was shocking.

At the BFI we explored how media revolutions, politics and declining resources can combine to change the culture, identity, and founding mission of a unique and historic institution. The BFI was originally charged with the preservation of a distinctly British film industry, but somehow also became a custodian of a national British identity. But recent budget cuts and political influence, as well as the new media revolution, have caused many insiders to fear it is losing its’ uniqueness, and thereby its’ national prominence. Again, we were surprised by discovering still another way media revolutions can change everything… including the stature of long established institutions.

The CBS London bureau functions as a hub from which foreign correspondents travel to cover the world. Digital technology and social media have change every aspect of news reporting, with smaller cameras, instant satellite transmission, GPS mapping, mobile phone connections, and even citizen-produced i-phone contributed photos. Here too, however, budget cuts have closed bureaus, eliminated staff, and reduced the number of events that can be reported. Reporters therefore tend to “herd” to the same stories. Our take-a-way was that while CBS correspondents are the best in the business, it’s also important for the consumer to know what stories go unreported. And what is even more compelling is the number of people who are now getting all their news from alternative, mostly unedited, and often inaccurate, new and social media sources.

The students and I have had an exciting adventure in media ideas over the last 10 weeks. We began by “Skype-ing”  in experts to our classroom on campus in Texas, and concluded by meeting face-to-face with experts in London. We ended where we began: Media revolutions indeed do change everything. And what’s more, even if we wanted to there is very little we can do about it!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »