Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

Lesson 378 Is Unpredictability Sustainable?

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on April 18, 2017| Leave a Comment »

A colleague once told me that my problem was I thought every problem was a communication problem. After 50 years of working nonstop to understand the dynamics of communication I must say I eventually did conclude that big problems usually do have a communication dimension significant enough to be the main problem.

This spring I have been teaching a graduate seminar on the communication dimensions of leadership. When I first planned this seminar I had no idea that a very bizarre presidential election resulting in a very unconventional president would demand that I take a deep dive into trying to understand what was happening… especially from a communication perspective.

Constant outrageous remarks guaranteed daily media visibility. Widespread dissatisfaction with lawmakers in Washington guaranteed an audience willing to listen. Unpredictability appeared to be a strategy that was working. And for a period of time I must admit I began questioning the lesson I thought I had learned…  that a set of basic ideas which enabled some degree of predictability was necessary to establish and maintain leadership credibility.

After several months of reassessment, however, I am once again confident that my lesson-learned was correct: Telling audiences what they want to hear can gain temporary followers. But ultimately, credibility built on proven truthfulness and trust are essential for most followers to continue following. Performers without substance will be cast aside. And autocrats without trust will eventually be overthrown.

With this in mind it has been interesting to watch wishful pundits change their commentaries to “hopeful” after Mr. Trump flipped campaign promises to make several conventional military action decisions. But is it not true that 70 years of past behavior will clearly communicate a person’s mind-set and character? And what does it tell you when that behavior featured endless lying, cruel attacks, bullying, vulgar public remarks, and totally disruptive off-the-wall comments and tweets?

Fifty years of experience as a practitioner, writer, teacher and consultant tells me that this kind of unpredictable, disruptive, contradictory, and often cruel behavior does not produce a set of sustainable governing ideas or a trustworthy leader. We do not have “a failure to communicate” here. Rather, we have an embarrassing failure to recognize what was being communicated all along.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 377 What Does Leadership Team Membership Communicate?

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on April 11, 2017| Leave a Comment »

When championing institutions, causes, or countries, who is selected for the leadership team sends a loud and clear message about capabilities and priorities.

A highly respected scholar recently added to my fears about the current White House team. His comment went something like this: Would-be autocrats and dictators bring family members into power with them, surround themselves with oligarchs and devoted political supporters, constantly attack journalists, ignore laws they don’t like, disregard constitutions, and pack courts with sympathizers.

So these questions suddenly seem especially pertinent:

Are highly experienced experts in place for each and every team responsibility? Can private family members really function effectively in a highly complicated tax-supported government? How many team members have been selected more for loyalty and private wealth than professional competence? How many staff members are uncertain about how much responsibility they really have? Is attacking critics and the press getting in the way of effective daily operations?

And more specifically about this White House:

Should expressing admiration for Russian and Egyptian dictators, issuing daily disruptive and convoluted tweets, and making quick reversals on strong campaign promises, give us pause? And should leaks about constant in-fighting among all levels of staff, inexperienced team members pushing extreme political ideologies, and key staff conflicts with members of the president’s powerful family, concern us?

Many informed analysts point out that every new administration has a shakedown period that it usually survives. So you might conclude that everything will eventually work out. But when the most influential team members are family, oligarchs, political ideologues, and well-meaning loyal friends… and the rest of the staff is in some state of turmoil… I say bone-up on the history of Western civilization and get ready for a very bumpy ride!

Read Full Post »

Lesson 376 Intellectual Frames of Reference and Mr. Trump

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on April 4, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Since the election it has become even more apparent that Mr. Trump’s primary communication talent is as a dramatic performer. He simply never developed an intellectual frame of reference that brings consistency to his rhetoric, and his actions.

Simply put, Mr. Trump appealed to his base by combining entertaining one-liners with promising quick fixes as fast as people brought him problems. His audiences then evolved into a base of supporters who enjoyed his entertaining and outrageous performances, and chose to believe he could help them. And he was certainly helped by the fact that no one else better informed was addressing their problems.

Sometimes it takes a while for audiences to recognize that would-be political leaders are more entertainers than problem-solvers. But eventually the public will begin to see that such people work for applause and will change on a dime. And in time their inconsistencies will be disrupting, and eventually can be frightening.

For example, many of the promises Mr. Trump made during the campaign about healthcare and manufacturing made him sound like a populist Democrat who felt his audiences’ pain. Once in office, however, he instantly switched and sounded more like a conservative Republican who was willing to cut benefits. But then a quick defeat on healthcare had him talking again more like a Democrat.

The bottom line is that Mr. Trump has no basic frame of reference that defines where he is coming from. Repeating the one-liner “Making America Great Again” says nothing about how he will go about improving democratic institutions, or advancing American values, or helping all levels of society share in the American dream.

What’s more, the absence of an intellectual frame of reference, combined with Trump’s daily communication inconsistencies, is already leaving a growing number of people trembling about how he will go about making many of the life and death decisions he inevitably will have to make.

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 375 Ideology vs. Workability

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 28, 2017| 1 Comment »

When a support base is extremely partisan or narrowly segmented appealing only to it can have serious long-term consequences. The 24/7 media that helped build support doesn’t go away. Over time message content will likely change with new information and evidence, and what works and what doesn’t will reach both the base and the American public at large.

  1. Trump made exaggerated promises to an important group of people who legitimately felt ignored by Washington. He gained their passionate support by over-promising. But what happens when industries that moved away do not come back? What happens when these people are not the ones that get the new jobs when they appear? What happens when Abolishing Obama-care does not result in much better healthcare at prices they can afford? Promising is one thing. Making workable promises is something else.
  2. Ultra-conservative republicans promised their voters and donors in narrowly formed ultra-conservative districts to “repeal and replace” Obama-care. But they grossly underestimated the general public’s response to only offering low-income people very minimal coverage “access.” Most people want better coverage that is affordable for everyone… as promised by President Trump to his base.

In today’s instant media environment appealing to a base is possible in the short-term. But messages about what works and what doesn’t will eventually come through to everyone, and exaggerated or false promises very likely will bring legislative failures.

It’s may be possible to campaign with narrow liberal or conservative ideas, but not to govern with them. Progress on problem-solving requires workable ideas on the table, mutual respect, good faith collaboration, and a willingness to compromise on some details. Implementation problems can be fixed later with experience. This is the way problems get solved in the real world.

Extreme conservative and liberal ideologues will always face the reality that persistent 24/7 media will ultimately reach everyone with messages about what is working and what isn’t. Learning the “what’s workable” lesson sooner rather than later could save a lot of people a lot of pain.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 374 Can Leadership Be Sustained On Falsehood?

Posted in Branding, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 21, 2017| Leave a Comment »

In over fifty years of study, teaching, and professional practice I found that the words people used either clearly reinforced their credibility or permanently destroyed it. There was no middle ground.

But sadly I have to acknowledge that the recent presidential election produced an exception. It seems that television experienced speakers in our 24/7 “live” television environment are now able to suspend this negative effect of repeated lies, vulgarities, exaggerations, bullying, and personal attacks for some uncertain period of time. This is especially true if they convincingly promise to fix their audience’s most deeply felt problems… even when the fixes may not be realistic.

And now other experienced television performers have managed to polarize their political party ideologies and unknowingly drive them into total gridlock. The sad consequence is that these mean-spirited performers accomplished this while being mindlessly unaware that great numbers of Americans were dropping out of their system. Now these drop-outs may be growing into a new majority.

New polls confirm that more and more Americans are concerned about unanticipated consequences of exaggerated promises, White House management turmoil, mean-spirited personal attacks, elimination of society’s safety-net programs, dangerous foreign policy pronouncements, continued gridlock, and mindless disruptive presidential tweets. The question that has so many of us living on pins and needles is… “When will something really bad happen?”

Do we have fresh thinking political leaders ready to engineer a new day? Do we need a totally new grassroots electoral system? Can the current two parties survive this mess they created? Or will a clean-up require new parties based on pragmatic problem-solving and new ideas? There are no easy answers.

But I must say that during my 50 years of immersing myself in all aspects of the power of media and communication I learned that it is possible that truth-telling, authenticity, integrity, ethical character, trust, and credibility can all be restored as unwavering prerequisites for leading anything… most especially great institutions and nations. Collective persistence is the key.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 373 “Soft Power” Communication in the Age of Trump

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 14, 2017| 1 Comment »

In the foreign policy world “hard power” is military strength and “soft power” is diplomacy, public diplomacy and all those communication initiatives related to building understanding between countries and cultures. Hard power deters potential enemies and confronts them when necessary. Soft power builds international relationships, increases cross-cultural understanding, and helps solve global problems.

Soft power diplomacy is government-to-government communication, and soft power public diplomacy is government-to-people communication and people-to people communication. People to people communication carries the most credibility because of its genuine authenticity.

A  number of years ago there was an agency of the U.S. government that was responsible for soft power. It was the United State Information Agency (USIA). It developed programs to communicate and demonstrate the exceptional “idea of America” around the world. Artists, scholars, and musicians were sent abroad to show their talents. Groups and individual exchanges were arranged to encourage continuing dialogue. Libraries of materials were established. Films were produced and distributed. And the Voice of America (VOA), broadcast trusted news and information programs 24 hours a day all over the globe.

But, during a widespread austerity move, the Clinton administration eliminated the USIA and moved its programs into the Sate Department. As a result, soft power funding was dramatically reduced and programs and projects were eliminated. The negative consequences of this mindless move have never been remedied.

For about a year I was a part of many discussions (including a project at the Wilson Center think tank) that brought together legislative staffers, government professionals, educators, and politicians in Washington who were concerned about the diminished state of public diplomacy communication in the state department. It was a concern strongly reinforced by several staffers from the defense department. They told us that the Defense Department was sponsoring public diplomacy projects only because soft power initiatives were urgently needed in places where hard power was not appropriate… and because the state department did not have the resources.

The PBS News Hour recently reported that the Trump administration is working on a budget that reduces state department funding by another 37% in order to help pay for dramatic increases in the defense budget. Can you imagine the devastating impact this will have on soft power public diplomacy communication?

No matter your politics, the need for significant increases in soft power initiatives to communicate the “idea of America” and enhance cross-cultural understanding has never been stronger. To ignore this urgent need is not only short-sighted, it is a major threat to our national security.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 372 How Trump Won

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 6, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Senor Editor at the Atlantic, Derek Thompson, wrote a very perceptive book called, Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction. It avoids articulating a specific formula for popular success, but it certainly clarifies many of the compelling factors involved.

It became a particularly important read for me because it helped me understand the election victory that many experienced and intelligent people failed to predict. For example, my takeaway was that bold and surprising pronouncements can have a strong audience appeal if they are surprising and credible enough sounding to a specific audience. Constant repetition of themes related to those pronouncements can then reinforce that initial appeal. And new and outrageous remarks will also guarantee ongoing media distribution and even news coverage.

In addition, in such a climate a super hero can be created by establishing that a superstar performer alone is capable of solving your problems. And when you combine bold repeated themes with the powerful persona of a superhero you have the potential for enormous popularity… especially with an already sympathetic audience.

In many ways Mr. Trump became a super hero for a very small segment of American society… people who had good reason to be unhappy and felt that they had not been heard. His “Make America Great” theme sounded new enough, but it also had a familiar ring. This was because Ronald Reagan used much the same theme and Trump just made it sound new, relying on the power of it also sounding familiar. And then he captured ongoing news coverage for this revived theme by constantly making new and outrageous remarks.

Simply put, this analysis suggests that Trump is an experienced entertainment machine skillfully designed to make himself a super hero… the only person who can fix your problems. And while much of his base would eventually see all this as over-bragging, over time they would merely overlook his crazy remarks as “just Trump,” choosing to believe that he could still deliver a better life for them.

Now that he is President this analysis does raise compelling questions about how effectively these instincts for achieving popularity in unique situations transfer over to leading a nation, solving complex social problems, dealing with relentless terrorists, managing huge national and international crises, and making life and death war decisions.

Make no mistake, this analysis is not about political ideology. It is about the scary psychology of popularity, the winning instincts of a previously successful entertainer, and the good and bad consequences of this age of instant technology, “tweeting,” and 24/7 news.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 371 Presidential Tone And Citizen Behavior

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 1, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Will President Trump follow his address to Congress with an ongoing change in the tone of his leadership? What follows now is obviously what matters most. There is a good deal of compelling anecdotal evidence that leading with arrogance, threats, and anger unleashes similar behavior in organizations and citizens.

For example, threatening rhetoric about vetting refugees from specific Muslim countries unleashed anger on several fronts, even though most citizens might have agreed on a softer approach. A surprising resurgence of antisemitism around the country has been occurring for no apparent reason… except for a growing feeling of anger. A widespread fear of military style deportations came over huge numbers of Hispanics as a result of the rhetoric… even though there were no changes in the law. Responding to scary ambiguities about health insurance coverage, refugee vetting, and deportations brought shouting crowds to Republican town hall meetings, even though these were not new issues. Angry students at universities across the nation protested and tried to block speakers with extreme messages, even though the appearance of such speakers had been fairly commonplace. Shouting crowds related to gun violence and police brutality brought a resurgence of dramatic news media coverage. And in the midst all this unrest the news media was angrily declared the enemy.

It is as if a hostile tone was set at the top, and then it spread into to the streets encouraging all kinds of frustration and anger to be acted out. In fact, many of us have been getting awake each morning afraid of what might happen next… a situation that is also expressed by many foreign policy professionals around the world.

My study of communication dynamics clearly suggests that leadership tone can either bring people together or produce even deeper divisions, more anger, and high levels of anxiety. Did Trump’s address to Congress put his leadership style on a more constructive course, or will his angry tone reappear and keep feeding a climate of chaos and unrest? Only time will tell.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 369 “Delegitimatizing” Institutions and People

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on February 14, 2017| 1 Comment »

Delegitimatizing is a new and questionable tactic in our 24/7 digital world. It is relentlessly attacking institutions or people by raising questions about their fundamental legitimacy.  And it sadly can cut through the clutter of information overload because the attacks are both outrageous and dramatic.

For example, Mr. Trump declared the news media to be the enemy. He claimed that mainstream media never report the truth. He declared what they do to be fake news. For example, he recently asserted that mainstream media never report terrorism. He followed by having his staff release a list of more than 70 instances. But every event on this list was covered, and many were covered exhaustively. But delegitimatizing does not require truth. It just must be outrageous and dramatic.

During the campaign Mr Trump attacked Mrs Clinton by declaring her a criminal, and then relentlessly reinforced his charge by leading the chant “lock her up.” What complicates matters is that all of us have vulnerabilities that can make us reluctant to defend ourselves. There may be a small grain of truth in the charge, or we may fear being drawn into a shouting contest that is just not our style. For example, in the case of terrorism news coverage the opposite criticism might have been more appropriate, i.e. covering terrorism gives terrorists the publicity they seek. Or a charge that entertainment values and industry competition are influencing too many news decisions might have had some legitimacy.

Nonetheless, relentless attacking to delegitimatize the opposition is joining mindless lying, vulgarity, and fake news as factors that are tearing our society apart. No matter our political preferences, more and more of us are awaking every morning with a nagging anxiety wondering what the hell will happen next. This is not about our political ideology. It is the consequence of a 24/7 out-of-control digital media produced fog.

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 368 Responding to Polarized Legislatures

Posted in Higher Education, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on February 7, 2017| 1 Comment »

For most of the 20 or more years I was responsible for university communication I was also responsible for the institution’s legislative relations… first the state legislature and later the national legislature as well. In both cases I experienced a gradual polarization of political ideology, eventually to the point where very little was getting accomplished.

My recourse was to try to focus on influencing higher education policy, no matter the party. This meant I would have to formulate our position on higher education issues and work hard to demonstrate the advantages for both parties.  In time I came to see my issue agenda as essentially bipartisan, and described myself as an independent with no party affiliation.

Of course, this meant that I didn’t support any politicians financially or otherwise at election time, thereby diminishing my capacity to influence them. My frustration accelerated as I came to realize that while many legislators’ staffs responded positively to my positions, this success had virtually no influence on how the legislator would vote, or what he or she said in public. I was in a world where there was no compromise, and where as a non-donor I had no influence.

Looking back I now think that nonprofit institutions need to influence government policy outside the legislative process. They must plan aggressive and collaborative marketing and strategic communication  initiatives  aimed at asking those who do make political contributions for their help… trustees, alumni, community leaders, corporate heads, faculty, staff, voting age students, the news media, etc.

Political debate tends to reinforce polarization. Extreme polarization leads to gridlock. Gridlock only unlocks in those very specific places where donors have influence. Institutional communicators therefore must learn how to use both new and traditional communication technology to ask major constituents who are also political donors for help in championing their cause.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »