Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

Lesson 356 Countering Violent Extremism: A Role for Education?

Posted in Higher Education, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on November 21, 2016| 2 Comments »

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently released an extremely comprehensive report on countering violent extremism, titled Turning Point. It presents the results of international polling, assesses the current status of activity around the world, and makes some suggestions for a way forward.

Central to me was the observation that governments can do only so much, and that NGO’s, private corporations and other institutions must do more. But the barrier for greater civic involvement has been finding funding for all these potentially powerful non-governmental initiatives.

I have written posts in the past about a role for enlightened cities, universities and schools in making Muslims and other immigrants feel welcome. Many times what is seen as mostly an international problem actually resides right in the middle of neighborhoods in many of our great cities around the world.

Much effort has been spent to understand the motivation of young people who elect to join ISIS or other extremist causes. Many analysts think it’s basically a personal identity crisis. It’s a desire for a stronger sense of belonging and meaning than they are finding in their neighborhoods and cities. Religious fundamentalism and failed states in the Middle East certainly contribute to the problem, but this search for meaning seems to be the strongest motivator. Social media connect these dissatisfied young people around the world, establishes an emotional bond between them, and  eventually produces a compelling need to take violent action.

So what can schools do to help?  Here’s my partial list:

  1. Awareness. Accepting that the problem is local. Most schools have communication officers that communicate daily with the news media, parents, students, and community opinion leaders. Universities communicate regularly with similar audiences.
  2. Communication campaigns. Journalism and strategic communication students can design and launch information campaigns that educate citizens about the issues and initiatives.
  3. Research. Universities certainly have the capacity through research to learn more about the specific problems in individual cities and neighborhoods. What initiatives will actually make a difference here? Are outreach initiatives and educational opportunities already underway that can be enhanced or better promoted?
  4. Community projects.  Family counseling? College preparatory programs? Community dialogue groups?  Basic job training? After school activities?
  5. Internships. Some advanced students have experience with social service research projects, communication campaigns, individual counseling, and teaching fundamental courses.
  6. Special personal invitations. Citizen groups can invite struggling youth and families to  events in the city and on campuses. Sports. Parades. Celebrations. Fine Arts performances. Art exhibitions. Conferences. Lectures.
  7. Partnerships. Schools and universities partnering with city governments, associations, civic organizations, nonprofits, businesses, and other schools can launch powerful research and action projects that can make a big difference. A student that escaped a bad neighborhood situation once said to me: “I tried to get lost but my school wouldn’t let me!”

Hard power implies the use of use of the military and police to defeat terrorist groups. But soft power is what is needed to win the battle of ideas. For the most part hard power is well-funded. Soft power is not.

The CSIS Turning Point report makes a strong case for the major funding necessary to win the war of ideas. And with a share of that funding, universities and schools certainly can play a major role in improving the lives of many immigrant young people and families.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 355 Communication Lessons from the Campaign

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on November 14, 2016| 1 Comment »

This interminable and frustrating presidential campaign surprised almost everyone. Besides ending with participants and observers in a complete state of exhaustion, it’s now more clear than ever that many of our surprises were the result of how the digital technology revolution changed our most basic communication rules.

A central lesson is that never before have we experienced a situation where vicious personal attacks, vulgar and offensive language, steady streams of unrealistic promises, and constant aggressive personal and international threats, became accepted as the norm. A lingering question must be: Will this affect America’s leadership role in the world?

We also learned that most all the major polls were wrong, even though political pollsters have become more scientific and technical with each election. They are now licking their wounds. How so?  We are in a time where “big data” is touted as the problem-solving waive of the future. But experience over the years taught me that the more data I collected the more complicated it was for me to interpret it accurately. Changing communication dynamics often blurs complicated situations. As a result, whenever possible polls should be followed by carefully selected focus groups to assist with data interpretation.

This was also a time for more people to observe how the news media actually works. For example, when Mr. Trump’s rallies promised outrageous headlines 24/7 cable television could not resist covering them, usually live. This translated into free publicity. Even when press comments became negative, the star-building power of live TV coverage continued. And since the business of media requires news stories to deliver audiences to commercials we learned just how much entertainment values influenced the election coverage.

We also learned about several additional digital media influences. One was the effective use of Twitter by a candidate to reach specific audiences over the heads of news reporters. Another was how the digital media work schedule of newspaper reporters affected story content. For example, most reporters write a concise story each day for the newspaper’s website, make “tweets” during the day, contribute to other social media outlets, are available for TV interviews, and also write pieces for a much “thinner” daily newspaper. The result is much less content, less “street” reporting, less talking with contacts face-to-face, less time reaching key experts by phone, less daily conversations with “insiders,” and less in-depth story research. All this contributes to a news industry that is more focused on “breaking news” than on in-depth issues analysis.

One morning show host ranted about how the New York Times totally missed the boat. He said it was shoddy journalism that caused its reporters to miss recognizing that Trump could win. But maybe the Times was thinking deeper than the horse race. Maybe its reporters were concerned about whether past and current behaviors would give their audience clues about a future Trump presidency: Will he actually do what he was promising… the good and the bad? Will he actually attack the people and places he said he will? And will his international business deals turn out to be serious conflicts? Now only time will tell.

We learned hard lessons about communication and leadership during this campaign. Let’s hope we never have to go through it again.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 354 The Morning After: Who Am I?

Posted in Higher Education, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on November 9, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Ignoring for now the communication credibility and potential global consequences of what our new President said he would do and to whom he would do it, I find myself thinking mostly today about what it really means to be an American.

Over this past weekend I attended a philosophy symposium addressing the question: What does it mean to be human? Listening to brilliant thinkers address this question, I thought: “This is the most fundamental question this election raised for us, as individuals… and as a nation.”

One speaker defined wisdom as: “Being able to see what should be carried forward, and what should be left behind.” Today its more clear than ever that our US political system is in desperate need of wisdom, coupled with some deeper thinking about what it means to be a truly human American.

Are not trust, dignity, and truth values that are embedded in the very idea of what it means to be an American?” Is not civility in human discourse and language basic to essential democratic processes? If so, then the name calling, personal attacks, and vulgar language of this election clearly degraded and disgraced who we are at the core.

It all began with mean-spirited ideology polarization and politics in both the congress and the election. It did our entire country a huge disservice. And it seems apparent to me that this was the fundamental cause of our becoming blind to the fact that so many of our families were being left behind.

So, maybe we need a whole new radical approach to preparing our families, children and politicians to behave first as productive Americans. Here’s an idea:

In public school, are we focusing too soon on memorizing academic subject-matter? Are teachers forced too soon to focus on improving student test scores? Are we missing the boat when it comes to cultural values? Would it not be better if children learned much sooner and in some depth how to think and solve human problems in a civil society?

In college, should studying what it means to be human be an early part of the curriculum? And should we also be teaching more about the characteristics of values-based leadership?

And when it comes to politics, should the parties require their candidates to sign-off on firm standards about speaking truthfully, demonstrating respect for opponents, and upholding basic American values in all public discourse?

In other words, should we be teaching young people, college students and politicians alike more about what it means to be a fully human American?

Read Full Post »

Lesson 353 Lies, Spectacle, and Hope!

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on November 3, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, by Pulitzer Prize winning author, Chris Hedges, offers a compelling analysis of the success of professional wrestling. In brief, he suggests that the audiences are far larger than many of us realize, the spectacle of it is a compelling escape from reality, and a dramatic “suspension of disbelief” is in full force. In other words, there is a willingness to overlook the staging and somehow believe in its legitimacy, much the same as we do in a make-believe play.

Is that what has been going on in this presidential campaign? Both candidates have little or no credibility. So in order to vote many of us will suspend our disbelief, close our eyes, and hope for the best?

Most Trump attacks, crude remarks and misstatements have no grounding in truth or reality. Certainly everyone knows that. But somehow, many of those followers must be suspending their disbelief and hoping against hope that he can fix what is hurting them.

And with Mrs. Clinton, an aura of secrecy has built up over a long period of time… no doubt originating with her past personal crises. And so poll after poll tells us people just don’t trust her to tell the truth.

The lesson we are learning is that when candidates lose credibility their events become little more than spectacle. Then, their followers have no choice but to suspend disbelief, and replace trust with blind hope.

In this new media world the hourly nonstop implosion of misrepresentation fogs our ability to be rational, creates an acceptance of the outrageous as commonplace, and compels everyone to replace credible information with hope.

It’s impossible to be certain of the long-term psychic and social consequences of what we have been through. My “hope” is that with the benefit of hindsight we will finally come to our senses and once again affirm the importance of “source credibility” as the first principle of effective leadership.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 352 “I need to write something!”

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 31, 2016| Leave a Comment »

The release of the FBI letter reopening the Clinton email investigation sent journalists scrambling over the weekend for how to respond. They had to write something just because their competitors would.

The problem is that the letter was a totally substance-free announcement without explanation. It provided virtually nothing to write about, and yet something would have to be written. It’s situations like this that lead to speculation and innuendo… two disruptive communication poisons.

I appreciate the dilemma because I remember when journalists would call me for a statement about a situation I knew had no substance.  But I would still often hear: “My editor is pushing me and I have to write something!”

The problem is that under competitive pressure when there is no substance reporters are likely to  revert to speculation. “What it could be is…”  “It might be nothing, but then if it is…”  “If it turns out there is something she likely will go to prison.” That’s pure poison.

Under pressure to respond, campaigns are likely to revert to persuasive innuendo. Trump will be saying something like: “You just know the FBI  has something.”

And betting the FBI would have released anything it could, Clinton will be saying something like: “I think the FBI should release whatever it has.”

As a voter you no doubt are already leaning in one direction or the other. So you nod in the direction of your preferred innuendo: “Yea, I bet you’re right!”  And if you are still undecided, speculation and innuendo are certain pathways to disillusionment.

The fact is that “no story at all” becomes any story you want it to be. That is why speculation and innuendo are poisons. This campaign has been full of both… “journalism noise” on the one hand, and “smoke and mirrors” on the other.

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 351 The Age of Lies, Attacks and Vulgarities

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 27, 2016| Leave a Comment »

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Lesson 350 Communication Tone Is A Powerful Message

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 20, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Many felt the third presidential debate had more substance than the first two. Different people will judge that differently based on how much substance they require to have confidence in the belief that a policy topic can or will be turned into action.

But it’s also essential to ask just how important is the tone of leadership rhetoric when it comes to getting things done?  What is the effect of persistent and consistent rants about what and who is wrong as the tone for your leadership rhetoric versus persistent and consistent remarks about what’s right, accompanied by visionary statements about what’s possible.

In my experience communication tone can be a surprisingly strong and important message. It’s easy to see how consistent tone over time becomes contagious and powerful. It attracts audiences like a magnet based on their own life circumstance and orientation. Those who are upset with what they see around them and can’t see exciting possibilities ahead will be attracted to an angry and attacking leader. And those inclined to be positive people on the whole will very likely be energized by remarks about why this moment in time is perfect to achieve new possibilities. A clear and believable  vision for what is possible is a strong action enabler.

When significant numbers of people are responding to angry rhetoric it must be a wake up call for the surrounding community or nation. And when any leader cannot inspire change with a positive and believable visionary tone there will be a very rocky road ahead.

Bottom line: There is truth to the concept of “self-fulfilling prophesy.” Communities, nations and organizations only move ahead with positive talking leaders who aim high.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 349 Is Trump A Preview of More to Come?

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 14, 2016| Leave a Comment »

A communication analysis of Mr. Trump’s ability to attract a large following reveals how the needs of significant audiences can go mostly unnoticed for long periods of time, and the degree to which  festering anger can be awakened with autocratic, “rally the troupes” style rhetoric.

This situation has been made even worse in the presidential campaign by a major breakdown in the American political system. Relentless mean-spirited politics not only polarized Washington, but it was spilling across the nation and gradually angering huge numbers of people in economic decline. If legislators in Washington thought their ideology-produced gridlock had widespread national support they were totally missing large numbers of underserved people who soon would produce a protest loud enough to threaten the entire political system.

The result is that now there are even larger numbers of Americans disgusted with the entire presidential campaign. One candidate is looking more and more like a dictator threatening to jail his opponent, fire the generals he doesn’t like, and nuke his enemies. And troublesome skeletons just keep rolling out of the closet of the other. Many of us just can’t wait for the whole thing to be over.

So what will all this look like after the election? Even if Mr. Trump loses, his communication opportunities and followers will not likely go away. Bernie Sanders and his followers are not likely to disappear either. Others with special interest agendas will be encouraged to launch new political movements, and so processing information overload will continue to be a major challenge.

The gridlock in Washington will also likely continue, at least for a while. The U.S. will face a real struggle to recapture its role as leader of the free world. The Republican Party will have to rethink its divisive premises and find ways to collaborate. And even if the Democrats win, they will have to  overcome doing so with a very unpopular candidate.

Instant news and social media technology have been the enablers of this mess. Communication rules and processes are now all new. Policies and action plans are too complicated for 24/7 cable. The loud and the dramatic voices will continue to achieve the most visibility. And entertainment values will  continue to be used by news organizations in search of competitive advantage.

So these questions remain: What will the next four years look like in Washington with continuing political chaos and relentless all day news appetites? Will the Republican Party regroup and survive? Will special interest political parties form. Is the two-party system doomed? Even if Hillary wins, how will she and her party function when so many people in the U.S. and abroad don’t trust her? Is it even possible for the middle class to get turned around? Can we actually get organized to effectively address poverty, racism and violence in the nation’s neighborhoods? And can we reestablish the importance of moral character and integrity in leadership?

History shows how great civilizations decline and die. Early Greeks talked about how democracies are very capable of self-destruction. With this in mind, this campaign should be a loud wake-up call for all of us.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 348 Is This What Our Presidential Campaign Has Become?

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 10, 2016| Leave a Comment »

OK I confess. I recently made an attempt to understand Mr. Trumps’ appeal in spite of his offensive language and incessant attacks on individuals and entire groups. I suggested that in this age of instant communication and 24/7 news saturation maybe all this crudeness could eventually come to represent a kind of appealing toughness to his supporters. I reasoned that as globalization sent jobs abroad and middle incomes declined these people believed their depressed condition had been overlooked in Washington and that maybe this tough guy could really deliver results for them.

But before I continue we must remember that communication dynamics in Washington had a lot to do with bringing about this mess. The political decision to block anything the current president wanted to accomplish setup an eight year assault which totally grid-locked Congress. Problems were left unsolved. Mean-spirited attacks became the norm. Nationwide, political districts became polarized. And so the under-employed and declining middle class became angry and chose this presidential election to no longer remain silent. The “stop Obama at all cost” strategy backfired.

This is why we must try to understand communication and media dynamics in order to fully comprehend what is happening to us in politics. Actual problem-solving is something very different from arguing ideology. Statesmanship requires a completely different and higher level style of leadership behavior than winning ratings on a reality TV show. And when it comes to addressing the problems of an entire country and representing it abroad it’s not a matter of winning debate points. What we need is a savvy, sophisticated, and informed president capable of bi-partisan strategic problem-solving and thoughtful, courageous statesmanship.

It’s tempting to ask committed conservatives why they didn’t disqualify their “offensive and crude” candidate and find a more experienced one long ago? It’s also tempting to ask why cable television gave free rally coverage and publicity merely in anticipation of headline producing “crude” remarks?

As a consequence of all this, these debates have now become pointless. And we still have an eleventh-hour mess.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 347 Can Higher Education Help Save Us?

Posted in Higher Education, International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 4, 2016| Leave a Comment »

This depressing presidential campaign is making it imperative that we commit to the preparation of leaders that are both ethical and capable of serious bi-partisan domestic and international problem-solving. In short, we need practical approaches beyond politics to help cities losing jobs to globalization and drowning in poverty. And we need fresh talent and ideas to address the threats of terrorism and rebuild countries from the ravages of war.

On the domestic front, many universities are already engaged in widespread community service. But the lesson of this campaign is that our focus must now be on ethics (i.e. lead in water, hidden poverty, etc.), priority problems (i.e. small business development, helping displaced immigrants, ending gun violence, etc.), and educating leadership for a smaller world (bi-partisan and pragmatic).

On the foreign front, higher education is on its way to becoming a truly global industry with incredible potential for international problem-solving. For example, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently suggested on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square that the U.S. has the military capability to defeat ISIS in the Middle East but not the ability to rebuild the institutions and structures essential for governing. Is this an area where universities can help?

Universities certainly cannot do it alone, but many do have the research and consulting capability needed for engaging in problem-solving partnerships at home and abroad. Here are some interesting factors:

1. Most institutions are already heavily engaged in leadership development and are now testing innovative internship and apprenticeship-style approaches. This suggests that the pool of bright people capable of dealing with domestic and global problem-solving could be increasing very soon.

2. New and more flexible formats for study include deep immersion in other cultures both at home and abroad. This includes appreciating diverse foods, religions, traditions, values, and politics.

3. Globalization means that researchers in every field will be looking more broadly for projects and funding at home and abroad. Areas of interest should naturally include public health, water, food, poverty, energy, global warming, politics, urban studies, etc.

4. There are also academic experts with experience in strategic planning, city management, institutional development, non-profit agency advancement, small business development, entrepreneurial initiatives, and more.

5. Increasing numbers of citizens are learning how to simply demonstrate by example how the fundamental “idea of America” (individual freedom and opportunity, equal justice, democratic processes, etc.) can improve understanding between cultures in neighborhoods and foreign countries. And higher education certainly can be an extremely powerful force for soft power and citizen diplomacy.

It is not too much of a stretch to see that needed expertise for domestic and international problem-solving already exits in many of the world’s universities. It’s just a matter of identifying those experts… and nurturing them along.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »