Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

Lesson 188 Economic Polarization

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on October 25, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Last week I talked about the communication consequences of extreme political polarization. The same consequences exist when it comes to economic polarization. And when both of these situations exist simultaneously, the consequences are doubly serious.

Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, and filmmaker, Jacob Kornbluth, have recently teamed up to produce a video on the topic of economic polarization. Inequality for All explores the potentially dire consequences of the widening gap between the haves and have-nots in American society… and most especially, the dangerously weakening of a critically essential middle class.

Wall street versus Main street media stories sometimes create the illusion that they are simply separate situations. One is about stock prices and investment earnings, and the other is about a weakened local job economy. But the reality is that the wealth of corporate and Wall street executives is ultimately dependent on the skilled work and talent of those in the middle and working classes.

In the short-term, Wall street wealth can be leveraged through financial manipulation. But in the final analysis, the entire system will collapse when middle-class managers and other workers evaporate,  walk off the job, or even worse… become violent.

This situation has very much to do with communication dynamics. First, media coverage tends for a while to allow most individuals to feel distant from ultimate consequences. Second, human nature produces some period of withdrawal and denial, believing that things will eventually get better. But when the situation seriously deteriorates to the point of extreme middle-class and working class hardship, a perceived greed and lack of caring at the at the top inevitably will lead to social collapse.

Interactive communication, based on a sincere and shared desire to solve the problem, including an acknowledgement of mutual interdependence, is the only way forward. Otherwise, a polarized  economy will lead to polarized rhetoric, which will lead to a seriously destructive social class collision. And with the same situation existing at the same time in American politics, the consequences for our democracy can be frightening.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 187 Communication Consequences

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 19, 2013| 2 Comments »

This week Congress finally was able to orchestrate a strategy to reopen the government and avoid default on American debt. But while a method was finally reached to make this happen, no significant communication lessons were learned about the long-range damage of extreme polarization… even among many moderates.

For example, the Texas Republicans all voted against the bi-partisan bill. Voting as an extremist block has communication dynamic consequences. It confuses what you really believe in the minds of your audiences, destroys your capacity to be singularly understood as a strong leader, and makes you look like you lack the courage to stand out when the situation calls for it.

I use this example because I know some of these people. I thought I knew where they stood politically, but also on matters of true statesmanship. It has nothing to do with my political preferences. I am as bi-partisan as anyone… a little left of center on a few social issues, and slightly right of center on financial ones. Rather my communication consequence concerns are about the necessary ground rules for constructive debating in a democratic society.

As a communicator I describe these ground roles like this: As a politician you argue what you honestly believe during the campaign and when bills are being developed. In the final analysis, however, you behave like a statesman. You understand that compromise is not losing and can be win-win, that changes can be made over time, and that your main job after compromise is to win the next election.

To behave otherwise, the communication consequence is chaos and confusion. Thoughtful individuals lose capacity to lead. And American “exceptionalism” declines as a positive identity and becomes a negative perception all over the world.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 185 Republican Strategy?

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on October 4, 2013| Leave a Comment »

The Republican Tea Party extremists are ignoring the lessons of how communication ultimately works. This is not any longer merely an ideological dispute within the Republican Party. The Tea Party extremists are setting up a communication dynamic that can not only destroy their party, but it also has the potential to destroy our system of democracy.

These rebels might be able to secure their own re-election in their narrowly drawn ultra-conservative congressional districts. But what good is this if they cannot win back the White House, where they will have their only real opportunity to change how government works.

In his op-ed piece in the New York Times this week Tom Friedman reinforced that this is more than party politics. He observed that “our very democracy is at stake.” He reminds us that “majority rule is still the rule,” and that Obama-care is the law. This is not merely an ideological disagreement. “Our democracy is imperiled.”

Majority rules is our system. A law is a law. Win the election first, then move to change the world.  Republican strategy now should be aimed at winning the national election.

It’s customary in American politics for the political pendulum to swing from right to left and back again. With that in mind, here is a better strategy for Republicans:

(1) Assert a belief in the American political system.

(2) Acknowledge that Obama won the election.

(3) Explain that Republicans used every acceptable legislative tactic available to them to change a law they do not like, but now the time has come to re-open government.

(4) Begin now to unite and energize the party by reminding all Republicans that only with solid unity can they win back the White House. This is the only effective way in our system to change how government works.

Our democratic system is based on solid communication dynamics: Argue your differences aggressively. Be willing to compromise when the time for argument has past. Once past, respect that a law is a law. Accept that winning an election is a legitimate opportunity to lead. And then regroup to win back the White House the next time.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 184 The Presidential Address

Posted in Branding, Integrated Marketing, International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Planning, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on September 28, 2013| 1 Comment »

A major address by a president or CEO can be a powerful brand clarification tactic if it is followed by a carefully crafted and coordinated strategic communication and integrated marketing plan.

I came to understand the power of the carefully prepared and orchestrated  presidential address over many years of practice, and it caused me to ask whether or not President Obama’s United Nations address this week has the potential to be the foundation of a long-awaited clarified U.S. Foreign policy.

Such a speech standing alone will not accomplish this goal.  But if that speech contains a limited number of differentiating themes that can be lifted and later reinforced over time, the goal of a clarified policy or brand identity can certainly be reached. But it takes coordination, repetition, and the realization that such clarification only happens over time. Later speeches must repeat these themes in different contexts, and related  department and agency heads and staff must do the same thing.  In fact, all official and daily communication should find ways to reference those themes.

I analyzed the printed transcript of Obama’s UN speech this week and came up with  five such differentiating themes, and one overall perspective.  Overall, he asserted that all nations must stop focusing of what they are against, and begin immediately to articulate what they are for. Then within that perspective, I found these themes:

(1) National security. All nations, including the U.S., will act first to protect the security of their citizens. This explains how and why awkward affiliations and partners can occur.

(2) Universal opportunity. The U.S. believes all people are created equal. Therefore, everyone on the planet should have an opportunity to achieve what they are capable of achieving.

(3) Preserving the planet. Circumstances require that all nations must immediately focus on solving food, water, disease, air quality, land use, and energy crises.

(4) End nuclear weapons. The world must quickly accomplish this together. We simply have no choice.

(5) World peace. We must learn to accommodate various forms of democracy, governance, cultures and religion. We are one interconnected planet.

Are these themes complete and differentiating enough to constitute an entire U.S. foreign policy? If we can agree this is feasible, then to make it work a highly experienced chief strategic communication officer will have to be fully engaged in all White House deliberations, and also have the authority and access necessary to  coordinate all foreign policy communication, and communicators.

In addition, the 24/7 news cycle must be fully accommodated so that all daily messages reinforce those themes, and all action decisions are made taking the speed of daily news demands into account. This also means that operations must be made efficient enough to prevent the leaks and uncoordinated messages that have been undermining the president’s credibility.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 182 Avoid the Defensive

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on September 14, 2013| 1 Comment »

The digital media revolution has created an entirely new set of communication realities. There was a time when news and information moved much slower. Criticisms and public attacks aimed at you or your institution could usually be ignored for a while… and many of them would just fade away.

But when you find yourself in an ideological conflict or a crisis in this 24/7 breaking news obsessed world, it can be extremely damaging to find yourself on the defensive.  And it can be even be down right deadly to find yourself on the defensive twice in a row.

Actually this might be how we professional communicators came to describe our profession as “strategic communication.” When issues get hot, getting to the public first with a well thought-out initiative, and immediately thinking ahead to a second and even third follow-up initiative, has become essential to achieving and keeping credibility in a wildly competitive and rapidly changing media circus.

Obama may have been the first to suggest to Russian President Putin that removing all poison gas from Syria could stop a military strike. But Putin picked a moment to take it public as if it originally was his idea. And Obama’s response, no matter what it was, was now going to sound defensive.

And when only several days later Mr. Putin put an Op Ed article in the New York Times  bold enough to make additional news headlines, he managed to seize the offensive yet a second time! And what’s more, the article actually espoused democratic ideals and connected with criticisms currently being levied inside the U.S. by some  Americans!

The arrogance of a former KGB spy and devout communist party leader preaching democracy to a nation of free people certainly will not ultimately win the ideology war. But the strategic initiative taken twice has put the U.S. president into a defensive and damaging loss of credibility situation.

Lesson learned: You must think quickly and strategically in this rapidly changing new media world. You must then seize the high ground by making your first public statement quickly, and you must hold the offensive by being prepared to do it again very soon.

If you have not read the Putin Op Ed, do it now! It will make you mad. But then, hard lessons always do.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 181 Obama on Syria

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on September 8, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Crisis communication 101 teaches that you determine exactly what happened very quickly, develop a statement on what your organization is already doing about it, and then you contact as directly as you can the most affected parties. The news media would usually be third or fourth on an affected party list.

But what happens most often, however, is that the news media is the first to inform you about something horrible that just happened, and then you are under enormous pressure to assess the situation very quickly and make a public statement that you will very likely have to revise as you find out more.

But this kind of pressure filled situation is today’s professional strategic communicator’s reality. In a 24/7 news environment it is extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get on top of the most volatile issues and events. And Syria certainly is one of those “all but impossible” situations.

By taking so long to go public with a firm statement on the use of poisoned gas, and then not following the statement they finally made with immediate action, the Obama administration enabled leaks about disagreements among the staff to confuse the public. And when asking for Congressional support appeared to be an afterthought, all of this obviously robbed the president of much-needed leadership credibility.

And what is additionally troublesome to me is that from healthcare reform, to the budget, to education initiatives, to the deficit, and now Syria, it is not apparent that there has been a steady influential professional strategic communication voice involved during the planning and implementation processes.

My take as an outside observer is that while the president eventually comes up with a feasible solution (whether or not you agree with it), all too often by the time he is ready to act the climate has already been poisoned with leaks about internal conflicts.  And such leaks inevitably lead to losses of credibility… and even doubts about basic competence.

One thing is certain: The road ahead regarding Syria will be bumpy, and it has been made even more bumpy in recent days. As a result, the effectiveness of Obama’s entire presidency will rest on whether or not he can somehow regain his credibility with this issue, as well as with those that lie ahead. And the only way to do that in this 24/7 media world, I believe, is with a strong professional, and fully integrated, strategic communication team completely engaged every day.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 177 Communicating Foreign Policy

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on August 11, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Chautauqua Institution is a one-of-a-kind summer casual resort where individuals and families go to participate in lectures, concerts, films, sports, swimming, boating, bicycling, religious services and study… and to reflect on the issues of the day. Each week features a different theme, and this week’s theme was foreign policy.

My wife and I spent last week immersed in this wonderful place. From the world-class symphony, to sessions with acclaimed authors, to incredible arts exhibitions, and more, Chautauqua is nothing short of amazing.

But I must say that I also came away from the lectures even more troubled about how hopelessly complicated our world has become. Virtually every major speaker reinforced in great detail how each country in the Middle East and elsewhere has a different set of circumstances requiring a completely different set of strategic initiatives.

Some aspire at least partially to American basic values, while others are only strategically critical to our national security. And our inconsistency in explaining and dealing with all this has strengthened anti-American sentiments, making the task of diplomacy even more difficult.

There seems to be no one doctrine or policy statement that can cover all of these bewildering situations. Aaron David Miller, former diplomat and scholar in residence at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said in a presentation this week that, “these problems are generational in character, bi-partisan in nature, and yield to only approximate solutions at best.”

As I listened to these lectures, I naturally found myself reflecting on the communication challenges and realities of making America understood in this volatile international climate. Reluctantly, I had to agree that there is no simple central message or statement that will adequately explain U.S. foreign policy initiatives. But I have been  thinking lately that there might be a set of communication “objectives” that could  explain Miller’s observation about the need to settle for “approximate solutions.”

Previous to Chautauqua I had already developed a hypothesis from periodic Washington interviews and conversations. What is missing, I thought, is the existence of one central executive branch strategic communication planner charged with involving every agency and department in an integrated planning process before anything happens. My impression was that only general guidelines are shaped, and then are carried out as each agency sees fit… essentially creating independent “silos” which end up adding to widespread confusion and clutter.

Would it not be possible for a central plan to focus on communicating two clear U.S  objectives: one objective for countries that support U.S. values, and another for those that are only strategically important to national interests? Then, as in all institutional strategic communication, key points that advance these two objectives can be repeated relentlessly through a variety of old and new media… all aimed to cut through the clutter of confusing daily news reports.

The weeks and months ahead for me will largely focus on assessing the effectiveness of strategic communication in U.S. foreign policy more systematically, and on exploring ways expanded public diplomacy initiatives and the internationalization of higher education can help improve world understanding. I invite you to follow my journey.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 175 The Helen Thomas Legend

Posted in Internal Politics, Leadership, Lessons Learned on July 27, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Helen Thomas was the very first female reporter to cover the White House. She was an aggressive questioner, sometimes abrasive, always direct and insistent, and yet loved by most who knew her. Indeed, she became a legend.

Sadly, Helen passed away this past week, and as I watched long time journalists reflect on their years of working with her, I could not help but think, “How did she pull it off? Aggressively and overtly persistent…and still loved!”

I am sure most of us have met aggressively persistent people in our work. In my world  most of them wind up disliked, or at least not admired. But then there are the occasional Helen Thomas’s who can be very argumentative, even rudely interrupting, and yet still end up loved and remembered as absolutely wonderful people and treasured colleagues.

Helen would challenge White House spokesmen and presidents alike.  She would press relentlessly for answers they did not want to give. Then, follow-up and press again. She was always insisting on more transparency and was determined in her search for the real inside explanation. And still, she was loved by everyone, including the presidents. In short, Helen was a true leader in her world.

Leadership is a topic that fascinates me. I like to identify the various styles that emerge in different types of organizations and situations at different times. I try to analyze what it takes to lead in each setting? Some persistent people I find actually become self-destructive.  Some simply fail. But others are surprisingly effective.

I have found that the most successful leadership styles emerge in natural ways from  each person’s total personality characteristics. In other words, they appear comfortable in their own skin. But in addition, their total personality also seems to fit acceptably within the organization’s overall nature and culture.

Helen seemed to be able to find appropriate spaces and times in each work day for being direct and insistent. And she always came off as self-confident, informed, and  single-mindedly focused on getting her reporter’s work done successfully. Equally, she found places where she was able to laugh, make jokes, collaborate with colleagues, and even occasionally receive and give hugs. In the end, her sincere and genuine humanity always came through.

I say, “Bravo Helen Thomas. I admire what you achieved. You were a true pioneer.” But to my colleagues I also say: ” You better fully understand all that made her successful before you try her style! It will take all of Helen’s many qualities to make it work!”

Read Full Post »

Lesson 168 Transforming Organizations

Posted in Integrated Marketing, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Planning on June 8, 2013| Leave a Comment »

There are three dictionary definitions of the word transform:  (1)  change in form, appearance; or structure; (2) change in condition, nature, or character; (3) change into another substance.

I encountered the term again this week when I read a seminar promotion that claimed it could show me how to transform my institution. I realized that I had also made this assertion in the past. But for some reason when I read the claim this time it made me uncomfortable. What do we really mean when we say this?  And do we need to be more clear about what we mean?

If the word means changing an organization into a totally different place, that would rarely be our objective. This is simply shutting down one institution and launching another. In the case of marketing and communication this is not an example of transformation. Rather it is announcing the creation and start-up of a new organization.

What then is transformation? Characteristics that differentiate an institution are almost always found in its founding mission. New organizations are generally established to meet a need that is not being met. So when we intend to transform an existing organization we usually mean we intend to build on and modernize its founding mission. So extending the original differentiating mission creatively into the future is what I think most of us mean when we use this term.

Therefore, I believe transformation is a word used by most of today’s marketing and communication professionals to mean totally re-energizing an institution and the people who manage it. The most effective plans re-articulate founding mission, vision and values in such as way as to explain them with a bright new vision for the future. Importantly, they feature suggestions for revitalizing both  leadership and program initiatives, along with a complete set of tactical tools to achieve new levels of visibility within critical target markets.

This kind of transformation is not only possible, it is periodically necessary for most organizations.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 158 Using Action Teams

Posted in Branding, Integrated Marketing, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on March 29, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Last week I discussed the use of task forces in integrated marketing. They are a key part of bringing marketing, organizational behavior and group dynamics into what many people think of as the public relations and advertising field. Action teams are also extremely powerful tools in creating the perception that an institution is stepping out and claiming new prominence as a leader in the world.

Action teams are useful in solving specific problems or in launching new initiatives, especially those with the potential of attracting widespread attention. A university might need to recover from an unfortunate institutional crisis, or is ready to unveil the results of a bold new strategic plan.  In either case, bringing the best thinking and most creative talent in the institution together to address the situation can be very powerful.

An effective action team is made up of the best talent in the institution no matter where they are located. They might be in central administration, or in fine arts, or even in athletics marketing. They can come from anywhere. The key is talent and creative thinking. First of all, it is helpful to have a person on board who knows the current research findings and can design a simple survey if needed.  You will also need an experienced strategic thinker and planner, a writer who can write concise copy after listening to planning discussions, a designer who can produce art that symbolizes ideas they helped develop, and a project manager who can put it all together into a plan of action.

You will also need to be able to pull these highly talented people off the job into a truly integrated and ongoing process. This most often will require the authority and support of the president.  Most action teams will not take up all of its member’s time, but they will need to be able to make this project their top priority for however long it takes.

I have found that well structured and facilitated action teams can be the most powerful tool in the integrated marketing toolbox. So the more you know about how to create them, and the more experience you can get in managing them, the more success you will have in putting your institution on the map.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »