Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public Affairs’ Category

One essential lesson I learned over the years is that understanding how to address issues requires first understanding their context. Breaking down complex problems into their component parts is essential before viable solutions can be found.

Let’s take the turmoil in Egypt this week as an example. Answering some key questions to establish context might offer clues about options:

1. Is it possible for a religious minority to advance its beliefs and govern the majority at the same time?

2. Is it possible for a military establishment to govern a complex and diverse society successfully?

3. Does history teach that militaries and religious minorities inevitably fail at building institutions, governing diverse populations and advancing economies?

4. Has it ever been possible to cast off this kind of past political baggage and reinvent a government from inside?

5. Or is it more likely that non-governmental entities such as experienced NGO’s, university experts, think tank specialists, and foundations can better assist in rethinking and renewing government structures, service institutions, legal systems, electorial processes, and business economies?

If informed analysis establishes that there are essential historical lessons to be learned from answering these questions, then should not appropriate “talking points” be written and used over and over again by reporters and strategic communication professionals alike in order to establish “context” for finding viable ways forward?

It seems to me that all this should be possible in our truly globalized world. And if not now, then very soon. What we need is a powerful spokesman to emerge with a new vision for an expanded definition of public diplomacy.

Read Full Post »

The way the White House has been dealing with the recent crises in the state department, justice department and the IRS is certainly fueling the argument that the government is too large to govern efficiently. That may be so. But my experience would suggest that an important element of strategic thinking and planning just might be missing.

A complicated and rapidly developing competitive environment in higher education a number of years ago is what caused me to begin thinking about bringing integrated marketing concepts into our strategic communication practice. Bringing more sophisticated communication tools into marketing had been underway in business for some time. But bringing marketing thinking into strategic communication had not yet happened, at least to my knowledge. Yet it was coming to my mind now out of necessity.

There are many components to integrated marketing.  But one that can make a huge difference in crisis situations is facilitated group analysis and planning. Many people don’t think more meetings are feasible in a fast-moving setting. But my experience has been that taking enough time to get everyone on the same page before acting can really pay off. And these meetings can be quickly organized and effectively managed if an experienced trained facilitator is close at hand.

Admittedly, the larger the organization the more complicated the challenge. And it’s true that many executives are just not patient enough to work through appropriate group process in any situation. But when things go badly, as they have now at the White House, it takes even more time to work through an ongoing growing mess.

First the commitment to try must come from the top, as well as an understanding of how to go about organizing the initiative. In the case of the White House, the president and chief of staff would have to give some careful thought to who from the various involved segments of government must participate, and who has the skills to lead it. It could be the communication director, but he or she must have the facilitation skills… and many do not.

A working group like this has three specific tasks: First, identify all the relevent facts and get them on the table. What actually happened? What are we doing about it? Second, determine the most complete and yet concise way to tell the story. Stay focused on the heart of the story, but all of it must be told. Otherwise pieces always will continue to dribble out. And finally, choose the most credible and confident spokesman for this particular situation. The more important the story, the higher the level the  spokesman. In crisis situations this is often not the press spokesman, or even the communication director. It is the highest level person closest to the events. And in cases as important as this one, it’s likely to be the president.

For the White House, the need to concisely clarify its primary national policy “brand” themes and reinforce them in everything that is said has also become critical. Priority audiences’ interests must be understood and directly addressed. And they must now be carefully targeted. The most efficient interactive tactics for reaching each must be launched by experienced new and social media practitioners. One thing is certain: A circle the wagons and defend the fort mentality simply will not work in crisis situations.

Breakdown is inevitable. But broadly planned strategic and facilitated group message coordination, together with audience targeting and focused interactive communication, can effectively address critical issues and systematically move institutions and nations ahead. It’s clear now that the White House needs a new approach. What they are currently doing is not working.

Read Full Post »

This week I visited a meeting of the Young Professionals in Foreign Policy group in Washington. It was a gathering of 50 or more mid-career strategic communication professionals working in various foreign policy positions.  They came from government as well as NGO’s, embassies, think tanks, and more. They meet together mainly for professional development and to share their experiences and problems with each other.

The meeting kicked off with a panel discussion. Members of the panel included the Director of Foreign Affairs at the Brookings Institution, the Director of Arab World Engagement at the Center for Strategic Counter-terrorism Communications at the State Department, the Chief of Protocol at the French Embassy, and the Strategic Communication Officer at IFC World Bank.

YPFP is a very impressive group. I have long observed that students and graduates who make it to Washington as interns or young professionals are among the best thinkers universities produce. That evening I felt as I do when I am surrounded by our own honors students at TCU: The world will really be just fine when these talented professionals are in charge!

Even as a life long teacher I sat there thinking how much I can learn from their experiences. Everyone one of them is already on the front lines dealing with serious security and policy issues. One panelist described how she monitors websites in the Middle East to determine where young people gather and how to influence their thinking about the U.S. Another panelist addressed the challenges of simplifying messages related to very complicated financial matters for foreign audiences. Eventually everyone was discussing how to advance their foreign policy careers. Being willing and prepared to take on the most difficult national problems seemed to be their common theme.

The director of the group and I closed the evening by talking about how I might get involved and be of service to the organization. The real question will be, from my 40 plus years of practicing and teaching strategic and international communication just what can I offer them? One thing is clear: With this group I will be doing more listening than lecturing!

Read Full Post »

The news this week has been a bit more optimistic concerning bipartisan cooperation between the White House and the republicans in congress. Apparently the president bypassed the partisan leaders and invited a varied group of legislators to dinner to discuss ways forward.  Obama’s strategic thinking seems to be to go around the dysfunctional, polarized leaders to find some common ground. We’ll soon see how well it works.

All this got me to thinking about how dependent we are on each other in general to simply work things out. When collaboration occurs in good spirit, we move ahead.  When debaters lock in to a “my way or no way” attitude, their mean-spirited attacks destroy everything.  This seems to be a consistent lesson of history, and a Wall street vs. Main street lesson as well.

As I have argued in previous posts, when profit success grows into personal greed, the people in the middle who enabled the success to begin with become diminished. And when this otherwise comfortable middle class sinks into financial struggle, serious division begins. In short, past cooperation degenerates to hostility and eventually the entire system crashes.

Is it possible that today once again the simple answer is to just go around gridlocked leaders to form good faith groups that are willing to work things out?  This could be really big news, and the resulting visibility just might begin our desperately needed  turnaround.

Read Full Post »

The American Council on Education (ACE) is considered the “secretariat” of all higher education associations when it comes to advocacy with U.S. legislators. Much of its annual conference each year is spent on analyzing and discussing the most critical issues facing the industry. This year is no exception. But when the thinking and talking is over, what good will come of it?

My last post reported that I see an assault on all of higher education coming as the result of our totally polarized legislatures. In this totally dysfunctional climate progress on the issues is certainly not likely. But just as disturbing is the fact that polarization can also result in still another major dysfunction. It destroys any consistency in the use of key words. And when that happens, effective communication is also lost. My example… the words “conservative” and “liberal.”

In the world of political science “conservative” generally means a preference for limited government and maximum self-reliance. “Liberal” generally means a belief in the need for effective government and taxpayer supported social initiatives. Both are helpful terms describing legitimate philosophies of governance. But in a polarized world, these words are used to stand for the most extremes of those ideologies, and thus eventually become negative accusatory labels.

What’s interesting about communication dynamics is that when a term is misused consistently it can permanently lose its shared meaning.  And to make matters worse, there often isn’t another term to take its place. In the process, then, civility in dialogue is lost and mean-spirited attacks becomes the norm.

This is the situation we will be facing in legislatures all over the country in the coming months. It has become a nasty game that is fueled by extreme ideology, big money, and imprecise language. Is there a solution? In the short run I don’t see one. For now all we can do is press on and believe that persistence and time will find a way to heal everything.

Read Full Post »

This week I have been thinking quite a bit about the relationship between leadership and advocacy. The question on my mind has been: When little progress is being made on influencing legislative policy, can an advocate’s efforts still result in the organization being seen by its constituents as a leader in its industry?

Last week I found myself in a discussion about this with students in the Schieffer School of Journalism at TCU.  The class was PR and Advocacy, and I was invited there to discuss my work with the legislatures in Texas and Washington, and to explain why I do it when the entire process seems to be dysfunctional.

To get the discussion started, I asked the students how they define the word “advocacy.” They said they thought it means arguing your point of view, or representing a point of view on behalf of your client. As with legal representation, we all agreed that when all points of view are represented, better decisions can more likely get made.  But with that said, we jumped right to the big question: Are legislators today influenced by anything but extreme ideology and money? And if not, how then can my advocacy work on behalf of TCU be worth the effort?

I admitted that this question is not only a good one, but it is the key one.  Indeed, advocacy is very close to debating, and debating alone can lead only to polarization. And since we seem to no longer have a viable mechanism for negotiating legislative solutions, the resulting gridlock can make all efforts seem like a waste of time.

In retrospect, however, I came out of my dialogue with these students, and my subsequent reflections on the situation,  very certain that our efforts have  indeed been worthwhile.  

Over time it has become clear to me that whenever an institution’s advocate is at the table with other industry leaders in an effort to shape the policy that will shape their future, the result will eventually be the public acknowledgement of industry leadership. And I also can now confidently argue that this result is a significant component in developing a consistent and powerful institutional brand.

Read Full Post »

This week was dominated by the president’s state of the union address.  And since then, I have been preoccupied with reflecting on it.  It certainly was an interesting hour-long lecture.  But when all is said and done,  just what  was really accomplished?  What wasn’t?  And what could be?  

As a speech, it certainly was comprehensive.  Many could easily see it as inspiring and visionary.  It was a complete list of initiatives that, if implemented,  could certainly move the country forward. But many no doubt were also wondering just how all this could ever be paid for, or why he  is proposing so many different ideas all at once. In short, the address might have sounded overwhelming and unrealistic– especially in today’s economic environment.

In public speaking 101 I remember learning that effective presentations generally begin with the speaker demonstrating an “insider’s empathy” with the needs of key audience segments. Then the content should explain no more than four or five doable initiatives, each supported by very practical sounding examples and stories. And each story should be selected to relate to the needs of the most important audience segments, so everyone wins something. The conclusion, then, should simply repeat the main points, followed by an inspirational rallying cry to help reshape the future together.

The state of the union address this week was a very interesting and comprehensive lecture about all we should be able to do to move America forward. It was enjoyable to hear, and I can support all of it.  But would it not have been possible to put forth a more focused, pragmatic and doable plan?

Read Full Post »

US legislators have become aware of just how much is being spent on financial aid to students. Since it is a very big number, and there is a need to find places to cut the budget, they have decided that it is their responsibility to investigate the cost benefit of the expense. This has led to a relentless and potentially damaging assault on the entire industry. The shere number of areas being investigated is staggering. And it is happening all at once.

It begins with the assumption that higher education costs too much everywhere. There is no acknowledgment of the diversity of schools and their varied costs, or just how much it costs when the goal is to deliver an exceptionally high quality education. The buzz word is “affordability,” and the assumption simply is that every school costs too much.

This assumption fuels a desire to measure just what people learn and earn as an indicator of cost effectiveness. But that is difficult to do. For example, there are now investigations  into what people in specific career fields earn at different points after graduation. This can convey the erroneous  assumption that it’s valid to choose a career based mostly on salary data that may or may not relate to what each graduate may actually experience. And it does not take into account an  individual’s inherent talent, motivation, and possible inner desire for a different kind of creative fulfillment? Even so, some researchers are trying to collect and publish what they can find anyway. And they will do it in the name of transparency, even though it will lead many to very unhappy consequences.  

We can agree that for those types of institutions where more efficiency is needed a targeted assessment is fair. This  currently would include the entire for-profit sector. We can also agree that learning outcomes can be better assessed. But the wide diversity of both institutions and program choices must be maintained in the process. Diversity is what makes the American system distinctive, and diversity is what makes financial aid so essential.

But the assaults don’t stop here. There are also assaults on charitable tax deductions, tax deductions for education expenses, on how credit is awarded, on how credits transfer, on how loans are administered, and more. All of this at the same time is too much. It divides rather than unites.  It destroys rather than improves.

What we need is a participatory and positive problem-solving dialogue between legislators and educators. And we do not need this relentless and mindless assault on the best hope we have for world peace and enlightened international understanding.

Read Full Post »

It is easy to forget that even commonly used words mean different things to different people. Words evolve in meaning over time, and are also used in different ways in other cultures. They have been my business for over 40 years, and yet I still can forget how difficult it is to achieve clarity.

“Compromise” is one of those words.  It is a very negative word for many people.  It can mean you lost the argument, and are giving up your beliefs. But to others it can be a positive word, and mean you have reached a viable solution where everyone can go forward.

“Taxes” is another one of those words. For many paying taxes is a privilege. It’s what goes along with living in a society that builds and maintains roads, provides fire and police protection,  and establishes many other quality of life enhancing social services. For others,  however, it’s taking away their hard-earned income.

Still another such word is “capitalism.”  For many it means out-of-control greed.  It enables the few to enrich themselves at the expense of others.  But to many others it’s a word that goes hand-in-hand with freedom and opportunity.

“Democracy” to some means that the people at large make most decisions by majority vote. But to many others around the world it means various levels and kinds of participation in government. For example, it can mean being able to have “some say” in the process. But it also can mean participating  in a limited voting  process that is likely to result in establishing a dictatorial style leader.

Operating from the perspective of a clear “ideology” was pretty much a positive thing in the past. You always knew where someone was coming from on an issue. But today being an ideologue means you are an  “extremist”.  And this largely has been the consequence of a mean-spirited polarized political environment.

Even in higher education the term “church-related”  has different meanings. To some it means an opportunity to explore what you believe as a part of your education. But to others it means, “Those people will tell you what to think!”  

Words take on meanings from how we use them. Whatever they mean today they are likely to mean something else tomorrow.   Running a “deficit” to one person is synonymous with bankruptcy. But to another it is merely a necessary management process!  No wonder successful communication is so incredibly difficult.

Read Full Post »

Observing the current debate on gun ownership leads one to conclude that all debating can accomplish is polarize and paralyze situations. 

A CNN promotional message got my attention this week when I noticed one of the reporters featured in it essentially said that encouraging debate was a primary objective of their coverage.  On the surface, that can sound really  positive. Who would not be inclined to agree that the more we debate issues the more informed we become?

But I am reminded of how even mainstream journalists delighted in reporting the extremes of the republican primary debates. They argued they were only reporting what was being said. But admittedly it made exciting copy for the daily news, and so the extreme viewpoints were endlessly repeated.  

Looking at it now, does this not raise the question : Did such reporting play a strong role in creating the very polarization they were reporting? In other words, have we reached a point where we must be extreme in our rhetoric in order to gain the media recognition necessary to succeed?  Do we find ourselves in the classic “chicken and egg” predicament?  

In my younger days I produced both radio and television public affairs programs and found that the easiest way to design a compelling program was to invite two extreme thinking people to debate. I also found that when we examined issues more thoughtfully it simply was not “good television.”  The medium of television likes simplicity and conflict, and with few exceptions makes intelligent discussion feel boring.

I must conclude from this current gun ownership issue that debates certainly do clarify positions! But once clarified, it’s also clear that a much different circumstance is required in order to find solutions. Research tells us that the media determines the topics we talk about. And we now know  24/7 cable is capable of fine-tuning extreme points of view. But we have yet to find a useful medium for taking those viewpoints and moving them to solutions.

The consequence of this polarized atmosphere is that compromise has become a dirty word, when it realistically is the only way to move forward. When are we going to learn that debate is only one important step in the democratic process?  The next is to form a task force to find a compromised way forward, and then to adjust the details later from what is learned. 

We have a big problem with gun violence in the US, so let’s do something… and then go from there.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »