Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Strategic Communication’ Category

This week, the sex scandal at Penn State that cost the jobs of the winningest coach in football history, and a highly respected university president, was an American tragedy of the first order. It is one of those horrible events that brings an empty, sour feeling inside… one that settles in the pit of the stomach and just won’t go away.

Consultants and commentators have weighed-in suggesting that the situation has been grossly mishandled. Of course, they would. It’s their job to think they could have handled it better! “Get all the facts, and get them all out quickly, ” is their conventional advice.  “Tell the whole truth, and leave no unreported facts that surely will come out later.”  “Do the right thing from the very beginning,” they say. “In Penn State’s case, the guilty parties should have been fired long ago.” Indeed, judgements abound about what should have been done, and it’s all good advice. 

But… you most likely will get the word about a crisis like this in a shocking phone call just as you settle down late in the evening with a glass of wine or two, or even worse… when you are sound asleep in the middle of the night!  “Not now,” you shout. I have so many other deadlines to deal with tomorrow. I don’t even know where to start!”

An experienced communication officer knows all the “rules” about crisis management. But, finding all the facts at the worst possible time about a scandal like this can be nearly  impossible, let alone finding them quickly. You can’t tell a whole truth that you don’t know. And what makes it worse is that people tend to filter truth quite differently when they know they did something really dumb!

I know! I have been through several serious athletics crises over the years, and what comes to mind now is that there is no way to really fix the Penn State situation. You prepare a statement with whatever facts you can find quickly. You make a fact sheet so you can be consistent each time you answer questions. You contact the affected parties first, and then the press. You try to follow the crisis chapter in the textbook to the letter. This is the way it’s supposed to happen. 

The awful reality, however,  is that most of the time you will actually learn about a crisis like this from the press! Their’s is the very first call you get.  “I’ll look into it and get back to you,”  is all you can say as the satellite TV trucks pull into your driveway!  Now what?  Already, the situation seems beyond control. 

As you investigate you find that each player in the drama has a different understanding of his or her responsibility. Once they passed the matter on to someone else, they are certain they have no further concern. And eventually, everyone in the chain of command is able to conclude to their own satisfaction that they did what they could. Responsibility now is someone elses.  So what can you say until due process takes its course?

The public, however, always thinks the communication officer and senior officials know the complete truth.  They are just not telling it, or are covering up something, or are spinning the facts in some way. But truthfully, you may never know the whole truth.  Bits and pieces of new facts, opinions and truths will continue to roll out. Decisions about futures and careers now will take time, and the whole ugly episode is likely to remain a big mess for a long time.  You keep updating your fact sheet. You try to cut your losses. It’s about all you can do.

My experience suggests that scars from crises like this almost always linger for years.  This is so, even when all the crisis management rules have been followed. Eventually the institution will move on. Time does heal.  But for many Penn State students, faculty, staff, alumni, trustees, and others like me, the ache in the pit of the stomach will continue for a very long time. 

 

Read Full Post »

Strategic communication professionals have some real lessons to learn from current political discourse. There was a time when most of us thought that those in the limelight who say simplistic and silly things would be readily recognized as inexperienced, lacking in needed expertise, suffering from insufficient intelligence, and unprepared for serious problem-solving responsibility.

In fact, I believe that serious journalists thought essentially the same thing.  Just report what they are saying, and the people out there will see how unprepared and thoughtless they really are. There was a fundamental belief in the intelligence of the average person, and well thought out  ideas to triumph over weak ones.

It seems that in today’s politics each candidate assumes that if he or she plays to the lowest common denominator of their support, and finds the most simple of words to cure complex ills, that this base of followers will just feel better and fall into line.  And if those simple words are repeated often enough, they will actually begin to sound like truth to even more people.  And if one’s inclination is to not question what is being preached, it becomes easier and easier for people to accept a simplistic solution that makes them “feel” better.

The simple solution this week is the flat tax.  It strikes a positive nerve with large groups of people who experience frustration every year dealing with their income tax forms.  And so each candidate has come up with a different, simplistic flat tax with no explanation about implementation and consequences. Pick the one that is easiest to understand, and “feels” the best, and then repeat it over and over again until it takes on an “air of truth!”

In today’s competitive world of 24-7, breaking news journalism, it is more attention-getting to focus mostly on the excitement of the “horse race.” Colorful, extreme people make great news copy, and keeping them in the race makes  dramatic daily headlines.  It’s just too boring to write in-depth about the feasibility of solutions. Why would you want to weed out the most colorful of the players in your drama?

For the strategic communicator the only response to this reality seems to be aggressive counter-argument.  And when high dollar advertising is involved, the one that can spend the most, and repeat the most, will generally win the day.

In the end, the unintended consequence is social and political polarization, with extremes fighting extremes. But we know that the most complex problems also have complicated solutions.  They require experienced, talented leadership. Most politicians will get elected on simple “feel good” ideas, and then face the reality of day-to-day problem solving.  They will have to muster the courage every day to try fresh new ways forward, take risks, and adjust their solutions with experience. And, sadly, this reality is a long way from the frightening simplicity of today’s political communication.

 

Read Full Post »

A colleague recently reminded me that I once said that if you want to make change happen it might require engineering a crisis!  Indeed, I admit I have made that remark from time to time, and I still think there is a small element of truth in it.  But mostly my intent was to go on and articulate what I see to be a larger truth.

My experience has been that for most people to want to reinvent themselves and change their organization, they must first see a better way forward to a better future. During periods when they are complaining about all the little things they see wrong, they really mean they are no longer believing that overall success is likely for their institution and themselves in the days ahead.

In most of these cases I think it’s best to find what big ideas have worked in the past, or are now working, and then recommend that more like them be used to launch a renewed and revitalized strategic plan.  In other words, focusing on specific problems often creates and reinforces a larger negative environment, which can  actually paralyze growth. But, by revitalizing what has been working for the institution, overall morale can be improved and everyone can once again become inspired.

Admittedly, a real crisis will bring about an intense desire for change. In fact, that can be felt throughout American society right now.  Today, I am attending the Texas Book Festival and there is a demonstration immediately outside my hotel window! Hundreds of young people are marching and chanting : “We want change, and we want it now!”  Moments like this certainly are ideal opportunities for creative leaders to emerge with new ideas about a brighter future.

So, I guess my original “element of truth”  is that you should never waste a natural crisis!  When you have one right there in front of you,  you should recognize it as an opportunity for launching a new or renewed strategic plan with bold new tactics.  But when such a natural crisis doesn’t exist, I certainly think that to manufacture one risks turning the entire climate too negative.

I prefer to think the best approach will be to find what ideas have been working, and then come up with more creative ones like them. This should make people feel good, reinforce a positive work climate, and generate a widespread excitement about joining a positive renewal movement to reshape the future.

Read Full Post »

In recent years, I have been adapting the lessons I have learned in my marketing and communication work to the bewildering world of legislative advocacy. My focus has been on helping advance higher education and nonprofits, and  it has been quite an adventure. 

I thought it reasonable to think that a certain amount of government regulation was needed to keep greedy speculators on Wall Street from ruining our main street economy, or to deter out-of-control bankers from being totally self-serving. or to prevent manipulators from using non-profits to hide questionable business practices, or to keep less than  competent educational administrators from misusing funds. But in this hopelessly polarized society, it seems all I encountered were the most extreme political ideologies and solutions.

In my immediate world of higher education I was willing to support essential regulation focused only on very specific  situations and people. Beyond that, I thought that it might be possible for an enlightened government to focus on providing financial and other positive incentives to stimulate informed and creative ideas to improve teaching and research.

From my 45 years as a teacher, it really did seem apparent that individual institutions and students have specific talents and special needs. In other words, I naively thought it should be possible to convince educated government officials that finding and supporting talent, and institution-specific solutions, is far more effective than centralized controls  that assume everyone can learn the same material  in the same way.

Instead, I found even more centralized controls and regulations than I imagined, along with a disturbing commitment to increase them.  Even new administrations that I thought would be somewhat enlightened, are not. To punish the guilty, they punish everyone.  As a result, all institutions have had to add staff and money to comply with endless pages of detailed regulations, and any goal to keep costs and tuition low has been rendered almost impossible to reach.

I will still concede that limited regulation is sometimes necessary. On top of that, however, we desperately need mutually respectful dialogue between “trench-experienced” teachers, administrators, and enlightened legislators. But to make this even feasible, we must first end this mean-spirited, polarized, and destructive argumentation that is tearing our country apart.

Read Full Post »

Once in a while those of us who work in the field of strategic communication must stop and remind ourselves that we do not ever really send complete messages to audiences.  Rather, we make a “sign,” or “noise,” that pulls a previously established meaning out of each person’s brain.

For example, when I say the word “dog” I am only making a funny noise. The receiver attributes  a meaning to that “noise” out of  prior experience. For dog lovers, that noise will bring a pleasant impression. For those who see dogs as dirty animals, or threatening to their safety, it will be a negative impression.  One of my students offered: “For me today, that word reminds me of a bad date I had last night.”

It is a bit depressing sometimes to realize that each and  every word we use is processed in this way by each individual.  Therefore, it is only where our experiences completely overlap that effective communication can take place.  The further apart our geographic and cultural experience, the less likely we will completely understand each other. No wonder communication across economic levels, ethnic cultures, and nationalities is so complicated.

The lesson here is clear: It is essential for the sender and receiver to know each other as thoroughly as possible before attempting serious communication. “Experience overlap” must take place so that each “noise ,” or “sign,” will have the same meaning to both parties.  Wherever possible, finding opportunities to create this overlap with our target audiences should become a part of our overall strategic communication plan. This reality also underscores the critical importance of  message feedback and repetition, thereby establishing dialogue and giving us an opportunity to correct misunderstandings.

Read Full Post »

Being misunderstood is one of the most frustrating feelings anyone can experience.  It certainly is true for professional communicators. Yet, it happens almost daily. In fact, I have been known to comment that there is no such thing as a communication expert. There are only people who work at doing it systematically every day.

Experience has taught me that as much as fifty percent of every message  is lost.  A receiver can only process so much information, and selective perception determines which fifty percent is remembered.  Noise interruptions, from technical problems to attention distractions, also make it difficult to process entire messages. Based on this same reality, I argued in a previous blog that people only hear what they want. So what can we do to improve understanding?

I suggest thinking about shaping important message content around seven steps: (1) Get your receivers’ attention before sending any message. (2) Tell them your main purpose up front. (3) Limit your message to a few main points. (4) Give an example or tell a story to substantiate each one. (5) Conclude by summarizing your key points and purpose. (6) Build in the most efficient feedback process you can.  (7) Respond to whatever feedback you get, and resend your message.

The closer communication can become actual dialogue, the more effective it will be.  And, the more distance and noise  (including technology) there is between sender and receiver, the less effective communication will be. In these cases, you must keep your message as simple as possible, and repeat it as often as you can. In the final analysis, we all must anticipate breakdown, and just keep going.  The advantage we professionals  have is that we do it everyday, and therefore are able to continually repeat and reinforce our most critical messages.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 73 is that people generally hear what they want to hear, and that contrary arguments actually reinforce already held beliefs. So when setting out to change how people are thinking, what should professional communicators do?

First, know that it will take time, and will often not  be successful. This is why grassroots politics centers around using those who are already on your side to work with those who are already undecided. Minds rarely change, and when they do it’s at the end of a long process. Most of us have come to our opinions as a result of our interactive experiences at work, with friends, with family, and over time.  We tend to think like those with whom we have been interacting on a regular basis. And today we even tend to make media choices that reinforce what we already believe. Thinking differently almost always requires a substantially changed message environment for a sustained period of time.

But if you are still determined to make the effort to persuade, you must begin by raising provocative questions. The more questions I have to confront the more likely I will become confused.  And when I am confused, I will become extremely uncomfortable.  Psychologists call this state “cognitive dissonance.”   In that state, I become psychologically compelled to reconstruct my belief system. It’s the only way I can regain my sense of well-being.

It will take a deluge of new influences to orchestrate this state of cognitive dissonance. It best happens when new thinking people appear in my immediate environment, and new message points assault me from a new set of media sources.  But even then, not all minds will change. Making the effort,  however, is a legitimate form of strategic communication and honest persuasion. 

This process, admittedly, is a form of brainwashing.  But brainwashing as we sometimes find it in militaries and concentration camps is different. It is accompanied by brutal techniques to wear down resistance by producing physical and mental exhaustion. Changes in thinking produced like this almost always disappear later on.

The type of brainwashing we find in politics today is different, but some of it can also be questionable. Many of the consistently repeated message points are untrue or misleading.  And when misleading messages bombard people repeatedly and consistently, are repeated by influencers in the immediate community, and are accompanied with confusion producing questions, the messages can begin to sound true. This is dangerous and irresponsible.

Our responsibility as professional communicators is to use our mind changing processes and tools cautiously, responsibly and honestly. Then, we must make additional efforts to help educate the public about the new realities of the 24/7 polarized world.

Read Full Post »

I found myself once again this week  in a conversation about my work being either about  “spinning” or “covering up.”  The assumption is that we in marketing and communication either are promoting unreal ideals, or covering up some awful truth. This gets really tiring after a while. And what makes it even worse is that I usually respond with a not very diplomatic, or persuasive, “Come on…you must know truth is my business!”   Not persuasive, I say, because this snide remark always only produces a sarcastic chuckle.

When I reflect on the times I have dealt with sensitive issues or crises my recollection is that my aim always was to determine the essential facts, identify what we were going to do, and then communicate all this as clearly and as soon as possible.  But, if it was a hot issue, or a serious crisis, aggressive reporters would often look for what seemed like needless details, or side stories, or go for privacy invading interviews, all with the purpose of keeping the story hot, selling more papers, or attracting more viewers. What’s more, I also often found myself saying,  “All we want is to get the facts of the story told clearly, including what we intend to do, and then move on.”  To me, truth really is my business, but today’s 24-7, high-speed news actually makes it extremely difficult to accomplish.

In the cases where I am in the role of advancing brand identity or institutional programs, I also know that only truth has credibility. Stretching it too far will be counter-productive.  But here I must admit that we face the dilemma of  “the self-fulfilling prophecy.”  We know in marketing that if we can use language to insprire, but clearly stay within the boundaries of truth, that people in institutions will stretch to achieve even more. That is using the power of strategic communication to help move organizations forward.  

But, those who stretch the truth too far give us all a bad name. Therefore, we need to become better critics of our profession, or the public will never understand the greater good that we do… and we will always have the title, “Spin Doctor,” inserted after our name.

Read Full Post »

What do you do when someone issues a public criticism of your institution, or a one-sided negative opinion appears in the news media? I must admit that recent changes in the political environment, as well as the practices of 24-7 cable news channels, have altered my thinking.

Formerly, l almost always counseled colleagues to not respond.  My belief was that to do so only added fuel to the situation and challenged the critic to respond again.  All too often, a well-intentioned correction was counter-productive and only intensified the controversy.  Rather, with no response at all, the matter was usually forgotten.

But today, in a media climate of sour, mean-spirited polarization, the dynamic appears to be much different. An un-rebutted charge is likely to be made again and again, and ultimately an untruth can gain acceptance as fact.  If it is continually repeated that the new health care legislation creates “death panels,” all too many people eventually come to believe it is true.  It’s a maddening reality of this “new media,” passion-dominated, breaking news-crazy world.

All this is to say I have been forced to change my thinking about responding to vicious charges.

First, I still would consider not responding.  It’s possible that some charges will still go away if left unchallenged. That depends, however, entirely on the intensity of the intentions of the source of the charge. These days, the background and overall purposes of the source must be studied and understood each time a criticism is made.

If the source is determined to be highly motivated, or a member of an organized initiative, there is no choice in today’s media climate: you will have  to be prepared to deliver a carefully shaped, and intense, reply. You will do well to devise a comprehensive communication plan that features simple talking points, carefully chosen multi-media channels, and a focus on your most significant target markets. This is especially important if an un-rebutted initial charge is made a second time.

It is very important to always shape your statement around simple talking points, and never get off on tangents or side stories.  Make sure to always stay on message. Plan to deliver the statement with equal or greater intensity as your adversary, and be ready to sustain the public conversation for the long-term.

One final observation: The dynamics of grassroots politics will likely apply. Sadly, you will have to settle for not pleasing everyone.  If the message is skillfully crafted your supporters will begin a word-of-mouth, positive response. But, you will also have to accept that your adversaries will remain adversaries,  and while some neutrals will come with you, others will not.  The new reality of this polarized world is that it is better to rally your troops than to suffer the humiliation of being labeled as ineffective, or even disappointing, to your most important constituents.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago I got a phone call from a reporter asking what I thought about a university president who took a strong public stand on the issue of hate speech.  His statement drew responses from those who agreed with him, but it also drew what seemed to be even stronger criticism from those who believe that freedom of speech in our country applies to all forms of speech, especially in the academy. As a strategic communication and marketing professional, I tried to explain to this reporter how I would make my decision regarding giving advice.

First of all, a CEO must begin with the premise that his or her primary responsibility is to advance the integrity and interests of the whole institution. An academic institution clearly exists fundamentally as a forum for the exploration of all sides of issues, but can the president taking a stand on one issue affect the basic health and well-being of the institution? 

In the case of hate speech, would it be better to make a general observation about the possible dangers of such speech, and then just ask others to seriously consider the possible consequences? Or, would it be better to deny making a comment, suggesting that it is not proper for an institutional leader to offer comments on such issues?

It’s true, I could advise to always take the position that it’s safer to keep the president out of controversies like this, and to leave the entire debate to others.  But, then, occasionally I have encountered presidents who saw their leadership role as being able to bring visibility and long-term recognition to the institution by stepping out with strong personal views, and staying visibly engaged.

As with so many other kinds of judgements that communication advisors are called upon to make, I found my answer here to be: It depends! It depends on the established culture of the institution measured against the natural inclinations and style of its current leader. If the institution’s culture and values embrace taking stands on issues, and the CEO is comfortable getting engaged in ongoing public dialogue, then ultimate long-term good can result.  But, the institutional mission, brand, and leadership style must clearly embrace the decision. 

On the other hand, if the institution is more traditionally academic, and the president is hesitant about stepping out personally, it is never wise to push getting engaged in controversy.  Making one bold statement, and then backing off, is never an option.  Once you step into a debate, you are in it for as long as the issue remains hot.

For some institutional leaders, getting involved might depend on the nature and volatility of each issue.  Hate speech is one thing, but stepping out as an advocate for international human rights, or taking the lead in advocating new forms of clean energy, can be seen as a totally different situation. 

In the final analysis, communication advice in a controversy must be appropriate to the culture of each institution and how each president sees the CEO role. Sometimes my best approach was merely to conduct a thorough pros and cons analysis, and then let the CEO make the final call based on what he or she felt compelled to do. Sometimes the bottom line is that you can’t ignore the sincere instincts and passion of an informed and dynamic leader.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts