Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Lesson 192 Community and Communication

November 23, 2013 by larrylauer

This is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK. Those of us alive at the time are once again recalling where we were when we heard the news.

I was sitting in a communication class at American University in Washington, DC. The door opened and a person stood there stunned, and then managed to simply say, “the president has been shot!” My classmates and I sat motionless in total silence.  No one, not even our professor, said a word. In a few minutes, one by one we stood up and passed quietly from the room. I walked solemnly out into the fall morning and wandered aimlessly around the campus bewildered about what might be the future of our country, and frightened about what unknown course my life could now take.

In an instant, the world had changed.  Internal unrest and racial divide would eventually shake up our society. The Vietnam war would continue to divide us. And admiring perceptions of this United States of America around the world would never be the same again. The now dominant  medium of television would seize the moment and literally come into its’ own during the next four days. The entire world was glued to a screen, and the power of imagery was inescapably experienced by all of us… all “live” on television in “real time!”

From the very beginning, those of us studying television were asking the question: “Will television eventually bring about a global village of common understanding, or will it magnify our differences?” The Kennedy assassination managed to muddy the waters. In some ways we were one community, and in other ways we were driven apart. In the final analysis, the lesson learned was that the age of imagery, and eventually the age of digital interactive media, was making things far more complex, bewildering, and potentially explosive, than ever before.

Television was enhancing our emotional experience of critical events. I know from trying to produce programs myself, that television “liked” conveying feelings and drama and did not like details. The more emotion, the more the public became glued to the screen. The more information and details, the more likely the public would tune away. What was happening before our very eyes, was the realization that the addictive power of television could be making the world more emotional, and the consequence of the decline of print could be the decline of logic and reason in the world.  Heightened emotions can have community formation benefits. But they also can fuel discontent and polarization.

The years since the assassination have been a time of continuous communication revolution. And what has become clear to this communication professor is that the way virtually everything works changes with each new dominant medium.  Family interactions change. Individual behaviors and beliefs change. Elections change, along with what it takes to win. Government functions and perceptions  change. And even religions and denominations change. There indeed is some truth to the “we are what we eat” theory of communication!

Today we are a global village in mourning over a great leader. Our many thoughts include what might have been. But tomorrow we still will face the complexities and contradictions of how communication media can establish communities one day… and then the next day tear them apart.

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Strategic Communication | Leave a Comment »

Lesson 191 Learning on Site

November 16, 2013 by larrylauer

Last week we talked about how using multi platform teaching enhances both educational experiences and learning outcomes. And we therefore argued that online MOOC’s are most effective when used to enhance rather than replace that total experience.

Recently my wife and I traveled to Paris and Venice to participate in a Road Scholars program.  These programs combine facilitated discussions, individual investigations, expert lecturers, one-on-one collaborations with attendees, site tours, and cultural and other artistic experiences to produce an almost-perfect learning experience.

In my earlier days of teaching television production I remember interviewing people about their “TV vs. real life” experiences.  One example I recall was how one person reported that seeing a slum area of town and images of horrible poverty on TV in no way prepared him for knowing what to do when he was in the situation. Only when he walked through one of those depressing neighborhoods did he realize the limitations of the video only experience.

Videos cannot take the place of walking Paris’s left bank neighborhoods where Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Sartre, Picasso, and countless other writers, artists, and philosophers struggled with themselves and each other to realize their creative potential. One cannot escape absorbing what they were feeling and thinking while drinking  espresso in the same cafe, eating in the same bistro, and having drinks in the same bar where they borrowed money from each other, and doubted they would ever survive. Now add an expert scholar-guide to enrich your experience, and you have the best possible learning opportunity. I know because we prepared for this trip by watching many videos. They clearly helped with our orientation, but in no way replaced the awesome experience of being there.

In Venice we had one of the best scholar-guides I ever experienced. She was a native of the area, and displayed a love and passion for her home and its history and art that was absolutely contagious. She has a PhD, but she also was able to demonstrate a total empathy with how people lived and were governed, how artists survived and worked, and how writers and composers were forever shaped by the magic of this totally unique culture.  This natural teacher could never duplicate in a MOOC what she gave us face-to-face in the ancient streets of this incredible city.

As once again I experienced the power of learning on site, the truth of all this came rushing back to me. Online MOOCs will never replace experiencing centuries old buildings by wander the streets, seeing art of the masters up close, hearing live opera in authentic settings, and experiencing all this in dialogue and spirited discussions with local experts and fellow students.

Posted in Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication | Leave a Comment »

Lesson 190 Multi-platform Education

November 10, 2013 by larrylauer

Multi-platform tactics, which include live events, significantly enhance communication effectiveness. Multi-platform education tactics which include live human interaction, similarly enrich the education experience and improve learning outcomes.

Nevertheless, the idea that Massive Open Online Courses (called MOOC’s) could take the place of traditional education is dominating the buzz in higher education today.

It is true that many MOOC’s feature the best teachers at the best schools teaching online, and are open free of charge to anyone in the world. My 47 years in higher education, however, suggest that the potential of MOOC’s will be debated for a while, and then settle in to, (1) provide a service that will address the realistic needs of nontraditional students, and (2) will then concentrate on bringing significant learning enhancements to traditional students. They will be a game-changer to be sure, but not a format replacement. 

I think the future for the traditional college student will look more like this: Class discussion, student web searches, live guests, Skype engaged experts, topic videos, on-line web connections, electronic books, and MOOC’s, will combine to vastly improve learning.

For students with work and family obligations MOOC’s will certainly meet legitimate convenience needs. And they no doubt will find new digital ways to engage students more interactively. But in the end, however, I firmly believe that multi tactics media, mixed with live face-to-face interaction, will produce the best outcomes.

In fact, spending time in the “left bank” literary, artistic and academic neighborhoods of Paris, and a study tour week in Venice, is currently providing me an incredible opportunity to reflect on why the undeniable benefits of actually “being there” must be preserved in this dramatically changing world of education. But more about all this next week!

Posted in International, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy | Leave a Comment »

Lesson 189 Mean-Spirited Communication

November 2, 2013 by larrylauer

Watching congressional hearings this week I have been reminded of the communication consequences of mean-spirited combative communication.

This is not complicated. When we are aggressively attacked we strike back. When someone approaches us proposing a get acquainted conversation we are more likely to open up and explore common ground possibilities.

The subject of one of the hearings I observed was the administration’s response to the bloodshed in Syria. State Department officials were testifying, and legislators were attacking. It stands to reason that this kind of confrontation will accomplish nothing. In fact, it is likely to make matters worse. Polarization worsens. Colleagues become enemies.

Not only are such hearings difficult to observe, they become repulsive to thoughtful people. Active citizens get disgusted, then get angry, and then drop out. And eventually many become protestors… or even worse.  

When will we learn that not only are we destroying our democracy with such mean-spirited behavior, we are looking more and more foolish to the rest of the entire world?  And who wants to follow an example like this?

This is not political positioning. It’s simply a lesson from communication 101.  

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication | 1 Comment »

Lesson 188 Economic Polarization

October 25, 2013 by larrylauer

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.

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication | Leave a Comment »

Lesson 187 Communication Consequences

October 19, 2013 by larrylauer

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.

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication | 2 Comments »

Lesson 186 Strategic Misunderstanding

October 12, 2013 by larrylauer

What I have learned from my research and professional experience over the years is that all communication initially fails. As awful as that sounds, it is fundamentally true. And what follows is always some form of misunderstanding.

But why does all communication fail? It is because of a human condition we call “selective perception.” We give our own meaning to words. For example, the word “compromise”  means a win-win conclusion to some, and a giving up to others. We always prefer ideas that reinforce what we already believe. And when we hear something we dislike, we reject it. Unfortunately, a state of  misunderstanding is the consequence. And it can only be corrected through open-minded interaction.

But beyond this “naturally resulting” misunderstanding, there are at least two forms of “strategic” misunderstanding, or ‘intentional” misunderstanding.

One form is to deny something  that you really understand as an excuse to simply continue doing what you want. “I am so sorry,” you say. “But I just could not understand what that person was saying!” It is a short-cut to avoid dealing with a situation openly.

The second form of strategic misunderstanding is all too common in today’s politics and foreign policy. For Example, something like this might be said: “No one can understand that law. It’s just stupid. We must eliminate it!” This is a mean-spirited method of openly attacking an opponent.

What is going on in Congress today is too often this form of “strategic misunderstanding.” No one is making an effort to understand the other side. Intentional misunderstanding is a strategic choice.  And it is a strategy based on the growing belief that admitting you understand the other person’s point of view will bring an inevitable political defeat.

But there is an even larger communication inevitability here: Strategic misunderstanding always becomes destructive. It totally eliminates the possibility of reasonably negotiated solutions, and eventually solidifies extreme polarization.

Such a tactic is the absolute opposite of traditional American “statesmanship.” It first produces personal and group hostility, then it advances to open conflict, and ultimately it can lead to a complete unraveling of civilized society.

Posted in Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication | Leave a Comment »

Lesson 185 Republican Strategy?

October 4, 2013 by larrylauer

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.

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication | Leave a Comment »

Lesson 184 The Presidential Address

September 28, 2013 by larrylauer

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.

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

Lesson 183 Journalism Credibility

September 21, 2013 by larrylauer

In today’s 24/7 cable and social media dominated journalism, what establishes  credibility?  Is it production and performance value?  Is it arrogantly articulated  opinion?  Is it factual reporting?

It seems to me that many news producers today think that fast talking, stern sounding  anchors and reporters are the key to holding interest and preventing viewers from tuning away. And fast paced anchoring has led to abruptly interrupting expert guests, all in order to keep the program moving faster and faster.

My television interview coaches told me that my job was to focus audience attention on my guests… and not to constantly interrupt them. They argued that my credibility  was mostly established by asking the right basic questions, and then giving the guest a fair chance to fully answer those questions.

In addition, emphasis on speed leads to reporting events too quickly. And when initial reports prove wrong it’s now acceptable practice to get the story out first and correct it later. In the end, is this good modern journalism, or sloppy reporting?

When speed and entertainment become dominant objectives, attention shifts to grooming celebrity anchors and reporters. Increasing emphasis on the dramatic is the result, which leads to pitting glib guests with contrasting agendas against each other rather than having civilized conversations with subject matter experts.

As a strategic communication practitioner I often experienced celebrity reporters using the best of what I said as their introductory comments, and then showing me in a very short edited video clip selected out-of-context.

So in this new media world will anything restore news credibility? I submit that it will require a predominance of experienced anchors and reporters taking the time to sound and look authoritative at less than warp speed, selecting their interviewees based on established expertise. And oh yes, they will also let these highly qualified guests fully answer their carefully crafted questions.

Happily, I am noticing that many fast-talking anchors today are turning over quickly.  They are young and attractive, but under too much pressure to look like experts far too soon. And even if this emphasis on drama and style worked for a while, has it really served the public interest, or has it merely put the interests of the organization first… frustrating the public more and more each day?

Many of us are now observing that social media is beginning to take on a much more balanced perspective in our lives. If this is so, isn’t it time for 24/7 news to follow?

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy | 2 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »