by Susan Johnston | Jun 27, 2005 | Uncategorized |
Well, here I am in Washington, DC, wandering through the corridors of power. OK, it’s just the corridors of the Hilton, but stick with me here because I’m about to share some communication insights from advisors to the great and powerful.
Washington’s most famous political strategists, the husband-and-wife team of Mary Matalin and James Carville were the keynote speakers at today’s opening session of the annual conference of the International Association of Business Communicators. Out on the right, Matalin was an assistant to George W. Bush. Over on the left, Carville has run election campaign strategies for Bill Clinton as well as assorted Latin American and European leaders.
Matalin, who was on the White House staff at the time of 9/11, is concerned about the context in which communication takes place. While there were rough spots, she said, President Bush correctly recognized that communication would be as important a tool as any in the fight against terrorism. She believes that the immediacy and pervasiveness of today’s communications "decontextualizes information."
"Transparency goes to the heart of communication," she said, "but the problem with transparency is not so much about making information available, but dealing with the abuse of information when it’s used in an inaccurate and incomplete way. Competition amongst the news media, she contends, makes being first with a story more important than getting it right, or complete and in context. "Context is a casualty of sound bite politics."
In reducing the news to one-liners, competitive news organizations serve their own agendas, not the public good, claims Matalin. I know, because I was one, that journalists look for conflict because it makes a better story. And if they can find a simple phrase that makes a story memorable, such as, "It’s the economy, stupid," or "I am not a crook," they’ll play it up so their story will lead the show or play on the front page above the fold. The slogan becomes the story and lives on after the context is forgotten.
Carville, a hilarious genius, used the idea of context to relate the (fictional, I hope) story of George W. Bush telling French leaders, "The trouble with your economy is that there’s no French word for ‘entrepreneur.’ " Challenging his wife’s idea that ubiquitous, real time communication technology is a problem, he reminded us that the ‘how’ of communication changes constantly, yet the ‘what’ never changes. He came out in favour of the sound bite, assuming it’s relevant, for its simplicty.
There are four basic elements to communication, he told us.
1. Simplicity – people have to understand
2. Relevance – it has to be in context
3. Repetitive – "if you haven’t said it a gazillion times, you haven’t said it yet"
4. Exclusivity – put the relevant issue above every other topic
He also recommended that we learn the difference between litany and narrative. In the last presidential campaign, Kerry used litany, listing all the things he and his party stood for. Bush told stories.
Hmmmm. Does that just seem too simple?
I’m not sure how, exactly, this fit into his point, but Carville also slammed PowerPoint presentations. I love it when people do that. If you do, to, you may enjoy my article, "Does PowerPoint Make Us Stupid?" at http://www.itsunderstood.com/docs/PowerPointMinifesto.pdf.
by Susan Johnston | Jun 26, 2005 | Uncategorized
"Down and out." Those were the instructions. It seemed funny, since I’ve spent much of my life working hard to avoid being "down and out" anywhere. But here at Dulles International, in Washington, DC, "down and out" was looking like the path to salvation. We’d spent half an eternity wandering around looking for our luggage and the other half looking for the taxis. Following the tunnel "down" would bring us to "out," presumably to freedom.
I don’t pretend to be an airport expert, but I am a frequent traveller, and often wonder why airports don’t communicate better. They seem to hide all useful information. You can find arrivals information when you’re trying to locate your departure gate. You can find departure gates when you’re looking for your checked baggage. Once you find the baggage carousels, there’s no clue to indicate which one will produce the luggage from your flight. Pick up your bag, and you get to solve the mystery of where to get the shuttle or taxi. And why does every airplane trip seem to involve a secret bus or train to get you to your terminal, your plane, or your baggage?
How a building communicates, whether through logical design, clear signage, or posting friendly, knowledgeable people at strategic spots, is critical to our experience. Flying is stressful enough these days without the buildings at either end compounding our anxiety by confusing us.
Do the people who design such places forget the context of their communication? I get the impression that they imagine that the building is all there is. But these places are full of people. The nonverbal language of these public spaces must work when they are filled with people – tired, hungry, disoriented people in a hurry, dragging luggage, laptops, and small children. The artists renderings of architects’ building designs usually show one or two people – never the hundreds that swarm around us as we move through a major airport in reality.
Like these designers, we sometimes fail to take note of the context of our communication. Whether it’s spoken or written, what is happening with the people involved or affected needs to shape the message. Otherwise, they’re lost and confused and searching for the exit.
++++
I’m in Washington for the annual conference of IABC, the professional association of business communicators. I’ll be sharing my learning and my impressions through the week.
by Susan Johnston | Jun 24, 2005 | Rants, Ramblings and Riddles |
Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a colleague asking for a definition of “business communicator.” As a regional chair for the world’s largest association of business communicators, you’d think I’d have a fast answer for that. But I didn’t.
My first reaction was, “Anyone willing to spend the money to join your chapter. ” But that sounds waaaaaaay too crass. Besides, it’s not creative and it’s not true.
Business communicators, in my view, are people who view themselves as spending a significant amount of on-the-job time communicating in, to, or about business, specifically the businesses that employ them.
I left journalism when I discovered that the employee magazine at the bank that employed my husband had a wider circulation than the glossy consumer publication I was running. A few weeks later, as the new editor of TD’s Bank Notes, my boss took me to a local meeting of the International Association of Business Communicators where I heard a brilliant speech by a very senior communication manager.
She spoke of the importance of our work in helping our businesses be successful. Yawn. She spoke of the importance of our work in helping customers relate to our companies, our products and our services. Ho hum. She spoke of the importance of our work in helping employees understand where they and their work fit into the business so they can find meaning in their work. Yes! At that moment, I became a business communicator. (She also said, “It is not enough to know your craft – you have to know your business.” At that moment, I also became a banker. But that’s another column.)
In the 20 years since that luncheon, my business cards have had a lot of different titles and postal codes. My activities have been even more varied – editing shareholder and employee publications, hosting videos, organizing meetings, holding focus groups, training managers, leading orientation programs, advising executives on major change, introducing new computer systems, facilitating cross-functional team meetings, counselling managers on dealing with a multicultural work force, designing procedures, managing a team of teleworking procedure writers, web development and usability, writing for a business magazine, fundraising for a nonprofit heritage association, developing a leadership competency model, and, now, business and communication coaching. At every point, I have considered myself a business communicator.
Is business communicator something you BE or something you DO? I vote for BE. Regardless of your title, and whether or not you belong to a professional association with “communicator” in its name, you may be a “business communicator.” If you’re consciously and carefully communicating with people about their work, their products, their customers, or the future sustainability of their business, that’s what you are.
by Susan Johnston | Jun 23, 2005 | Rants, Ramblings and Riddles
I awoke this morning to the news that Dave Buck, the CEO of CoachVille, had declared the death of the MBA. http://coachville.blogs.com/thembaisdead/
As a coach, I’m intrigued. As an MBA, I’m amused. As someone whose mug is prominently displayed in a sincere testimonial for Dave’s coaching school, I’m slightly embarrassed. But as a professional communicator, I’m delighted to have a ringside seat.
Dave doesn’t like the way executive coaching has been portrayed in the Harvard Business Review. So he’s slamming all business schools and their graduates, accusing them of not “getting it” – “it” being coaching. PR 101 suggests that telling someone they’re not clued in, their education is second rate, and they’re – um – dead (?) is not a great way to earn their respect, their interest, or their inclination to support your cause.
Using his own 1980s MBA training as the reference point, Dave suggests that someone wanting to make an impact in the business world would be better off at a coaching school (presumably his) than a business school. B-schools, he contends, aren’t equipping executives with ways to bring out the greatness in people. For that, he claims, you need to go to coaching school.
PR 102 suggests that, had he obeyed a fundamental rule of good communication – “Do some research,” our boy might have discovered that what we used to call “soft skills” are embedded in the business curriculums of more than a few business schools.
For example, I have a 21st century MBA (Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC). Leadership, social responsibility and sustainability take their place alongside law, finance, marketing and such. You do half the work in teams, and if you don’t work well with others by the end of your two years, you don’t graduate. To get good marks, you have to learn to bring out the best in others.
It was doing my MBA that I encountered emotional intelligence and appreciative inquiry, fundamental tools in my coaching practice. It was doing the MBA that I also heard about life coaching for the first time. Royal Roads may be west of the Rockies, but it’s not all that “woo woo” to have these elements in a modern-day B-school curriculum.
So what’s my point? You need business skills in business. You need people skills in business. One without the other will get you nowhere fast. Mission, vision, values, destiny, cause, calling and all that wonderful stuff are critical elements in organizational life. However, at some point, you need systems that work, processes people can rely on, financial sustainability, and tangible evidence that the mission is achievable.
Of all the skills we need in organizational life, the most critical is the ability to communicate. It’s only through sharing that ideas can be developed and implemented, that brilliance can be recognized, that visions are made real, and that worker bees, manager bees, executive bees and queen bees know what they need to do – and why.
Perhaps because it isn’t glamourous, face-to-face communication is the forgotten stepchild of the corporate communication profession. But study after study* supports my contention that of all the communication going on in organizations today, the most essential and effective is communication by one person with another.
When it comes to the techniques of interpersonal communication, you’re more likely to learn it at CoachVille than at Harvard. So Dave gets a point for that. But you don’t need to go to school to learn to communicate. With conscious recognition of how and what we’re communicating, each of us can be an excellent communicator – whether we’re an MBA, a coach, a professional communicator, a manager, a wage slave, an executive, or none of the above. Awareness is always the beginning.
* I’ll have more to share about the research that shows the importance face-to-face communication in organizations next week, when I’ll be reporting from the annual conference of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC).
by Susan Johnston | Jun 22, 2005 | Build your own skills
A few months ago, I bumped into a statistic suggesting that more than 80 per cent of North American drivers think they are better than average. Hmmmmm. Do the math.
This impossible belief seems to apply to communication, too. How many resumes have you seen that claim “excellent communication skills” among the list of awesome attributes? If everyone who claimed to be a good communicator actually was one, would “poor communication” be one of the big employee dissatisfiers that show up in exit interviews? Not likely.
Good communication is the workplace skill people seem to need the most yet demonstrate the least. How does that happen? I think it’s because the communication profession is missing a huge opportunity. Few of us do anything to promote interpersonal communication.
The reasons are many: tradition, the narrow confines of our job descriptions, our bosses’ and clients’ urgent needs, habit, competing priorities, the intangibility of interpersonal communication, and [insert your favourite excuse here]. Organizations lack a sense of what great face-to-face communication looks like, so it’s hard to measure and reward.
Meanwhile, professional communicators are up to their eyeballs in artefacts. Publications, memos, marketing material, financial reports and executive edicts receive lots of attention and billions in funding. Corporate communication departments, advertising agencies, public relations firms, and consultants spend huge amounts of time and energy developing plans, programs, strategies, tools and tactics to help organizations communicate with customers, shareholders, employees, regulatory agencies and the public. IT departments, manufacturers, service providers, and armies of techno-folk are hooking us up with faster, cleaner, more reliable computing and telephone communication devices. But when it comes to face-to-face communication – which still makes up the bulk of daily communication in business – people scarcely give it a thought.
Humans are “hard wired” to send and receive messages face-to-face, yet nobody really teaches us how to do this type of communication well. They teach us other stuff, like declining verbs and using punctuation, saying “please” and “thank you,” and not talking with food in our mouths. Sometimes they teach us to converse in foreign languages, in classes with names like “French Conversation.” But who receives formal lessons in how to conduct meaningful conversation in our own language?
Conversation is something the world just expects us to know. Not studied, not measured, and not well-understood, face-to-face communication is something that, if not quite an unconscious act, seldom receives much thought.
What would happen if everyone gave conscious consideration to their face-to-face communication? The results could be very beneficial to us, as individuals, and to the world.
Making a shift to conscious communication is something we can do that improves both work and life. Are you willing to try it?
Today’s homework: Be aware of your communication. You don’t really have to do anything differently (though this may happen as you become aware). Be aware of how you communicate and how that communication is received. Log it in your journal, if you’re so inclined.
We can start the conscious communication revolution just by paying attention. How cool is that?
