Posts Tagged ‘communication messages’

The Tyranny of Social Media

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Following a long weekend of being unplugged in the lush green hills of Pennsylvania, I came home with real work to do — an excellent lunch with a colleague, a great meeting with a prospective client and then teaching the third day of class at Kent State.  The rest of the week includes a client meeting, a group meeting with another prospective client and the arrival of a friend from out of town, plus a panel discussion with PRSA Akron and teaching. When exactly do I have time to blog or tweet?

I confess that I am wondering about the value of social media — it requires a significant time commitment (especially if one wants to be helpful by finding interesting posts and tweeting them out rather than just trumpeting one’s latest personal ruminations.)  I know that this same question, from the reader’s perspective, is being asked in companies all around the country (at least…) I see great value in establishing connections, using the social media tools as a part of an overall outreach strategy, but thus far I’m not certain of the marketing value, perhaps because it’s been such a short time since I launched Communication AMMO.

There is no doubt that making personal connections with prospective clients will require employing other tools — I’ll attend the Institute for PR Summit on Measurement next month, as well as the IABC Heritage Region Conference here in Cleveland in hopes of broadening my business network.  But with most of my Twitter followers being consultants and providers, and my blog readers coming mostly from my existing network, the need to expand beyond social media is readily apparent.  Where are the clients?  Are they not using these tools?

What’s your view?

Share

More from Big D – Part 2 ‘Words, Actions Matter…’

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Big D continues: “The job of the president’s communication advisors is to identify in advance (better than after the fact) any threats to the president’s preferred meanings and to neutralize them rhetorically. (In fact, the oft-stated claim about how much a president values soldiers’ lives is exactly that sort of pre-emptive rhetoric, designed to head off the opposite claim – that the lives of America’s youth are expendable to the powerful class – before it’s even made.)”

I believe we are in violent agreement here, except for the notion that we can inoculate against the president’s say-do disconnect with rhetoric alone. The president’s actions in these matters are of great importance, as D points out.

Maintaining control over key meanings is almost always possible, although it is sometimes easier and sometimes harder to accomplish depending on how the context shifts across time. For example, if a president’s own son is among the soldiers sent to fight a war, it is a relatively easy task. If, on the other hand, the president cancels a program to provide basic armor plating for military vehicles used by soldiers fighting that war, it becomes relatively more difficult, ceteris paribus. Both examples are elements of the broader symbolic environment (i.e., context) that influences interpretation, but that environment does not entirely determine interpretation.

Agreed.  The environment is not the entirety of interpretation. As a counselor to leadership, I argue for no attempt to spin or otherwise mask the reality of the organizations actions – much literature in crisis communication says much the same thing.  Big D adds:

Certain types of management make certain types of communication relatively more or less difficult. I am then in a position to say to the leaders of my organization that their actions could put at greater risk our ability to defend certain identity claims and could require a different communication strategy (which might or might not be successful within any given time frame).

Excellence theory applies (perhaps without attribution) dialogic and rhetorical theories. Its focus, however, on the management of the function and its underpinnings of empirical research does seem to de-emphasize other theories. Jeff says that Excellence: “…doesn’t really address…the actual way that symbol systems work through discourse to construct meanings that then become the basis for action. That’s the hard stuff, especially when you’re talking about public communication. [Excellence focuses] instead on the easy stuff – management – which is why [Prof. James E. Grunig is] so popular.”

D believes (and I agree) that management effectiveness is “a hell of a lot easier to measure and explain than communication effectiveness. PR people, however, are seldom going to out-manage the managers, and they are too ready to throw up their hands or have no clear answers when the communication work gets most difficult, which is also when it becomes most important to the organization.”

I don’t think we disagree at all – I am, however, differentiating effective communication from the assumption that it can cure everything, every ill that befalls an organization. The PR measurement Holy Grail is quantifying the impact on a business of communication activity – and the inability of PR to overcome bad management action is often used as a pretext to criticize us and what we do.

Lastly, Big D writes:

Here’s the bottom line for me: Over the past few years I probably interviewed more than 25 people for communications positions at my company. Only a handful, at best, could provide even a rudimentary explanation of how messages related to actions, i.e., how exactly it is that the words they were responsible for stringing together were connected to the outcomes the organization sought. Most of the applicants could talk for hours about project management, working with outside agencies, and so on, but few of them knew a damn thing about communication itself. Do we really need to wonder why we get such little respect as a profession?

We certainly should be experts on communication – why it works and how to improve it – but we also must apply the management function as well. In the course of applying Excellence, we’ll rely upon Rhetorical and Dialogic theories and the traditional mass media theories of forming opinion. I don’t see these as mutually exclusive.

A great discussion. Thanks D!

Share

Words, Actions Both Matter, Right?

Monday, August 31st, 2009

A friend of mine, Big D, is a highly educated and experienced business person who happens to work in PR for a large, international company. I wrote a post not long ago on the limits of communication in business, specifically about the “say-do” gap that exists in many organizations and the need for management problem-solving to address it.  Big D wrote me a fascinating email to disagree with what he termed my assertion that “communication is inferior to action in structuring perceptions,” saying: “The words we use are strong/they make reality.”

I don’t disagree that words are important – in fact, there is a whole theory of public relations (Rhetorical) that supports that statement. I answered him, saying in part: “Behavior is a demonstration of values; language is limited in its ability to demonstrate.”

Both the Rhetorical Theory and much general communication theory are at odds with Excellence Theory, Big D says. Excellence sees public relations as a management function, which necessarily separates the tactics of public relations from its strategy, “this idea that communication is one thing and an organization’s action/behavior is something else.”

I made the argument that language can’t bridge the “say-do” gap if the behavior in question is oppositional to the language, and provided an example of an organization claiming that it values its employees and communities, having a problem if it is engaged in laying off employees and closing plants. Big D replied:

I disagree. Granted, the communication challenge in sustaining that identity claim is greater and the communicator must be smarter and work harder, but a company can indeed lay people off and close plants and still credibly state that it values employees and communities. It happens all the time, and it happens because of the ways in which communicators can influence elements of context and shift the agreed meanings represented by words like “values,” “employees” and “communities.” That’s the magic of the artful use of discourse (or call it strategic discourse, if that’s more marketable). (emphasis mine.)

We often call “influence elements of context and shift the agreed meanings” reframing. Non PR-people call it spin, mostly inaccurately, but still, they aren’t complimenting us. I counsel leaders to avoid words and phrases that can too easily be labeled spin, and be subject to the perception of the say-do disconnect. The “artful use of discourse” is (and should be) a stock-in-trade for any communication professional, and we should beware of reframing ourselves straight into propaganda.

Big D goes on to say that when a country’s leader says, “I value the lives of the men and women in uniform who are willing to sacrifice everything to keep our country free,” sending them to die on the field of battle will not invalidate his/her claim, depending on is how effective the leader is at controlling the meanings of the words in the statement.

This seems relativistic – again, I wouldn’t counsel a leader to say those words, as the claim seems specious at best, if not outright insulting. The leader values the work the soldiers do and the results they will attain more than their lives – he or she has to, otherwise there is little chance he or she will deploy troops in combat. There are political leaders who do not see the value in this sacrifice.

There are many ways of aligning these two seeming contradictions. In fact, Prof. Robert Heath writes in his discussion of Rhetorical Theory that “Cynicism is the outcome of any rhetorical process that is not founded on good reasoning or good reasons.” We absolutely do need to choose our words very carefully because of their ability to create perception and contribute to the development of meaning.

More from the discussion with Big D in the next post.

Share

Holtz, Murray SocMed Discussion Touches on Measurement

Friday, August 21st, 2009

Erstwhile commentator David Murray (recently named editor of Vital Speeches of the Day; congrats!) has written about his struggles with the demands of social media, the Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and gosh-knows-what’s-new, appealing to Internet pioneer Shel Holtz for help.  Shel answered David’s flare and David has since replied on Shel’s blog. The conversation briefly examines the need for social media measurement, and I’ve added a comment to the polite fray.

The substance of my offering is that social media measurement should not stop with output, or the immediate result of the output (Web traffic, comments on postings, etc.) It should, as with any other communication activity, show some kind of impact on business objectives, whether financial or reputational.

Read the Murray-Holtz material and weigh in — is it reasonable to hold social media to similar account as other communication tactics?

Follow David on Twitter @TheMurr; Shel is @Shel. I’m @CommAMMO.

Share

’20-somethings’ Push Cisco Toward Social Media From The Top

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

John Chambers has a terrific reputation as a CEO who “gets” communication. The Cisco Systems chairman and CEO once spoke at a KeyCorp senior management retreat that I attended and wow’d the crowd with his openness, honesty and frankness.  In Sunday’s New York Times, Chambers talked about how his leadership style has changed with the advent of Web. 2.0 tools.

I’m a command-and-control person. I like being able to say turn right, and we truly have 67,000 people turn right. But that’s the style of the past. Today’s world requires a different leadership style — more collaboration and teamwork, including Web. 2.0 technologies. If you had told me I’d be video blogging and blogging, I would have said no way. And yet our 20-somethings pushed me to use that more.

When I heard him speak some years ago, Chambers talked a lot about communication as a critical competency for leaders, recounting how he left voicemail messages, sometimes 100 per day, for various members of his team. Sometimes he was responding to inquiries or comments from leaders, sometimes he was dishing out praise to individual contributors.  He focused on the personal nature of voicemail, the individual tailoring of the message and the need to “touch” employees in a human way.

There’s no doubt that social media tools can be effective in some ways in that context, but I’m certainly not going to be as motivated or appreciative of a video blog as I am a personal message, even on voicemail.

I don’t know whether Chambers’ video blogging and other blogging has replaced his use of voicemail. I hope not. I like Web 2.0 tools as additional vehicles for mass communication and some kind of interaction, not as a replacement for personal contact.

I’m also concerned about the effective measurement of these tools. Many of my colleagues in the Institute for PR Measurement Commission have very strong opinions about that.  There’s been spirited discussion on that topic.  There certainly is some clarity on the value of social media, but what’s not clear thus far is the financial return on investment in social media in a general sense.

Social media acolytes want every company and organization to engage with their various stakeholders in social media, but I’m not yet convinced that it’s a good fit for everyone. I do believe that every organization should explore the use of social media, and monitor what’s being said about them there; it’s foolish to do otherwise, as several companies have learned to their peril. For certain organizations, this will represent a game-changing shift, particularly for large consumer brands and universities.

Customer service alone is fertile ground for exploiting social media — imagine reduced call center traffic, fewer email complaints, etc.

Cisco’s Chambers told the Times he finally asked, “why do you want me to do this? And they said, ‘John, if you don’t do it our company won’t learn how to do this. It won’t be built into our DNA for the way we interface with customers, our employees. The top has to walk the talk.’” Chambers’ willingness to “walk the talk” says a lot more about him, as a leader, and Cisco as a company than the specific tools employed. And that’s the reason he and his company are worthy of my admiration.

Chambers, near the end of the interview, lists the attributes he looks for when evaluating a potential new hire. “And I look at their communication skills, and one of the largest parts of communications is…” He pauses for dramatic affect, letting the reporter fill in the blank with, “listening?”

“You betcha. Seeing how they listen, and are they willing to challenge you?”

It’s not about social media, it’s about finding the right tools to interact with customers and employees and demonstrating commitment to communication. Social media certainly can help organizations listen, but it’s not going to replace every other mode of communication at our disposal.

Or am I wrong?

Share

Effective Management Needs Effective Communication

Monday, June 1st, 2009

It seems like such an easy management win. Not liking the numbers early in the quarter? Time to sharpen the knives!

Too many times in my career I’ve seen executives react to lower than expected revenues and/or higher than expected costs by cutting their marketing and communications budgets. It’s seen as a no-pain action: The principals don’t have much juice to stop the slashing, the budget gap closes a bit, and everyone knows about “our sacrifice.”

The problem is that during hard times — we are waist deep at least in a global recession — should be the times when we make the most investment, taking market share, enhancing organizational reputation and demonstrating to employees that we’re in it for the long haul.

Worse yet, organizations tend to handle budget crises poorly, with executives hiding out and managers left repeating media speaking points that don’t address employee concerns. Here are three suggestions:
1. Don’t make decisions that gut long-term capabilities to close short-term budget concerns. In a volatile market, things can change quickly. We want to be ready to take advantage, not hamstrung trying to catch up.

2. Address the specific budget issue with targeted action, not across-the-board cuts. When I worked at KeyCorp years ago, every year, it seemed, we had a new program to cut costs. The only sustainable reductions came when leadership changed the strategy of the company — its overall mission and vision — and then adjusted the enterprise to fit that new strategy. Never use a “peanut butter” approach to cost cutting, it typically doesn’t work.

3. It is reasonable to change the communication strategy to fit the new reality — measurement and evaluation is critical to this process. If you don’t know what works and doesn’t work, you fall back on the jar of peanut butter for your approach. Other departments know their specific contributions to the bottom line, and so should we.

How prepared was your leadership team to communicate with its various constituencies during the financial crisis? They need to know how to prioritize audiences by business objective, choose the right messages and transmit the messages through the right vehicles. As the internal experts on communication, it’s up to us (to use the contemporary phrase) to Represent communication as a business process. Let’s get on it.

P.s., if you’re attending the PR News Measurement Conference in DC this week, find me. I’m on a panel on internal communication measurement in the afternoon.

Share