The Individual Communicator
|
8/2/2009 10:08 PM
By Don Cunningham
I recently worked with one of our crisis specialists, Karen Doyne, to develop and present a brief “table top” crisis scenario for an executive, as part of a day of media training. The objective was to extend the principles and practice of media interviews into the realm of crisis, where the pressure is severe, issues are tough and decisions about what to say and to whom must be made in minutes. It’s a good time to be armed with a plan of action that includes guidelines for communications and several basic scenarios the company is most likely to encounter.
The executive found the exercise useful because the additional pressures of the scenario put the whole prospect of media interviews in a more challenging framework. Afterwards, the client mused that it might be time to take another look at the company’s crisis plan, completed over a decade ago, and develop a larger simulation for additional colleagues.
That made me wonder how many companies developed crisis plans in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, did a series of crisis communications sessions around them, then put the plans on the shelf, ready to be taken down and activated at the hint of a crisis. And I wondered how many have actually used them.
A couple of calls to clients to ask about their plans produced what I would think are typical answers. From a chemical company: we work on our crisis plan, particularly at the plants, and update them at least every year. From a consumer products company: we manage plenty of issues but few actual crises, so we have internalized processes, though we haven’t really looked at the red book lately.
That rang true to me. When preparing companies and organizations to handle crises was a hot line of business for the industry (to my memory, from roughly the mid-‘80’s through the mid-‘90’s) I worked on a number of preemptive plans, mostly at the training simulation stage. My feeling then and now was that these scenario-based communications training sessions were excellent vehicles to prepare executives to use the plans, and that – maybe more important – they also served to implant these processes and some important basic principles in the participants’ minds.
Two of the crisis communications principles that I’ve relied on over the years are these:
Assume a Worst Case Planning Position
This may be a pessimist-optimist thing – but it shows the place for a certain programmed level of pessimism in the face of unusual situations. How many executives have said things like, That will never be a big problem; or Surely the worst of this is behind us; or If we just keep our heads down, no one will notice this . . . only to find out that it did become a big problem, that the matter actually got worse, or that someone did notice and force awareness of it with the media and key audiences?
Avoid the Combative Instinct
This is not only important at the crisis planning/handling level, it’s critical at the spokesperson level as well (and as a general piece of advice, works well the vast majority of the time). When people feel under attack (common in a crisis) it’s human nature to fight back. That is almost always counter-productive. Fighting back takes the eye off the real issues of calming and containing the crisis and making sure that you are demonstrating concern for those affected.
These are two useful guidelines, but it could be more useful to pull out that red book, update the information in it, and consider a round of training sessions to introduce it and the principles (including the two above) to a new group of rising executives. In this crisis-prone time, this seems like the prudent thing to do. 1/26/2009 5:36 PM
The importance of a speaker having three key messages is among the most widely accepted concepts in communications, and helping develop these messages is one of the most important tasks communicators, including those of us who prepare spokespersons, do.
And though plenty of very smart people I meet in training sessions may not know about the value of having three key messages, the idea is an easy sell. It’s easy to grasp that, when it’s critical to make a distinct impression on an audience, the ability to clearly articulate three very important, relevant points is the key to successful communications.
One question I’m often asked is, “Why three messages?” Why not two – or one? If it’s true, and experience says it is, that most listeners will forget most of what a speaker says within a few hours, then why not limit the number of messages as much as possible to make sure that one very important idea sticks solidly in the mind of the listener.
In fact, this kind of single idea messaging is commonly used in a number of places – political slogans (“Change we can believe in”) and corporate tag lines (“You’re in good hands”) are two examples. These messages are designed to capture big themes and brand positions – however, they are not enough to give a speaker the basic elements of a story line, and when we are talking to reporters or directly to audiences, we are most often telling stories.
Two kinds of evidence support using three key messages. Studies that test audiences after speeches indicate that those who perceive three clear messages remember better and longer. And theories from neurologists and psychologists about short term memory conclude that the brain can only hold three or four things in its short term databank. So if you want someone to remember something, limit the messages to three or four. Most of us in the training business have decided to play it safe by limiting that number to three.
Guiding clients through the message development process often benefits from several model formats – here, briefly, are four of them.
Four Story Line/Messaging Formats
Problem – Solution
In this format, we begin by highlighting a problem or situation which is important to the audience, then showing how we’ve solved the problem or believe it should be solved. The third message is often an extension of the solution – or it may be a motivational call to action or next steps. Within this format we may want to add points about our own credibility, as we might in any situation. Problem - Solution is a simplification of “Monroe’s Motivational Sequence” used in speech classes for persuasive and motivational speeches.
A Better Mouse Trap
Occasionally we will need to make a direct comparison between an idea or thing that has gained some level of popularity and something else we believe is better. The three messages might be, first, to describe that thing and how it is received; then to provide a short analysis of its shortcomings; and then to speak about something preferable and its positive points.
Support a Position
When the purpose is to speak in favor of a specific point of view, the format can be to state the position; to analyze why it is the best one, providing both the logic, numerical evidence and people oriented examples to show why it is preferable; and to urge the audience to adopt our perspective.
Crisis
Messaging during a special or crisis situation will include: a statement about how we feel about the situation and those affected (caring); information key audiences need about the situation (transparency); and specific indication of what the organization is doing about the situation (responsibility).
Please note that these four formats are useful as process accelerators, but they do not substitute for the process. Stories and their key messages grow out of specific and unique situations that organizations and their spokespersons want to communicate. Trainers need to be adept at guiding that specific material and shaping it into an acceptable, three-message format.
12/3/2008 9:47 AM
Almost every presentation about effective, persuasive communication we give ends with the simple imperative, Be Yourself! I frequently point out that the recommendation should not be seen as a throw-away, so obvious that it barely needs to be stated. All audiences want to see a real person behind the expression, but two things can get in the way. The first is the combined impact of nervousness and caution – when those being asked to represent an organization are concerned they will not perform well, or that they will say something in an interview that will cause a problem, they often shift into a limited, closed off style that inhibits expressiveness.
The second is related – when people believe the process of building communications capability somehow involves creating a new persona – “the spokesperson” – a new construct built on the image of the smooth, all-but-perfect communicator.
Our job is to help communicators overcome their concerns by helping them learn and use techniques that greatly increase comfort level, and which then allow their innate personalities to shine forth. Our job is to help infuse the personal qualities of the speaker into the content of the communication in order to, in a very real way, bring it to life.
As my colleague Larry Shainman puts it, “We are not building a new personality, but wrapping personality into the mix of the material.”
It’s important to keep in mind that the objective is not to get in touch with the authentic self, per se. The authentic self isn’t worth much if it’s seen in the light of a poorly prepared presentation or glimpsed through a series of unfocused, meandering answers to questions.
That’s why the second part of the dictum – Your Best Self – is critical. Audiences want that authentic experience, but it only renders value when the communicator is well prepared, has thought through the key points, has practiced saying them in compelling language and can present them with voice and gesture that keep the audience involved. A business presentation is not about personality, it is about content. Personality is one of the critical enablers.
At the intersection where psychology and communication meet, trainers cannot address psychology directly (or, in general, at all). So we depend on a participant’s ability to easily grasp the Be Yourself concept, and the vast majority of people I’ve worked with do. Most of them are senior managers with at least a passing acquaintance with basic psychology, and at some level are aware that we all work hard to create ourselves as we would like to be seen by others, a process explored in great detail by sociologist Erving Goffman in his 1959 book, “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.”
But the main job for communicators is not to understand themselves (though some level of self-understanding may be useful in this as in other endeavors). It is to communicate as effectively as possible by learning what techniques combine to produce the “best self” so that, buoyed by technique, they are comfortable enough to reveal their personality.
Footnote to my post of 11/8/08 – Although I had worked on and watched many hearings this year, I did not suspect that, not two weeks after that post, we would see an extreme example of a hearing in which most or all of my recommendations seemed to have been overlooked. I’m sure that will have changed by this week’s re-do. 11/8/2008 6:05 PM
The historic outcome of this week’s presidential election will have a tremendous impact on the nation and resonate in many corners of our society. One place where this impact very likely will be seen is on Capitol Hill as committees in the House and Senate develop hearing schedules on a broad group of regulatory and policy issues the new majority will seek to advance.
The anticipated expansion of regulatory change will likely include aggressive hearings on a wide range of topics that build on existing activities of the current Congress. For example, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform alone has held dozens of hearings during the past year.
When I talked in an earlier blog about six situations that make communications training an imperative, one of them was delivering testimony before Congress – or other elected or regulatory bodies at the federal or state level. I’ve seldom met anyone who did not see the value in preparing for such encounters when they expected tough questioning, and particularly so when called by subpoena.
Though it may not be perceived as pleasant or desirable to testify before a regulatory or legislative forum, the most sensible approach to testimony, even when the issues are contentious, is to treat the process as an opportunity to express a point of view or deliver critical information that touches not only policy issues but also the organization’s own messages.
This is almost always complex and requires thorough preparation.
And while the preparation for a trip to the Hill is customarily guided by the general counsel and government relations team, over the years I’ve seen an increasing desire by the attorneys to bring in public relations professionals to assist with issues analysis from the reputational perspective, core message development, drafting of oral testimony and – of course -- communications training.
Which makes great sense, as the appearance of any witness before Congress has more public relations than policy impact and is more about framing an issue than fact finding.
If you are in an industry, business or organization that may be called to testify, here are five basic recommendations to help guide the process from an effective communications perspective.
Consider Your Audience. Work with professionals to understand the committee members who will be asking questions. Keep in mind, however, that both they and you will be responding to the needs of a larger audience – the public, known also as voters and consumers.
Know Your Key Messages. Understand that your witness will be speaking to one or more issues, but also representing the organization and its reputation. The organization’s messages should be paramount and mesh with issue-focused messages.
Listen Before, During and After. Research the issues and your messages with key audiences before a hearing to make sure messaging resonates. And then listen closely to committee members and address their concerns. Follow up with research to gauge the impact of the event.
Use the Right Tone. It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. Calm, comfortable, engaged and conciliatory – these qualities win over strident, angry, argumentative and ill-at-ease.
Prepare Testimony for the Ear. Submitted testimony may be long, detailed and intricate. Oral testimony, however, usually is under five minutes and must carry the day through effective presentation. Make sure the oral testimony is not just a short version of the written testimony, but a clear and compelling story line in the voice of your witness.
It goes without saying – but I will say it – that all these recommendations only come together in a session devoted to preparing a witness to present testimony and answer committee questions at a hearing. 10/13/2008 5:29 PM
About a dozen years ago I began to wonder what would happen if – or when -- the emerging power of the internet to flood the average online participant with a tsunami of voices, opinions, commentary and new visual and audio material of every description were to dominate traditional sources of credible information, particularly news outlets.
I was not alone or particularly early in my concern for these matters. Prominent internet personalities were already releasing rumor as news, creating havoc for some, consternation for others and angst for news people. Heretofore unheard-of web based gathering places were catering to affinity groups, creating echo chambers of opinion and marshaling support or opposition with astounding ease.
Where would public relations people go, I asked myself, when there were no clear sources of implied third party endorsement, no reporters who could be trusted to probe, ask tough questions, be skeptical about what people told them and produce balanced, coherent information and informed opinion? Moreover, what would become of those people – me, particularly – who work with key individuals from public and private sector organizations to help craft their information and points of view into clear, credible, persuasive communications?
In my most extreme moments, I wondered who would need well trained communicators and incisive messaging when every voice in a cacophonous open system was as important as just about every other voice?
More than a decade on, matters have – as we all know -- been clarified. The communications industry has thoroughly embraced the internet and its rich opportunities to have important conversations with the public, listen to a wide range of input and communicate through a vast and growing array of channels. The internet has changed the way we think about information exchange; it has further shrunk and flattened a world already hurtling in that direction.
It has not, however, replaced the individual communicator – the person who represents an organization to the public or stakeholder groups. One reason is because the internet has actually expanded the number of news or quasi-news organizations, almost all of which combine some level of traditional news gathering with internet-enabled conversations with readers and viewers.
But the bigger picture is that the internet has ignited an explosion of on-line opportunities such as podcasts, blogs, video blogs, discussion boards, social networking sites and video sharing sites that are open to all. Organizations ranging from the most staid to the most internet-ready are involved in some or all of these.
What does this mean for individual communicators and the organizations they represent? Based on what I see in my work with clients, here are two important issues all companies should consider.
First, I think they must redouble their efforts to achieve clarity, reasonable perspective, powerful expression, and points of view supported by data and facts – everything we work so diligently on with our clients – because the need for these qualities, often in short supply in the digital universe, is greater than ever.
Second, the plethora of new on-line opportunities, combined with the need to enter into the digital dialogue through channels the organization does not own, requires the preparation of more “individual voices” to handle the increased requirement for engagement.
This means preparing many more people to communicate from a common set of facts and points of view and with one mission – precisely the core work of communications training.
So in answer to the question in my title above, the individual communicator will grow and thrive and there will be many more of them, entering public conversation in many more online channels. It’s a new imperative for our age. 8/25/2008 2:42 PM
I said in my last post I would talk about five general situations in which I had found training to be an imperative. I had been thinking about five, but when I sat down to write, a sixth emerged for the list.
To be clear, the core training of public relations is media training, and its most obvious use is to prepare people to be interviewed by the press. PR and public affairs professionals have come to see media training as necessary preparation for interviews. But I’ve spent two decades working with insightful colleagues and clients who have looked at communications training from a broader perspective to solve communications problems and address issues. What has emerged is a much more nuanced approach to viewing what I’ve called the communications training imperative.
Please keep in mind that this is not an exhaustive list, and if someone has examples that don’t fit in here, please share.
1. Basic Skills. Effective verbal communication is complex and challenging. Some people have benefitted from good instruction in school and some have not. An obvious time for communications training is when executives require the basics. The need generally arises when a change in status requires someone to communicate in new ways or more frequently.
2. Many Voices, One Message. When many people need to communicate a single message, training is an imperative. Training helps disparate and far-flung individuals understand and commit themselves to messaging while at the same time providing the skills to communicate successfully. This is critical when large organizations and associations with broad membership are involved in campaigns that require many voices to amplify the message.
3. New Situations, New Challenges. Even experienced communicators face new situations that make training imperative. A new position (President or CEO) or challenging new conditions (downturn in the business, acquisitions, testimony before Congress, facing an angry audience) can trigger the need for communications training. Sudden and persistent media attention may add urgency to this imperative.
4. New Messages. After new messaging has been developed and tested by polling and focus group research, many clients turn to training as a crucible to find out how the messages stand up in realistic scenarios. Messages may not change (or in some cases they may), but they will be refined and given the most effective voice, tied to the people who will use them.
5. Scenario Role-Play. Role playing anticipated events – such as a quarterly conference call, the release of a scientific study, or new regulation and legislation – will help an organization test its response plan and build confidence in the messaging. Scenario role play is a critical element of any good crisis preparedness program.
6. Selling In. Clients have used training to communicate internally about change, including desired changes in organizational culture. Let me explain this with two examples. We once worked with a building products company that had to put a health warning on their product. This came as a shock and raised many questions about the business. We designed a training program that both explained the change and helped management at all levels communicate about it.
To bring about a policy and subtle cultural shift, we worked with another company to media train hundreds of local representatives, sending the message that they would now engage locally with the press rather than exclusively from the central corporate office. And with the change in policy and culture, local managers acquired the skills to make the change a reality.
Few Exclusives
One last and probably obvious point: few training sessions or programs are exclusively one of these six. Every situation has its unique characteristics, just like every specific training session is unique, if only because the people, relationships and local particulars are different. That’s what keeps communications training challenging – and interesting.
8/5/2008 3:16 PM
Communicating consistent messages to a variety of overlapping audiences is a necessity facing just about every modern organization. And the reality is that “organizations” as such do very little communicating. The task generally falls to individuals, often those who not only manage the business, but also speak for it both internally and externally.
So if communicating an organization’s messages depends to a large extent on individual capabilities, those capabilities simply cannot be left to chance. Preparing senior managers to speak well in any of the many situations in which they are the organization’s voice is, therefore, more than just vitally important. It is an imperative.
What’s more, the profusion of avenues for communication has created additional challenges. Currently, those who speak for an organization not only face a host of traditional communications venues – cable and broadcast TV; newspapers and magazines; teleconferences with and without video; speeches and presentation to live audiences; and an explosion of on-line and printed publications directed at employees, customers, consumers and other specific audiences. They must also deal with internet podcasts, video clips, blogs, chat rooms and the like. And they must consider the reality that all their communications are subject to collection and re-presentation through search engines and social networking sites like You Tube.
Adding to the challenge, everyone is linked to everyone else through the internet, so we are all potential communicators as well as audience members, further confusing any effort to present a common message to key audiences.
In this fragmented communications universe, the development of the communicator’s “voice” – a voice that is clear, forceful, credible, attractive, constantly on key and consistently representative of the organization’s brand – is essential.
All of this should put communications training – the process by which the voice is developed and honed – somewhere near the top of an organization’s priorities. And from time to time it is. But there is still a tendency to overlook the value of training.
Why? Perhaps because modern managers have been selected in part because they are good communicators. And possibly because they are experts in their fields and know so much more about their subjects than most audiences, including reporters, they don’t see the role training can play in enhancing their ability.
The reality is that natural capabilities and expert knowledge are often not enough to help a communicator when dealing with a new or particularly tough issue. Nor may they be sufficient when confronting unaccustomed situations like hostile audiences or the news media.
Every important communications event should be evaluated to see if some form of training or coaching would help clarify messages and build comfort and skill in transmitting them.
In my next post I’ll talk about five general situations in which training can be an imperative.
7/18/2008 2:10 PM
One of the ways an organization -- private or public, for profit or not -- communicates is through the voices of its people. For years, an increasingly important factor in selecting leadership has been the ability to communicate comfortably with key audiences.
Even the most talented communicators, and certainly those with less developed skills, need to grow and hone their capabilities, and a significant consultancy has grown up to assist them become more effective speakers as they take on increasingly more important communications responsibilities.
My name is Don Cunningham, and I have been a proud member of that consultancy for over thirty years. Most of that time has been spent at Burson-Marsteller, which has afforded me a vast and variegated opportunity to meet and work with thousands of fascinating people from just about every industry, profession and government position, facing nearly every communications situation, in front of every possible audience, from investors to consumers, from voters to regulators, and of course with reporters.
I have had a chance to work with and learn from exceptional colleagues in the public relations and public affairs business, handling major issues, difficult crises, and critical marketing assignments. My colleagues have included many fine media and communications trainers, some of whom I have the pleasure of working with today. As a former college professor of speech, I bring a nuanced sensibility to how people learn, combined with a forceful perspective about clarity and persuasiveness, two essentials that underlie all effective communication. My background has meshed well with the journalists with whom I have worked over the years, and together we have developed a clear, step-by-step technical approach to communicating with reporters and other audiences that, time after time, has been successful in practical situations.
By participating in web-based conversations, I want to expand the reach of the dialogue I have had with clients for more than 20 years. In this blog, I want to address issues that should be important to any communicator and offer insights, techniques and practical tips to assist individual communicators and those who prepare them to represent their organizations. |
|
|