Most violated communication commandment No. 2: As corporate communicators, we continue to be great communicators at home as well. (You know, no passive aggressiveness, no "did I say that out loud?" moments, ... you get the idea.

Eileen, I love Commandment #2. I've believed for years that the line between business communication and personal communication skills is, well, really non-existent.

David, I agree with you, and it's an especially interesting phenomenon in my sub-industry of communication consulting. I can't tell you how many fellow consultants and how many books on consulting have told me that I should be very careful about "giving away the store." Fortunately, I ignore that advice, but sometimes I am looked upon as if I have a tree growing out of my head.

I've always believed that there is more than enough work to go around among us and I know for sure I wouldn't have lasted two minutes in corporate communications (having come from the noble trade of journalism) if it hadn't been for generous fellow communicators who shared their ideas, templates, plans, etc. It's the same philosophy that keeps me from "selling from the podium" as a speaker and that allows me to partner with other independent consultants -- some might call them my "competitors."

Really, I ain't braggin'. It's just that you struck a nerve with me and I believe folks who can't see fit to share their stuff with others don't deserve the right to play.

If you want a great example of how Commandment #1 is broken -- by a small minority, I might add -- ask Ned Lundquist of "Ned's Job of the Week" newsletter. He has some stories to tell, especially since his entire enterprise is a labor of love and depends on following Commandment #1.

You're exactly right, Robert, and consultants are often guilty of hoping to get without giving.

You have always been one of the super-generous ones. Other notables are Shel Holtz and Angela Sinickas.

And Eileen, the fact is, communicators (and I include myself in this group) aren't even necessarily good at communicating AT WORK, in their own departments.

The very first joke every new Ragan employee makes, about a week into the job, begins with, "For a communication outfit, we sure don't communicate real well with each other ....."

And the employee communication departments I've consulted in were just as likely as any other department to be dens of non-communication torture and resentment.

I remember one place where, every time the communication manager would walk out the door of a meeting, the employee video guy would kick the door closed and say, "All right. Now here's what she REALLY meant ....."

I've been blogging--excuse me, PUBLISHING ONLINE--for a few months, and the extreme generosity of bloggers in general still floors me. There are, what, about 60 million of us now, and STILL the attitude prevails that if I need information and they have it or know other bloggers who have it, it's mine. For free. No strings attached. No turf wars, because it's understood that the turf is unlimited. These folks live by Rule #1, and it seems to be working for them just fine.

And commandment #3? Thou shalt not despise those for whom you work.

If we think those who don't "get it" are idiots, we're saying that WE'RE the only ones with ideas worth communicating so why don't they just shut up, go away, and let us run the company?

Being a know-it-all, this is a hard one for me.

That's a hard one for all of us; but I agree, Jane. The happiest and best communicators:

A. Know why the CEO is CEO.
B. Leave the organization to go work for one where it's obvious why the CEO is CEO.

Then there's Larry Ragan's rule, which I'll paraphrase: People read/listen/talk mostly about stuff they already know about--not about stuff they don't.

Democrats read democrat columns, Republicans read Republican stuff.

Irish people watch documentaries about the Irish--not about Russians.

An uphill climb--THE uphill climb?--for communicators trying to impart new information into old heads.

The same applies to us communicators, David. What about the uphill climb of trying to get communicators to think and act like business people? In fact, my friend, you are one of the greatest resistors to the idea of communicators sharpening their strategic business skills because of your fear that we might lose our writers' souls. Correct? :-)

I don't know the rules, but one thing I've seen companies do a lot is say that employee communications is a huge challenge and that they want to create a culture of communication, and then do nothing to follow up (out of fear? lack of ROI?), so that it's a cycle.

And then there's the whole idea of employees preferring face-to-face communication from their managers, while the organization cranks out newsletters.

Robert: I don't object to communicators boning up on strategic business skills, though I'd prefer them simply studying the history of the organization and the industry and developing theories about where the company is going and what its real niche is.

I do think it's the rare human being who can do that, who can play great organizational politics, who can write beautifully, take great pictures, design great vehicles AND run a super-strategically disciplined communication department.

I think every communication department should have people with different skills, and not all of us should be shamed for not being Leonardo Friggin' da Vinci.

Diane, that's definitely a cycle. But as for employees preferring face-to-face communication from managers ... yes, but the organization and the top management needs to communicate broadly (whether through newsletters or other vehicles) to set the context for all that managerial communication.

I believe we can help managers communicate better; but we HAVE to do a good job in the big-context role, which we were hired to do in the first place.

Yes, I guess I should have been clearer -- newsletters in lieu of face-to-face. Fluff newsletters at that.

One thing everyone needs is a sense of purpose, and communications can support that.