Yeah, no I get it! He means....well, that....ummmm,"do you know..." err...that is to say...

...my head hurts.

I know exactly what you're saying, Michael. It's like, what he's trying to say is that, like, do you know about change, like, as it relates to communicating change as opposed to changing communication, constantly.

Yeah. There's a thin line between a thought-provoking headline and one that obliterates all rational understanding. I've crossed that particular Rubison myself.

OK, since Murr and I frequently spar over the need for communication to be focused on helping business achieve its goals, I just want to say for the record that I am NOT the aforementioned blowhard internal communication consultant. Plus, I would never write a headline that dumb.

My guess is that the guy didn't proofread well enough, and left out a key word or two.

Part of the advice I heard in Journalism was to proof all headlines first, then read the copy. Otherwise, it's easy to miss a glitch like the one you spotted.

That, Tom, and never proof your own work and never proof on screen. But then I'm guilty of both.

Still a Communications Pro, communicating about professional communications, peddling his communications skills...you'd think he'd be extra careful on this one.

Sure he wasn't pedaling his skills?

The guy didn't make a mistake. He meant it just the way he wrote it. He thought he was being deep.

I bet he's a devotee of The Secret, too. Those people talk about a lot of inanimate stuff as if it had feelings. I know a CPA "The Secret" devotee who wrote about how the universe had gifted her with another opportunity to move her family and how she was excited about who would step forward with a suggestion as to where they might find an apartment. That's in the same camp as "communicating TO change."

Numbskull.

This dude once wrote an article for my Journal, and refused to use--or let me insert--the word "communicator" into the piece, because he thought the term brought us down or limited us to "just" doing communication.

You're in charge of communication among tens of thousands of employees and managers for a giant company. Oh, is that all you do?

Ya-hoos like this guy are exactly why I have been a hater of "consultants" for most of my career. (Though I did recently hear a seminar by one who actually spoke English and made sense, so now I can say there are decent consultants out there who really offer value to their clients. But I still think that's the exception rather than the rule. But I digress)

Consultants can float from one company to another, spouting either:

-information they've gathered from the employees and the company's communications team to the senior management as though it's some great ancient wisdom from on high that nobody knew before. And they charge unbelievable hourly rates for this priviledge.

OR

-Crapola like that headline which is basically the emperor's new clothes all over again. Ohhhh, we don't know what that means - it must be really, really deep. Ya - its deep alright -deep do-do if companies fall for it.

Hmmm. Apparently I'm cranky today. Oh well, I'm okay with that.

Happy Memorial Day to all you Americans!

Kristen

If pedaling were his skill, Diane, we all be better off and he might be embroiled in a debate on steroid doping on the Tour De France instead of wasting our time with his hasty sales pitch!

If pedaling were his skill, Diane, we all might be better off with him perhaps embroiled in a debate about doping on the Tour De France instead of wasting our time with his hasty sales pitch.

Before the consultant-bashing gets any worse, let me say first that I agree that Kristen's assessment applies to many, unfortunately.

Many, but not all.

There truly are some of us who don't have a high-and-mighty attitude, who actually have deep empathy and compassion for the difficulties many communicators face in their organizations (because we've been there), who abhor the consultant-speak and especially the voodoo consulting that sounds deep but really is doo-doo, and who are in this business mostly because we could no longer stand the insanity that occurs in most corporate environments.

It's true that we often float from one company to the next, reflecting back to our clients what employees really are saying because, let's face it, management rarely listens to their own internal experts, much less to their instincts. And, in fact, the ability to gather information and insights from many different organizations and to assimilate them into knowledge that can be shared with a client is, I believe, a potentially valuable service.

As for hourly rates, well, I hate to say it, but the market -- that would be you guys -- determine the rates. And as long as the market -- that would be you guys -- are willing to pay a big-name, gazillion-dollar consulting firm hundreds of dollars an hour, then that's what they'll charge you. As for us smaller-scale, independent consultants, we also rely on the market to determine the fair price for our services. And I happen to believe that my rates are not only extremely competitive, but I also believe my clients get more than their money's worth.

Maybe I'm cranky today, too. But I'm OK with that.

Hmmm... Trying to figure out what this is about. Is this ironic? Is it tongue-in-cheek? Is it a grammatical problem? It seems like the "blowhard" in question is comparing two roles -- one in which the speaker is actually getting the audience to change vs one in which the speaker is more abstractly talking about change as a possibility. In the first, the speaker is a leader, the second an academic. Maybe the "blowhard" didn't say this well, but I do think that there is an essential switch in moving from someone who observes and comments on change to one who inspires and participates in change.

Thought I'd posted a comment follow-up to Robert's and it doesn't seem to have appeared. Just wanted to go on record that my comments are directed at the big-name blowhard individual to whom David refers. While I do not know Robert Holland personally, I know him by reputation through IABC and through dialogue in various blogs. I can honestly say I hold the highest esteem for him and will grant him a shot at cranky! I'm okay with that!

I will also say that I have and do use various consultants who bring the utmost value, if only for getting execs to hear what employees have been saying all along, and give it credit because it came from an objective third party.

And also for the record, I do not go anywhere near saying that consultants never add value. I campaign only against those who insult communicators and employees with their promotions and their approaches to consulting. That ain't Robert.