If the communication business had its own constitution, on what could all the framers manage to agree?
That was the question I asked in a July 16 Ragan Report column, which I'm running here at the behest of Mike Zimet, who's heading up IABC's latest "advocacy" push, which inspired me to write this.
Can we all agree on the items below? Are there anything we should add?
***
Communicators believe that communication is a moral act. That is, the business is not about using words and images to mislead, but rather to get across truth—the truth about our organizations, the truth about our audiences, the truth about whatever it is we are communicating about.
Communicators believe that words are meant to bond people in understanding. Though it may be true that no amount of clever words can get lions to sleep with lambs, words can help lions and lambs understand where one another is coming from, and that is our particular purpose on this planet.
Communicators know that communication is mysterious. Getting what’s in our head into your head is not a simple or quantifiable process. We don’t know fully how it works, we don’t always know that it has worked. Strunk & White say in the Elements of Style, "When you say something, make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only fair." George Bernard Shaw said, “The danger in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished." Amen.
Communicators believe that people are much more similar than they are different. This the reason communication works at all.
Communicators acknowledge that communication is not everything—it is only what we happen to be good at. A communicator who accuses everyone else in the organization of “not getting it” or a communicator who believes communication is the solution to all the world’s problems is a communicator who has broken from reality. Putting a writer in charge of an engineering company or an airline would be a bad idea. We are tribal storytellers. We must respect the hunters and the gatherers whose stories we tell.
Communicators believe that most people want to be honest. Even liars and crooks have private moments when they wish they could come clean and go straight. To the extent that we can help them find a way to do that, we should be prepared.
Communicators know that most institutions do not want to be honest. If institutions were living things, they would be able to explain carefully to the communicator, “In most instances, I believe there is more to lose by sharing information and positing ideas and asking for feedback than there is to gain. I realize that many of the people who work within me feel otherwise. But they are people, and I am an institution and we often have divergent interests. They want to live and thrive and be loved and be happy. I want only to survive. They have their influence, and I have mine.”
Communicators acknowledge the importance of outsiders and insiders. Ragan founder Larry Ragan once wrote a prayer asking God to help insiders appreciate the need for critics of the corporation, of the government, of the church. He also asked God for outsiders to appreciate the work insiders do to keep these institutions running and to improve them, even if by baby steps. Communicators, whether they write political blogs or work for unions or work for General Motors, should be the keepers of this prayer.
Communicators know that humor is their best tool on most days, and that deadly seriousness and absolute earnestness should be reserved for those rare deadly and absolute occasions that call for them.
Communicators know that communication is no more healthy (or interesting or honest) than the person or institution doing the communicating. There are no case studies of a corporate communicator single-handedly transforming a corporate culture, just as there are no case studies of a person talking himself into being funny.
Communicators know most communication happens by accident—a furrow of the brow, a late arrival to a meeting, an omission of someone’s name, an over-aggressive handshake an unconscious sigh. Even if people pretend to believe our words, they notice when our bodies betray us.
Communicators believe that their unique role as a go-between among the organization and its constituencies gives them an occasional reason to speak as a “corporate conscience.” But they do not make the accidental leap to the further conclusion that their role makes them the only corporate conscience.
Communication is an old art. Anyone who promises to revolutionize it, simplify it or create a streamlined “process” for it is probably trying to fool you.
Comments (10)
At this moment I'm just sorry that we're both so happily married!
Oh, I almost forgot: :-)
Posted by Jane Greer | July 31, 2007 10:09 AM
Posted on July 31, 2007 10:09
Always good to have a backup, though, Jane. ;)
Posted by David Murray | July 31, 2007 10:24 AM
Posted on July 31, 2007 10:24
Communicators have more power than we think. The values and beliefs of an organization are contained in the language it speaks, and as that language changes, so does the society it describes. Because we often write those words, we have powers and responsibilities that go beyond our daily tasks and allow us to help our companies change for the better.
Communicators suffer more than many would endure. We often find themselves in some of the most soul-destroying situations in the business world as we try to deal with sociopath CEOs, Kafkaesque bureaucracy, hateful activists, terrible journalists and unhappy employees. Although this nearly kills us early in our careers, all that pain makes us wise and valued in our later years.
Posted by Ron Shewchuk | July 31, 2007 11:30 AM
Posted on July 31, 2007 11:30
Ron, I'm thinking about what David said--that PEOPLE want to be honest but that it's not always in the INSTITUTION'S best interest to lay everything out for public scrutiny.
I think he's right, and I think most employees--not just the communicators--suffer because of this dichotomy. Communicators possibly suffer more because communication is our religion--we do sometimes expect unrealistic things of it--and also because we're able to analyze the situation and put into words what other employees may not.
They may be feeling, without putting it into words, "I HATE having to be so careful what I say. I love my job and the people I work with, and I'm proud of us!" Then they go back to whatever work they do.
We communicators, on the other hand, have been known to fixate on what feels like a personal affront of the deepest order when we aren't allowed to display the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in our lapidary prose.
Posted by Jane Greer | July 31, 2007 1:22 PM
Posted on July 31, 2007 13:22
I think most people--communicators and non-communicators both--are remarkably accepting of how restricted their free speech and personal expression is by the organizations they work for. But well-put, Jane: communication is our religion, and it's hardest for us to forget.
Ron, I'll buy those tenets of yours because I know you've come by them honestly. Not sure if they apply to everyone though, especially your second point. I think those factors DO kill some communicators early in their careers. How about, "If this doesn't kill us early in our careers, all that pain can make us wise and valued in our later years."
Posted by David Murray | July 31, 2007 1:51 PM
Posted on July 31, 2007 13:51
I'll buy that revision, David.
And, Jane, I agree that communicators can be too idealistic and thin-skinned for their own good.
In the end it's all about balancing one's personal values and ideals with the practical considerations of working in a big stupid organization that happens to also spit out a paycheck every two weeks.
Posted by Ron Shewchuk | August 1, 2007 1:30 AM
Posted on August 1, 2007 01:30
Ron: :-)
Posted by Jane Greer | August 1, 2007 10:41 AM
Posted on August 1, 2007 10:41
David...
I learned of this list through Michael Zimet's posting on IABC Commons. I found it quite challenging–to the extent of issuing a full-bore response in my own blog
(http://CommsOffensive325.blogharbor.com).
But the main thing I found challenging was the moralistic positioning–that there is something intrinsically virtuous about what we do–and that we occupy some kind of higher moral ground than others in our organizations. Implicitly, one can also infer a license for communicators to wash their hands of the excesses of their organisations and the leaders/managers for whom we work.
I think the implications of such a world view could have considerable commercial consequences for professional communicators.
For years, we have worked diligently to make a compelling case for our inclusion as trusted strategic partners. But what kind of partnership can we forge with people we consider of lesser fabric? What kind of strategic impact can we genuinely have if we allow ourselves to think it is ok for us to disown the strategies once we have left the table or someone "innocent" gets hurt?
In my view, we need to look away from individual morality as a unifying factor for communicators--and shift towards an approach based on collective responsibility--for our work, our relationships with clients, and for the care and feeding of our shared profession.
Posted by Mike Klein | August 14, 2007 3:20 PM
Posted on August 14, 2007 15:20
David, I thought this was pretty good until I got to the part where communications is defined as being late for a meeting or furrowing a brow.
That devalued the whole essay-- we are not responsible for brow furrowing, and if the definition of communicationg gets so spread out, well, it means human resopurces people can be counted as communicators and so can the guys in shipping and receiving.
Too bad ... up til then, you had a good essay going.
As for one person transforming a corporate culture -- again, we need to sort out definition. Can that one person have a department working for him?
...if so, Roy Cottier, Northern Electric / Northern Telecom, early 1970s to sometime in the 1980s.
BAK
Posted by Brian Kilgore -- Toronto | August 15, 2007 7:28 AM
Posted on August 15, 2007 07:28
http://picss-lolita.com/preteen_lolita___little_preteen_nymphets_pics_collection.shtml preteen lolita _ little preteen nymphets pics collection
FREE PICS LOLITA
http://picss-lolita.com/free_pics_lolita.shtml FREE PICS LOLITA
Pre lolita pussy pics
http://picss-lolita.com/pre_lolita_pussy_pics.shtml Pre lolita pussy pics
lolita clips pics
http://picss-lolita.com/lolita_clips_pics.shtml lolita clips pics
lolita preteen vids pics
http://picss-lolita.com/lolita_preteen_vids_pics.shtml lolita preteen vids pics
free pics lolita
Posted by RenteePauff | January 14, 2008 11:32 PM
Posted on January 14, 2008 23:32