If I had to be honest I'd say the same is true for me. I can be far more trasparent in a letter because words have always been a strenght for me. I'm not saying I'm the unabomber when it comes to social situations, just that I prefer written hands-down.

I think a good communicator needs to good at every kind of communication, because WHATEVER THE RECIPIENT NEEDS AT THE MOMENT is the way to go. On the other hand, sometimes we don't have one option or the other, and even clumsy communication can be better than no communication at all.

Which brings up a question: are there times when NO communication is better than clumsy communication? I'm not talking about evasive or intentionally misleading communication--I'm talking about well-intentioned but clumsy communication .

Interesting question, Jane. I think it mostly depends on the circumstances. For example, there's a medevac helicopter missing in the Gulf of Alaska right now. It had four people aboard. The weather is horrible and search efforts have been stymied. I'm guessing that nobody knows what happened, and given the conditions, it's unlikely that anyone has survived. Would it be better not to say anything, or to say something awkwardly? In these circumstances, even the best communicator would be challenged. Worried families, concerned employers, media coverage, etc.--so many different people wanting information when it's likely that there really isn't any information to give except a status on the search and how weather is hampering search efforts. (Plug attorneys into this mix--geez, I'm glad I don't work for either the hospital or the helicopter company.) And Alaska is so small, population wise, that odds are really good that pretty much anybody in the state knows somebody either directly affected (the crash victims) or indirectly (employers, friends, etc.).

And although I agree that a good communicator should be versatile and skilled at a variety of communications, like Eileen, I far prefer the written word. I feel so much more comfortable, and as though my message were more precise and accurate. I don't think on my feet quickly enough to be as good at verbal communication as I am at written. It's always good to know your strengths, too, I think, and capitalize on them. In my current job, most of my communications are written, just by the nature of the job, so it suits me well.

I'm not sure, Jane, if I agree that we all need to be good in every method of communication. I think a good communication department allows us to do what we do best. In my case, this has equated into my taking part-time jobs (20 hours a week) as a writer/editor only. I don't do face-to-face stuff. Frankly, I don't want a seat "at the table," because that's not my strength, but writing is.

So is it possible to be a great communicator only through writing, or must we all be well-rounded? I'm not sure.

Boy, this sure is timely. For a story I was just doing for Speechwriter's Newsletter, I asked speechwriters what their biggest problems are. One answered:

“I am a reflective thinker and struggle to be articulate when I feel rushed,” said Penn State Outreach writer and editor Christina McNeill told Speechwriter’s Newsletter recently. She said her biggest problem at work is talking to the vice president she writes speeches for. She said she’s not afraid of giving him advice, but whenever they’re in a room together she gets swept up into his rambling rhythm and “trapped into his line of logic. This combination is my kryptonite and leaves me unable to intelligently articulate my thoughts during our meetings.”

I must say, I can relate to all this. I’ve spent most of my career at Ragan happily letting my colleague Steve Crescenzo and others do all the public speaking, preferring to let my writing do my talking. And though I don’t shrink from all face-to-face business dealings, I prefer to negotiate the nitty-gritty parts of my own business deals via e-mail—probably to the my financial detriment.

But surely this is one major factor in the "communicators don't have enough power" equation. No one ever won a political office through clever press releases, no one ever got to be CEO by writing great memos, and no communicator ever got a big budget increase without going to some people and looking them in the eye.

Damn you people, I think I'm going to write my next Journal of Employee Communication Management Editor's Letter on this very topic .....

Well, David, I do want to comment on the "communicators don't have enough power" question. Not every pontificator will become a politician. Not every accountant will be the CFO. Without at least basic communication skills of at least some variety (technical, geek, bullshit, finance, whatever), hardly anyone rises to a position of authority or power. Truly good communicators become the ones we quote down through the ages, the ones we remember, regardless of the field (political, corporate, religious). But not everyone will be great (at least as our society defines greatness).

So if Eileen is happy working 20 hours per week at a job that brings her satisfaction and at which she excels, and she has no aspirations to the C-suite; or if I'm happy that my job involves more written than direct communication because that's where I flourish, I don't think that ought to be extrapolated to the conclusion that communicators don't have enough power. It appears that Eileen has precisely the right amount of power to bring her satisfying work. And there's a very real power in finding a job that's rewarding, regardless of how others view that job.

Oh yes, Joan. I will be the very last person in this business to disparage the quiet writerly type. As I said, I ARE the quiet writerly type—or at least I frequently need to retreat to that position frequently.

I guess I've just not heard so many communicators all at once SAY they're not comfortable yakking face-to-face ... and no matter what we think of it, we do have to consider this as a reason the profession doesn't hold more sway in organizations .....

Is it possible some aren't comfortable yakking face to face because some are still treated like typists? Not that I've ever had that experience, mind you.

"Why isn't that capitalized?"
"Why isn't there a comma there?"
"Are you SURE that's right?"
"Maybe you'd better look that up in the dictionary."

And lest we forget that in reality, internal communication isn't just about "behavior change". Sometimes it's about expectation management. Sometimes it's about heading off rumor--and sometimes it's about acknowledging that certain rumblings are rumors without directly denying their authenticity. Sometimes it's about making a rational case for change to people who genuinely care--without unduly exercising the apathetic or dumbing down to reach the indolent.

Face to face may be the most reassuring and inspiring to certain audiences, but the rote invocation of face to face as the apex of the communication pyramid is no more useful than maps designed before Columbus. Worse, the hierarchical-face-to-face-cascade cult are blocking the profession from really exploring the power of voluntary social networks as the true engine and future of organisational communication.

Like Eileen and David and, it appears, so many, many other communicators, I'm at my best in writing, and the people on most of my pedestals are writers. My point was just that there are two issues: what we're best at, and what recipients need.

I teach college English and I think I'm maybe the first person in those kids' lives to attempt to put the idea in their heads that unless we're journaling, we never write for ourselves. We write for readers, and whatever we want to give them, we need to give them in a way that they'll receive. In the same way, we need to keep recipients in the front of our minds as we communicate.