What do (most) communicators agree on?
6th August 2007 by Michael Zimet
My colleague, David Murray, has written an interesting article in The Ragan Report (subscription required, but reprinted in his blog) entitled “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” In David’s own words:
“IABC, of course, is hoping to advocate for the value of communicators themselves — as well as truths and principles that communicators hold near and dear. But what are those truths? Based on our many years of talking to communicators, we decided to take our own shot.”
David lists a number of principles that could form what he calls a “constitution for the communications business.” (In a sidebar, he also applauds what he refers to as “the other communicators’ constitution: IABC’s code of ethics.”)
It’s a thoughtful, provocative list. I agree with most of them, but still haven’t made up my mind about a few. I also find myself wondering if there’s a message in here for our Advocacy initiative.
So I’m turning this over to my panel of experts — you.
Take a look at David’s list and then share your reactions with us, here. What resonates with you? What do you disagree with? Is anything missing? And, perhaps most importantly, is there something that’s especially relevant to our Advocacy initiative?
I’ll be interested in your reactions — and I know David will be watching, too.
What do you think?
August 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Enjoyed David’s piece - there’s lots of truth in it.
Would have liked to see something more definite about the value of measurement. While I agree with David’s implication that humility is important for us (don’t assume unreasonably that audiences understand us), if we stop short of evaluating our effectiveness in furthering our organizations’ objectives, we do everyone around us a disservice.
As communicators, we work hard to be persuasive go-betweens, but that’s not where our job ends. From personal experience, I know it’s tempting to fall back on the “mystery of communication” approach. (When it comes to employee feedback on comms, many business leaders also seem to believe that no news is good news.) But with the extra effort involved in measuring communication effectiveness comes greater insight into whether our work is meaningful. We may not always like what evaluation tells us, but we can be confident that a timely reality-check will help us direct our energies to where they’re needed.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I hear you on that, Jonathan. But keep in mind, I’m writing here what communicators DO have in common–at least in terms of values–and not what they SHOULD have in common.
Did not want to be a list that sounded preachy; wanted it to be one to which most communicators might react, “That’s what I’da said if I coulda laid tongue to it.”
Not sure this measurement thing quite resonates with most communicators, down deep. Think, to many, it often seems like an exercise to impress the boss. What do you think?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The concept of a communicators’ code of ethics is great. However, the only point I truly believe that joins us as communicators is “commuications is mysterious”.
It’s not that I think communications is mysterious as much as it is a truly subjective craft. Within each organization - and each communication for that matter, you constantly have put things in perspective based on an organization’s culture/sub-cultures, what you’re trying to accomplish and - of course - who the audience is.
In all, communicators are storytellers, navigators, interviewers, and investigators. We’re continually given data and ideas, and then have to dig in/around to build the frameworks and story, plan, etc. in a meaningful to whomever receives it. This is tiring, its success varies from organization to organization, and no easy feat because we’re usually part of the few who are focused on these things.
Also, while I concede that communications/communicators aren’t THE total solution to running a successful company, the importance and power this role brings to is way undervalued — particularly because communicators are not bred as a one-size-fits-all role. When hiring a communicator, there must be two-way evaluation between company and candidate to evaluate each others’ st/lt goals, values, needs before deciding whether there’s an appropriate fit for that role. I know communicators who are great writers and general business people but have few interpersonal skills, and simply wouldn’t fit in a particular role or organization.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Michael…
I found this post and the allied list from David Murray quite challenging — to the extent of issuing a full-bore response in my own blog.
But the main thing that was 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.
The moment we start to believe this as a profession, the moment it starts to become known to our clients/companies, is the moment we undo over a decade of good work to establish Business Communication as a trusted strategic profession. Let’s not go there.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:15 am
I think the problem lies in defining our profession as virtuous rather than being true to our principles as individuals performing that profession. In any profession, there are virtuous and not so virtuous practitioners. But communicators are particularly well placed to understand the potential impacts of lacking virtue in business.
As an organization, IABC claims to promote high professional standards. So IABC is not saying that all communicators are more virtuous than other professionals, but that good professionals should have strong principles. However, I also believe that morality and ethics evolve in specific historical, cultural, political and other “ical” contexts. While there seems to be some convergence around certain Western ideas of morality, there is not universal acceptance. For me, the question is whether each of us really believes deep down in our hearts that our professional performance is ethical, knowing full well that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and we may cause damage by an excessively rigid application of our principles.
As an American living overseas and being in frequent contact with multiple cultures, there are many questions I ask myself that have implications for the decisions that I take as a communicator. These include: Is the well being of the individual or the group more important? How do you measure prosperity — by money alone or by all the non-monetary things like time with your kids and the possibility of spending long leisurely meals chatting with family and friends? Is fighting ever really justified? Given that we are animals, can fighting ever really be avoided?…
OK, I’m starting to wax too philisophical, so I’ll stop now, but I do think that every human activity has positive and negative impacts. Communications is either creating mutual understanding or creating spin, depending on your point of view. I’ve noticed that I’m accused of “spin” or “lobbying” by people who disagree with me and “education” or “awareness raising” by those who agree. So who’s right? We can all strive to be forthright and honest in our communications, but you have to be selective in the information you use, if only because the page is so long, so how do you know for sure that you haven’t filtered out a piece of information that is critical to “honest communications”?
I think we just all have to do our best, try to put ourselves in the other’s place and just hope that our net impact is a positive one.
Kristen
August 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
David - thanks for your reply and clarification. Point taken, evaluation IS a “should have in common” (not a “do have”). I’d argue that talking up our own stock as communicators is definitely a “do have in common” - and evaluation is a key tool.
Echoing Rebecca Voss (post Aug. 13-07 above), many communicators are challenged by lack of resources/support and a sense of being out of the organizational mainstream. How can we mitigate that feeling? We owe it to ourselves to use limited resources wisely. Evaluation can help us by moving us away from supposition and closer to the type of empirical evidence that organizations thrive on.
So why don’t we embrace it more? Why (as you say) does evaluation not resonate with most communicators down deep?
Well, it can be hard to design & implement properly, the boss may not care to think about any “difficult” findings*, and no action may come of it. It can easily become an exercise in frustration. Good reasons for inaction. (*For many bosses, one-way communication with staff is enough communication, thank you very much.)
On the other hand, done with determination and acumen, evaluation can engage staff in a very powerful way. Not asking their opinions can be viewed as uncaring, but a simple questionnaire can easily reverse that impression and be positively empowering. Viewed as essential dialogue, asking staff what they think fits easily alongside other corporate communications.
The payoff for us? By dismantling myths about how audiences receive, process and act on messages, and understanding their true communication needs, we can make each future communication count more. This builds our credibility as contributors to organizational effectiveness and success, financial or otherwise, helping us to move in from the cold. (Of course, we need to show our other skills in adding value through communication.)
Many of us would agree this is a desirable goal and one we share.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
“Do everything the boss says” has certainly led to an interesting discussion. But may I suggest the parallel of the Chartered Accountant (or whatever a certified acctg pro is called where you are), who is expected to ensure that the company adheres to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or has a REALLY good reason for not doing so. Indeed, the accountant has an obligation to take a stand when proper processes are not applied. They don’t all do so all the time, but they usually try. We do not have as well developed a target as GAAP, nor as well developed a professional association, but we can try.
Sure, negotiate exceptions etc., but in the long run I would like to think that most of us would be prepared to say, “This company isn’t playing straight, I should leave.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Good point, Tim. Most other professionals–even lawyers!–are expected to adhere to some kind of professional code of ethics, but communicators are expected to go with the flow.
But beyond ethical breeches, I suggest we have more power than we think we do to influence the style, the tone and the content of what our organizations do, and as fully human members of our society–our corporate jobs imply civic duty–and I don’t think any of us believe that getting a good performance review is or should be the end-all-be-all of contribution.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 am
There’s a big difference between accounting standards and the law on one hand, and communications. The first time have very explicit references for what is and isn’t acceptable. That makes sense since one is dealing with calculations and the second with codified, enacted rules (or those established by jurisprudence).
That’s a far cry from style, tone, transparency, intent, etc., of human communication. My guess is that for many of the “right” decisions you think you make, someone could come up with a very good argument for why that was actually an unethical thing to do!
Law and accounting depend mostly on expertise with regard to a body of reference. Communications is much more about discernment. Perhaps the reason our profession struggles with recognition is that those on the outside do not want to imply that they lack judgment.
August 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Communications is discernment: Exactly, Kristen. And that discernment must be OURS–not only our employer’s.