Category Archives: Communication

Learning to communicate with focus, clarity, and power

Posted on

No, I’m NOT “Tolerant”, and Here’s Why.

Did that get your attention? Why? What are you expecting will come next? A rant perhaps?

Hmmm…maybe I should confess that I belong to the demographic group that is stereotypically characterized as the least tolerant of all: Middle aged, white, upper middle class, probably in the 1%, male, registered republican,Christian. If you didn’t already know that you’re now probably tempted to stop reading. 🙂 Chicken.

For me the notion of tolerance is silly really, dangerously silly. You see most calls for tolerance have somewhere in their roots the notion that we shouldn’t label people. But then as soon as the conversation moves from a mere word to a sentence the labels begin to fly.

  • I must be tolerant of Blacks and Hispanics and people of middle eastern or oriental descent.
  • I must be tolerant of Muslims and Atheists and anyone who doesn’t espouse Christianity.
  • I must be tolerant of homosexuals and bisexuals and extra-marital-sexuals.
  • I must be tolerant of the disabled and the disenfranchised and the dissatisfied.

Of course because of my demographic grouping I am readily accused being:

  • As regards race, bigoted
  • As regards religion, elitist
  • As regards sexuality, homophobic
  • As regards social justice or global warming or the plight of the poor or affordable medical coverage, ignorant

Labels, labels, labels.

And that is the dangerously silly part. All the things I am expected to be “tolerant of” are labels. So in effect the “tolerant” camp is asking me to not label people and accept them for their label. Which conveniently allows me to completely ignore them as a person and focus on the label!

I’ll tell you straight out I will never be “tolerant” of anyone because of some specific label.

In the same way that it is a shameful thing for me to label someone and thus dismiss them it is equally shameful for me to have to accept anyone because of a label. What’s really comical is how often folks who want to play to tolerance card also, at the same time, want to play the “treat me like everyone else” card.

Yes, I confess, I have made jokes about peoples race, religion, sexual orientation, and  even physical handicaps. In EVERY case those were people with whom I had great relationships.  There was no hurt intended and none taken. They shot right back and we both laughed.

But if I were to put those words into print I’d be accused of being all those labels listed above.

And that is where tolerance moves from silly to dangerous when people start getting up in arms and offended “on behalf of” someone else. Just a show of hands, who got uncomfortable when I said I joked about someones sexual orientation or physical handicap? You see unless you understand the relational context you have no excuse for being offended “on behalf of” someone else. Relationship trumps label every time.

Focusing on diversity and tolerance is a focus on what makes us different and potentially separates us. Focusing on relationship is a focus on what pulls us together and labels get in the way of relationship.

So don’t ask me to be “tolerant” or to “co-exist” for the sake of all the labels you have on your bumper sticker. Ask me instead to sit down for a beer, some decent music and some intelligent dialogue and I’m there every time.

 

As an American doing business in Europe I get labeled. As a Christian performing in local community theater I get labeled. How about you?

Posted on

Two Reminders that Boost Communication

I really hadn’t intended to write on communication today but I was inspired by the conversation generated by Michael Hyatt’s post from yesterday: What Could Becoming a Better Speaker Make Possible for You?

Now, I don’t necessarily want to just cover “public speaking” here, though that certainly is a large part of it, but communication in general whether it is recorded, written, performed, transmitted…whatever. What I want to share with you are two reminders that I find really boost not only your message but your ability to communicate effectively across the board.

Reminder #1: It is NOT about you.
For years I have taught and coached at the SCORRE Conference mentioned in Michael’s blog where we train people to, among other things, be better public speakers. Did you know that there are studies that show the fear of public speaking ranks way above the fear of failure, the dark, and even death?

What we find at the conference is that a lot of folks who fear public speaking to that degree are highly worried about what people will think of them. But hang on, why are they speaking in the first place? To impress people? To make people love them? NO! Hopefully, unless they’re performing, they’re there to GIVE the audience something they NEED.

Imagine you’re on a cruise ship that is starting to tip over and you happen to be the only one in the room who knows the quickest route to the lifeboats. I’m HOPING you’ll turn into an instant public speaker and NOT be worried about what people will think of you when you start instructing them on how to get to safety.

In any form of communication, other than personal chit chat, the communicator is imparting information to the communicate-ee. How often do you intentionally communicate useless information? Never? Good, then your communication is ALWAYS about your audience.

Hear this and remember: It is NOT about you. It IS about your audience.

So you shouldn’t be worried about what they’ll think of you. You should be worried about whether they’ll understand you and the importance of what you have to tell them. Clarity is more important than cuteness.

Reminder #2: You need to know your audience as well as you know your information.
The follows naturally but it is really surprising how many people forget this one.

I get to speak on technical topics quite often. One of the topics I’ve been asked to cover is Business Intelligence…pretty broad topic really. If I go into the room expecting the audience is a technical one I cover the material from a certain perspective. If it is essentially a business audience I take a different approach. The preparation for those two talks is very different.

Imagine though that I’ve prepared the technical talk and I wind up with an audience of folks who just want to know more about the importance of BI in general, who may or may not even know what the term means other than something they’ve heard is important. DOH! I have that talk in the bag too but it is REALLY different that the other two!

Make the effort to know who is going to be on the receiving end of your communication and you’ll really ratchet up your effectiveness.

Knowing your stuff makes you the expert. Knowing the audience turns you into a trusted adviser.

How well do you know the audiences with whom you communicate? What can you do to understand them even more deeply?

Posted on

The Lost Art of Dialogue

I’m afraid my friends that we’ve gotten lost. Media in general and social media in particular is guiding us down the path of chemical dependance on the 140 character sound byte.

No wait, we don’t even need that anymore, we just click the “like” button…and then ask for a “don’t like” button. And don’t even get me started on texting (which doesn’t show up in spell check by the way). If we’re not careful we’ll soon frgt hw 2 uu vwls prprly.

How is it that with more access to more information than any three generations have had before now we seem to be less and less inclined toward discussion while at the same time more and more inclined to dismissive dogmatic certainties?  How is it that “our guy’s” statistics are surprisingly accurate while “those guy’s” statistics are always a lying mockery of the truth? Perhaps here we HAVE been most affected by the media. Ever notice how the Storm Troopers can’t seem to hit a thing with their blasters but Han Solo has a 75% hit rate?

In the interest of trying to halt this slide down the slippery slope into mindless sarcastic bashing allow me a few moments to bring to your attention three words:

1. Debate:
Some of the definitions include: To dispute or disagree about, To engage in argument or discussion, Argument or Controversy.

You see a debate is about one side trying to win. You win a debate by proving your point right, or more right, and the other side’s point wrong. A debate typically has a winner and a loser.

2. Diatribe:
Definition: a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism

Because a debate is in effect a contest with a winner and a loser they often disintegrate in a series of diatribes aimed at taking out the opponent emotionally as well as intellectually.  Not a bad tactic if you’re looking to win and particularly good if you want the other fellow to lose.

3. Dialogue:
Definition: an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.

Do you see the subtle difference here? In a debate you have one winner and one loser. In a dialogue the intent is to have no losers and all winners. The intent of dialogue is to bring about resolution to conflict that is mutually beneficial.

It’s no surprise we’ve landed here really, having forgotten what we once knew about dialogue. Ours is a capitalistic society. Capitalism thrives on competition. We’re taught to compete from the moment we play our first game of grade school kickball. We’ve become accustomed to, perhaps even programmed into, choosing sides.

But as Americans we’re all on the same side. Shoot, as humans we’re all on the same side. So shouldn’t we be looking to dialogue and resolve rather than debate and win?

Most debates are founded on three premises: declare, prove, debunk. Each side declares what they believe to be true, seeks to prove it, and seeks to debunk their opponent.

IF we are to re-discover the lost art of dialogue I think we need to learn again to begin from a different set of premises:

Agree
Dialogue starts with an agreement as to what it is we’re trying to solve or resolve. (Which I suppose literally could be said to mean “solve again”.) This is more difficult than it seems on the surface.

Take a nice controversial example like abortion. Tons of debate there yes? But it seems to me one side is arguing about rights while the other is arguing about life. Yes, I know the life guys are arguing about rights too, just for different folks.

But, what if the discussion started with trying to agree on what problem it is that abortion solves. Might different alternatives present themselves? Rather than argue we should allow it versus we should not what if the dialogue were about trying to determine if it is the best solution to a defined problem?

Agreement means we’re truly in agreement. We’re actually looking to come up with a mutually beneficial solution to the problem or issue. We’re not just agreeing on the surface for the sake of argument but willing to fight for the agreement rather than for our point to be won.

Assume
Yes, I know we were all taught never to assume. In this case though the assumption is that your counterpart in the dialogue has points, information, statistics, and suggestions that are equally as valid as yours. Assuming this serves to reinforce the agreement.

Also, the better you are at assuming brilliance (a phrase borrowed from an old friend) on the part of the other party the more likely you’ll be to listen to what they have to say, not in order to debunk it, but in order to find where you can reach agreement.

Persist
Dialogue easily slips into debate. When it does go back to the agreement, check your assumptions to see if they are still active as they should be, and persevere.

I used to work for a particularly ornery Brit. One of my favorites bosses of all time truth be told. Chris and I would sometimes get into HUGE shouting matches cross the table to the degree where once or twice people actually poked a head in the door and asked if everything was ok. At which point we laughed and said “Yes, we’re fine. We’re going to lunch in five minutes would you like to join us?”

Ours was a dialogue. A heated one to be sure. But we had agreement as to what we were trying to solve. We had deep mutual respect for one anothers brilliance and perspective, and we persevered. If only we as a country could figure out how to have less debate and more dialogue…who knows where we might once again go.

Where do you find it most difficult to have dialogue rather than debate? Why do you think that is so?

Posted on

Three Pitfalls to Avoid in Preparing Corporate Communications

The forecast said the year ahead would be a fairly decent one. At the annual get-people-excited-about-the-year-to-come-all-company-meeting the senior sales exec gave a rousing speech all about the specific product lines that would be the tip of the spear for growth in the coming year. He had great market research information, forecast and pipeline data, and competitive analysis to back up his strategy. He wanted the troops to get excited about what they could achieve. The meeting finished on a high note and there was an n excited buzz in the room as the folks disbanded. It seemed the speech had done the trick, until the following day.

The support team called a meeting to discuss when they would be announcing end of the life on the product lines that hadn’t been discussed. That information wasn’t readily available so several more meetings were needed to get it, and then to try to formulate a strategy from it.

Account managers started asking for details on what they should tell customers who were on some of the product lines that were now “out of focus”. They needed to know if there was a migration path that would be made available to the product lines that were the new focus and so multiple meetings were called

Developers and technologists on the lines not mentioned were honing resumes and querying other groups to see if they had openings. HR suddenly felt the need to meet to discuss what seemed like unrest in product groups that had always been stable.

After two weeks of churn and close to two-dozen “what do we do now” meetings the senior sales exec called another company wide meeting. He explained that there were NO plans to retire ANY product lines but that the coming year would see additional focus on the lines previously mentioned. No one was at risk for losing a job, no customers needed to be given bad news, and no support policies needed to be changed. This time the meeting ended in relief, if not mild annoyance.

Sadly this is a true story. The staff at Dynamic Communicators was asked to come in and provide communications training to help this company avoid the madness in the future.  I’m not sure if we ultimately achieved that goal or not because, while we did meet with a couple of groups, the executives didn’t think they needed help.

Even sadder is the fact that this sort of thing happens all the time and being diligent to look out for three pitfalls in corporate communicating could easily squelch half of it.

Pitfall #1: FYI-tis

Giving information is great. We all like to be informed. At the end of the day people care much more about “why” they should know something than they do about the “what”. Just passing information without a word as to why you’re passing it, FYI, leaves people to interpret the “why” on their own. As seen in the case above that interpretation may be quite different than what was intended. If you find yourself saying, “but they need to know this” without answering “why” in the next sentence you’re at risk of falling into the pit.

Pitfall #2: Confusing Content and Context

In the case above the senior sales exec thought he’d rouse the troops by providing strategic forward thinking based on the numbers by which he lived everyday.  He’d interpreted the data and presented it at the annual get-psyched meeting, a context in which people expected to get direction for the coming year. By giving incomplete information based on an FYI approach the meeting spawned two weeks of unnecessary mania. The context in his head was not the context of the meeting. Ask yourself what the audience is expecting in the context of the presentation.

Pitfall #3:  Audience Amnesia or Passion sans Perspective

In the example above the senior sales exec presented with passion. He had good, exciting information and he wanted to share it but he forgot that the audience almost always starts from the perspective of “what’s in it for me?” Unless you know what your audience is looking for you can’t address their need, you can’t answer the question “why” am I giving this information from the audiences perspective. Oh, you can answer it for yourself, you know why you want to GIVE it but that may not be why they want to receive it. What is the need that they have that your information meets?

You have the info, the 411, you know you need to pass it along, whether in a meeting or an email, or a white paper. Start by asking yourself why, why does my audience need this? Then pause and check their contextual expectation, what do they expect out of the context in which they’ll receive this information? Then pause again and ask why, why would THEY say they’re interested in this information? What is THEIR purpose for listening?

Answer these questions BEFORE you deliver the info and you’ll find you’ve wended your way successfully through the pitfalls.

What’s the worst you’ve experienced? How could the problem have been solved by better preparation?

Posted on

The Power of Analogy, Story, and Illustration

It was two years ago I suppose, though it seems much longer ago. We were preparing to meet with several executives to discuss matters most serious and teasingly technical.

On the one side of the discussion were those of us who wanted to allow a “guest log in” feature to our web site that would allow even known users to begin conducting business without having to formally identify themselves.

On the other side of the discussion was the party that wanted known customers to continue to have to provide their customer number. Something every customer had but few knew and even fewer ever used for anything other than logging in to the web site.

On our side we had numbers, good numbers, interesting numbers. Numbers that showed abandoned transactions and numbers that showed potentially lost revenues and numbers that showed opportunity for growth.

On their side they had numbers, numbers I wanted to call bad but couldn’t, numbers that showed the amount of additional work in hours and dollars that spawned every time a known customer transacted  as though they were new ie: without using their customer number.

Ever have to go into one of those showdowns…er… meetings? In the worst instances voices raise, emotions boil and conclusions scamper out the window like so many scared rabbits. In the best instances they’re tedious affairs that result in begrudgingly compromised half-measures that wind up satisfying no one, something akin to rice pudding.

To make matters worse this conversation had been had before, several times. Each time each party brought new, more compelling numbers to bare and yet no one was compelled. So I suggested something new, devious perhaps, but new.

As each person arrived at the appointed meeting room a polite and warm representative greeted them outside the door.  “We’re glad you’re here!”, they exclaimed, “As a new measure of security for this meeting we’re asking that you provide the VIN from your automobile. Now we understand you may not have anticipated this new development but as your car is just outside in the parking lot, and the weather today is quite fine, it should be no trouble for you to track down the required information. If you’ve never used your VIN before it can be found on a small plaque on your dash or, in some cases, on the drivers side door.”

The  reactions were priceless and I could see them all because the meeting room had a small window in the door. I was seated inside having actually captured my VIN with my phone that morning.

Rather than going through the minor hassle of walking a couple hundred yards to provide the required credentials the surprised attendees tried to push past as though it were a joke. When they found the way blocked and the ‘doorman’ quite serious they actually headed for the elevator in a huff, not to get the number, but to leave the meeting! Ok, ‘huff’ is too weak a word, they were really hacked-off!

At this point our staunch doorman apologized for the minor ruse and allowed them to enter the meeting, as a guest.

The first words uttered in the meeting? “Ok, we get it. How do we fix it?”

Allow me to suggest three reasons why this approach worked, reasons that are universal benefits of using analogy, story and illustration.

1. It moved them from mind to heart.

We’d talked through all the issues before. Both sides knew the others arguments and rationale and in many cases agreed with the numbers. This experienced moved the conversation from a head talk to a heart talk. The participants understood the situation in a new way, one that moved from the intellectual to the emotional.

2. It moved them from observation to participation.

Interestingly enough the way we first start learning in life is through story and the BEST storytellers make us feel like we’re a part of the story! When my children were youngsters I read them the Harry Potter books. When the first film came out the boys’ comment was: “But dad, what if they get the voices wrong?!?” They’d been a part of the story in a way that made it feel like they had it the ‘right way’.

In the case of our meeting we actually put folks into the experience of the customers. It moved the presentation from being a story heard to a story lived. They experienced the voices of the customer in a way they hadn’t before as the voices became their own.

3. It moved them from understanders to believers

Understanding and belief, on the surface, seem like familiar bedfellows. The difference is in the mind versus the heart. I always understood that a cruise vacation could be restful but never believed it until I’d been on one…and another one…and another one…and another one!

Too many ‘corporate’ conversations rely solely on the head, the intellect, the numbers. We talk about mind share and convincing and countering objections. Just winning the intellectual argument often results in failure, “I agree with your numbers but I’m just not feeling it.” But find a way to win the heart and the head follows easily.

What near term opportunity do you have to use a story approach to communicating a corporate message? What’s holding you back from trying?

 

Posted on

A Simple Truth that Creates Better Communication

I spent the better part of this last week at the SCORRE Conference instructing folks on how to become better, more dynamic communicators.

Even though I have been a part of teaching this same material for close to twenty years I still discover something new about communicating almost every time we get together for the conference.

Imagine with me two different scenes:

Scene 1

The year is 1970. Disco hasn’t quite made it’s appearance on the scene yet but like a fowl smell on the breeze it is coming. Plaid shirts and corduroy pants with widely flared legs are quite the style. You make your way through the doors of the New Bank of My Town to transfer your account, the dulcet tones of the Girl from Ipanema playing softly in the background. Within moments, your transaction complete, you stroll back out the door, smiling, with a brand new toaster under your arm!

Scene 2

It’s your birthday! You wake up hoping that folks will remember but not quite ready to wear a sign on your chest announcing the importance of the day. You arrive at work and find an envelope on your desk. Inside is a card directing you to the break room. You smile to yourself thinking someone has gathered the crew together for coffee and donuts but when you get to the break room you find…another card. The process repeats itself several times. Each clue leading you somewhere else in the building until finally one leads you back out to your car! Surprised an curious you make your way back out to the car and notice a wrapped present on the front seat. You climb in and eagerly tear open the wrapping to find a toaster and note. “Please come join me for breakfast. Happy Birthday!”

In either case you get a toaster. Cool, you needed a toaster. So what’s the difference? The process of receiving.

Too often as communicators we get in a hurry to deliver the goods. Like the bank that gives away the free toaster we give our audience exactly what they expect. In our desire to provide them some benefit in exchange for listening, like the bank wants to  in exchange for our business, we lay the good right our there to be picked up and taken home.

Allow me to suggest three reasons our communication should be more like birthday treat than a bank toaster.

1. The joy of discovery

People, in general, like surprises especially pleasant ones. Whether we’re giving a speech, a sermon, or a product presentation people like those moments of surprise when they get more than they anticipated getting at the start.

2. The appreciation of elegance

Folks recognize when you’ve taken the time and made the effort. Even the simple difference between tossing a birthday present into someones lap unwrapped and handing them a well wrapped package catches peoples attention. It communicates that you care enough about the recipient to make the presentation part of the gift rather than just doing your duty. Even if you’re overly excited to give them their present they’ll appreciate the time and attention you took in the wrapping of it.

3. The effect of effort

If I walk into the bank expecting a toaster and get what I expect I critically examine to toaster to see if it matches my expectations. If, on the other hand, I get a surprise gift I am moved by the surprise and look at the toaster from an attitude of continued discovery to see what it has to offer. You audience will to your communication in the same way. Either with a critical eye to see if you’re delivering on the promise you dumped out in the your agenda, introduction, hand-out etc. OR with an eye towards discovering what you’re offering in a carefully crafted surprise package.

Whether you’re giving a speech, preaching a sermon, or writing a blog post don’t just dump it in their lap. Take the time to wrap the gift so that your audience can experience the joy of discovery and the appreciation of elegance. You will see the effect of your efforts. They’ll get the toaster either way but they’ll be moved by the surprise in a way that makes them appreciate you every time they make toast.

How can you make your communications more like a wrapped present that surprises and delights?

Posted on

The Five Degrees of Owning Up

I’ve been playing Mr. Mom the past few days. Work, soccer practice, dance rehearsal, cooking, driving, driving, driving. In the midst of keeping it all together one of the kids failed to call at the appointed time to communicate his plans. This resulted in an extra 45 minutes of driving out of the way, multiple unanswered phone calls, and 15 minutes sitting outside the house where he turned out not to be. His response when he finally did call from a strange number?

“Sorry dad I can’t find my phone.”
I didn’t bite his head all the way off…but it was a near thing.
None of us likes to admit we’re wrong. Sadly, the truth is we all are from time to time. The way we handle it when we are wrong has a significant impact on our relationships both professional and personal.
When you start to listen to the way people deal with being wrong you find what I’ll call the five degrees of owning up.
1.     I’m sorry but…
This really isn’t an apology at all but an excuse in disguise. What is actually being communicated is, “I know what I did resulted in negative consequences for YOU but you see there were mitigating circumstances and so you really shouldn’t blame me.”
“Sorry dad but…I can’t find my phone.”
2.     My bad…
Also not really an apology but more of a kind of hip, smack-on-the-arm.  What is actually being communicated is, “Yeah, that wasn’t good but we’re cool and you really wouldn’t make a big deal out of something like that would you?”
3.     I’m sorry.
Shweew, finally an apology. Funny thing is that the Bible doesn’t command us to apologize. It commands us to forgive, confess and ask for forgiveness. Once you start to look closely you’ll see how infrequently people even get this deep. Typically they land on sticking their big “but” in there.
4.     I need to ask your forgiveness for… 
What cracks me up about this one is that there isn’t an asking for forgiveness! What is really being communicated is a NEED to ask for forgiveness. The key here is control. In each of these first four examples the person who is in the wrong hasn’t wanted to admit it and that desire to NOT admit it is so strong they hold tightly to control of the situation.
5.     Will you please forgive me for…
It isn’t until this point that the person who is in the wrong actually surrenders control. While this may seem trivial it is actually connected to some very deep psychology. Even more than not wanting to admit we’re wrong we REALLY don’t want to release control.
When our kids were little they learned early to apologize and could do it readily if not begrudgingly. But when the situation called for it and we instructed them to ask for forgiveness the tears would begin to flow! Even as young as 5 or 6 they instinctively understood the difference between keeping and releasing control.
When we’ve wronged someone we need to not only admit it but relinquish control by asking forgiveness. The Bible is pretty clear when it paints the picture of confession and forgiveness restoring relationship. This is true not only between man and God but between men and women as well. Just think about the application of this thought process in the context of marriage!
When was the last time you were wrong and willing to admit to it? I used to frequently catch myself at #4, where do you typically land?
Posted on

Protest Communications 101 – Three Keys to Clarity

I really hadn’t intended on doing anything more on the Occupants of America but after all the comments over the last few days I thought I’d continue the dialogue.

Let’s be clear one on thing at least: I’m not against what these people are doing. I just don’t have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish.

With that being said allow me, as a communications coach, to suggest three keys to clear protest communications. These work outside of a formal protest just as well but contextually I think it would help the movement.

Key #1: Know your Audience

“The press” is NOT your audience. The press is a means to communicate to your audience. Realize they also editorialize your message. Interestingly enough in any form of protest you actually have more than one primary audience. You have the people against whom you are bringing a grievance and you have the people who you hope to recruit to the cause.

These audiences are different in that what you want communicate to them is essentially different. You need to anticipate their response, their propensity for agreement or attack, even their level of understanding of the issues. In regards to your targeted villain you will be communicating demands. In regards to your targeted supporters you’ll be communicating objectives.

Key #2: Distinguish between Demands and Objectives

This is crucial. A lot of the current chatter around Occupy America has to do with taxing the richest 1%. But is this a demand or an objective?An objective is what you want to accomplish. A demand is a part of how you hope to accomplish it. Taxing the rich folks is a means to an end, not an end in itself…at least I hope not.

Once the emotions start to fly demands and objective get wrapped up in rhetoric and sound bytes and, as several of you suggested in your comments yesterday, rational dialogue goes out the window.When rational dialogue goes out the window you start to lose both your primary audiences and attract only the attention of those who already agree with your emotional position. (Typically the villain doesn’t agree as a rule.)

The objective can be contained in a single sentence. Once you get it there, and it takes work to do it, you have a clear, precise, easily understood statement of what you hope to accomplish and THAT opens up dialogue with a much wider audience.

Key #3: Clarify your Objective

Let me say it again. Your objective should be a single sentence. Your demands are how you hope to accomplish that objective.  The importance of a clear objective shouldn’t be underestimated. The objective is the bit which you want me to agree with as a potential recruit. If you can get the villain to agree to the objective too then you’re down to discussing tactics, in this case demands, for achieving that objective.

Here’s a clue though, “We want a better America” is a nebulous objective. EVERYONE wants a better America, even people who hate America want a better America.The last two elections were supposedly votes for “change” but because there was no clear objective, nothing targeted to change TO, we find ourselves wanting more change.

Ok, enough of THAT. I always avoid political conversation…

But THIS is where I get lost in regards to Occupy America. I am starting to see lists of demands but I’m not seeing a clear single objective. In fact, it seems to be working backwards. It appears there are multiple objectives tied to single demands: Tax the Rich! …so we can get better schools…to punish corporations…to limit their political influence…  A lot of assumptions there don’t you think? Tax the rich and the government gets the money! Not sure that’s good!

Many objectives to one demand is how a five year old tries to get their way: Get me this toy!…and I’ll never ask for anything else…I’ll clean my room…I’ll do whatever you ask. Just acquiesce to my demand and the world shall be yours!!

Understand your audience. Distinguish between objectives and demands and for cryin’ out loud make your objective clear! Then I’ll bring the beer, we’ll sit down and discuss the issues rationally, and we’ll arrive at some conclusions.

A couple people pointed me in the direction of demands and supposed objectives for the movement yesterday and I thank-you for those. Anyone else have a sense of the objective or a place to find it? I’d love to hear your views.

Posted on

Four Characteristics of a Good Protest

We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to try to get a handle on the madness occurring in and around Wall Street. I confess I am almost totally at a loss on this one. From what little I can tell by scanning various news sites and the protestors own site:

  • There are somewhere between 500 (conservative estimate) and 1200 (generous estimate) people involved. Fewer than attended my son’s high school homecoming game a couple weeks ago.
  • The number tends to be larger during the day. Apparently many of the protestors go home at night to get a good night’s sleep and catch up on some corporate sponsored sit-com.
  • They have no specific demands other than a seeming distaste for banks, large corporations, and anyone they deem to be in possession of too much money. “Too much” being defined loosely as “more than I have.”
  • They seem to want to align themselves tactically with what has gone on in the Arab world recently. You know, where they’ve been overthrowing oppressive militant regimes that have been in entrenched power for years?
  • The media love it…but seem to be growing a bit weary since they can’t find a good contiguous angle.

So in the interest of helping these angst filled souls disentangle themselves from their socialistic ennui allow me to suggest four characteristics that are the mark of a really good protest:

You ought to have a recognized villain

The French got this right when they did their revolutionary gig. Yes, yes they hated ALL the bourgeois but they REALLY hated Marie and Louie. A really good protest need a villainous face to point at and spit on and shake fists at. This idea of vaguely villainizing the corporations that built much of America and gave the protestors parents jobs, and contributed to their schools is ineffectual. Pictures of ‘corporations’ don’t work well on posters.

The villain really ought to have done something decidedly bad

You’d be hard pressed to call any of the recently displaced leaders in the Arab and north African world “good guys” and once they start firing on their own people it’s all over. While I agree that we have seen continuously mounting evidence of rampant corporate greed in the news lately the jury is still out on how they choose what is fit to show. After all Pine Creek’s homecoming had more people out than this protest and it got NO air time.  At the end of the day corporations provide jobs. You’d have to give a LOT of money to illegal immigrants and homeless people to put them in a positions to create jobs.

You really ought to have specific demands

When my kids were little we taught them that ranting, pouting, and grousing were not effective methods for getting what they want. As a result all three of them have turned out to be first class negotiators. (My bad on that one.) A ‘protest’ without specific demands or calls for specific action comes across rather like a flash-mobbed tantrum. Cool idea, but you really need more commitment to make it fly. Plus, with no call to specific action how do you know when the protest is over? How do you keep score?

You really ought to have a plan for change

A workable plan. At least the rudiments of a plan. “Redistribution of wealth” isn’t a plan unless you’re Robin Hood and working on a small village scale.

I can completely identify with the sens of disenfranchisement expressed by these protestors. I empathize even more with the fact that it is difficult to sort out who to vent their spleens towards when it all just feel oppressive, unfair, and constant. I applaud them for trying to keep their carnival non-violent.

But I’m afraid that shy of defining these four characteristics for their current shindig it’ll be tough to have any consistent, meaningful dialogue and without consistent meaningful dialogue I’m afraid we’ll all continue to flounder a bit.

Care for a slice of consistent meaningful dialogue? I’d love to hear your thoughts on these protests and their issues.

Posted on

Relational Currency

It was one of those November nights in Denver when the rain doesn’t quite want to mature into snow, the snow wants to relive its adolescence as water and the result is a soupy, mushy mess that blankets the streets like boba tea stirred in rice pudding.

I was sitting waiting for a flight out of DIA and becoming more concerned as boarding time approached and passed without any of us moving.  It wasn’t long before the inevitable announcement sent us all scrambling in the direction of “next best options”, some to the gate of the next flight out, some to the customer service counter and me, among others, to the Red Carpet Club.

I waited patiently a line to converse with the over-stressed somewhat aloof counter agent who has just heard the same story from the previous five people. When she heard it for the sixth time and had finished typing in my name she informed me, in a tone bordering on disdain, that I was number 99 on the priority list to get on the next flight. Puzzled, I asked if my frequent flyer number was on the record. With an almost imperceptible shake of her head she informed me that it was not and collected the pertinent information. It was barely a split second after her typing in the last key stroke that her eyes widened severely and her mouth formed a perfect “o” as though she were trying her best to imitate a bowling ball. “I’m so sorry Mr. Fletcher, you’re actually number three on the list. How about if I just confirm a seat for you right now?” Suddenly…I had currency.

Relational Currency doesn’t refer to money per se but to the mechanisms by which we “keep score” in relationships. As a mere passenger I had no currency, or little currency with United. But as a Premier Executive member I had plenty. The concept of relational currency is an interesting one if only from the standpoint of how it helps us keep track of how we’re doing in relationships. To help better elucidate the concept I want to share three truths about relational currency.

Relational Currency is partially inherent

Imagine you had wanted to have lunch with Steve Jobs the former CEO of Apple (RIP Steve, you will be missed) to talk about creative design. You or I probably wouldn’t have had a chance. But if Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO, had put in that call Steve would have no doubt found the time. Because these gentlemen played at the same level they had “inherent relational currency”, a level of respect earned because of external conditions. Dog lovers have inherent currency with each other. They have less inherent currency with cat lovers but may have some as pet lovers.  Professional athletes have inherent currency above that of college athletes.  Again, it is currency based on external attributes of circumstances.

Relational Currency is partially earned

If inherent currency opens doors for lunch opportunities then earned currency keeps them open. Earned currency is based on internal attributes and how we treat and interact with people. Bill Gates would probably take a phone call from Ted Turner to discuss charitable giving. Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO, probably wouldn’t take the same call. Why not? All three gentlemen are uber wealthy CEO’s. Doesn’t that indicate they should share inherent currency? Of course they do. But where Bill and Ted, pun intended, have shared excellent adventures in the realm of charitable giving Larry is not known to be equally motivated in that area and thus Ted’s earned currency is running at a slight deficit. Which leads to the third characteristic of relational currency:

Relational Currency works like money

By that I mean that it can be inherited, earned, spent, wasted, stocked up, or frittered away. Inherent currency is your starting account balance. That balance is different with different people. For example: as a former Div II college football player I have a fair amount of inherent currency with other DIV II players but significantly less with professional players and almost none with college basketball players. And none of any of that counts a lick with musicians.

Earned currency is where you start your funds management process growing, earning, building or burning up your inherent currency. Obviously, as with real money, the more I have in the bank to start with the easier it is to build my balance. Remember our lunch invite above? If I can’t even get the meeting I can’t build my balance. If I can get it and don’t communicate clearly or come off as an odd duck I waste the little “money”I had on the table  and in the words of Lord Scrumptious from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, “Had your chance, muffed it.”

Which leads to some interesting questions:

What are the audiences of people groups with whom you have the greatest inherent currency?

Are there any unique groups, near the top of some hierarchy, with which you have inherent currency?

The are interesting questions to answer because it helps you determine where you might have some of the best and most unique opportunities to build Disciples!