I said that?
For years, I resisted writing a column, for many reasons.
Partly it was because I thought I’d put it off untill I had the time to smell the roses. Also, as I kept telling friends, “Who needs yet another column?” And finally, I promised myself that I’d only write one when I have something worthy to share, something of value for readers. After 30-plus years in the business of persuasive communications and 10 years of dodging Millet Mananquil, I’ve finally relented and agreed to write Ms.Com, a column dedicated to improving communication skills. On a good day, it might even help us understand and appreciate each other better.
I realize that communications is a subject that merits more discernment and discourse. Like common sense, talking and breathing, we tend to think that these are fundamental abilities that everyone is born with. But in fact, common sense is rare, the gift of gab is both a talent and a curse, and there’s even a right and wrong way to breathe! How often do we find ourselves aghast, wishing we could take back what we just said? Or, at the very least, stated it another way, so that we didn’t get slapped literally or figuratively, and are not choking on the proverbial foot in our mouth.
How many times do we wish that we had the right retort to a witticism, sarcasm or even an indecent proposal? “I’m speechless!”; “I can’t find the right words”; “It’s at the tip of my tongue!”; “Forget I said that”; “Don’t put words in my mouth”; “You misread me” — these are some of the cues that a communications glitch has just occurred.
Whereas miscommunication is often forgivable and non-fatal, there are tragic examples of mega-disasters that started from a simple “miscom.” The bombing of Pearl Harbor was one such debacle. When warned that a squadron of planes was flying towards their location, the radiomen ignored the communiqué and assumed it was friendly forces. The rest is history.
“Nothing is so simple that it cannot be misunderstood,” warned Pope Boniface VIII. I doubt if there is anyone alive who can claim to be gaffe-exempt. Even the professionals are not spared such misfires. Sometimes, the cost of a misunderstanding is very high. We once lost an account because the marketing director loathed the ad agency’s creative director for making her feel stupid. “She’s always talking down to me, as if she’s the only one with a good idea,” she complained. When I investigated further, the argument revolved around a change the client wanted incorporated in the proposed TV storyboard. The creative director deemed the suggested scene to be “boring and clichéd,” words that the client took as a personal condemnation. That regrettable episode cost us P50 million.
Marshall McLuhan, the guru of mass communications, oversimplified when he defined the four-step process: source-medium-message-receiver. Applied to this incident, the creative director (source), voiced (medium) out her message, which was that “the suggested scene is boring and clichéd,” which the client (receiver) clearly heard. In the McLuhan model, the parties have successfully communicated. But the client’s comeback was, “How dare you insult me. You’re fired!” Clearly something went haywire in the exchange. In advertising, we look at a message as a stimulus that is meant to evoke a target response. We have only effectively communicated when we received the reaction we wanted. The moral lesson to remember is that very often a “message,” even when recalled word for word, might not be the same what we take away. Imagine how many relationships could be saved if we just keep this in mind.
As an interesting postscript, two years later, that marketing director left the company. Apparently, she did not get a promotion that she felt she deserved. According to the grapevine, her boss thought that she was not a team player. “She never shares credit with anyone. She thinks all successes are hers and she’s the only one with good ideas!” Setting karma and irony aside, perhaps enhanced communication skills would have helped save the account and a promising career.
Often, the person with superior communication skills also has exceptional emotional intelligence or EQ. The entire theory of primal leadership by Daniel Goleman suggests that the success of an organization is substantially affected by the leader’s ability to “contaminate” his staff with positive and productive vibes! Contagion can transpire only with motivational interaction. In research conducted by David McClelland of a global food and beverage conglomerate, a comparison of star performers versus average Joes showed that nearly 90 percent of their profile difference was on EQ factors. The senior managers who rated highly on EQ outperformed yearly earning goals by 20 percent, while those rated lower under-performed by 20 percent.
In over 188 competency models developed to spot rising stars, they evaluated technical skills (i.e. accounting, business planning), cognitive abilities (analytical reasoning) and EQ (ability to work with others and effect change). The result was unequivocal. EQ was twice more important for excellent performance than IQ or skill. Furthermore, EQ was increasingly more important at the highest levels of the company. There is a seminal correlation between EQ and the ability to communicate.
As we watch the unfolding US elections with fascination, never has the command of rhetoric been more striking or as potent in shaping public opinion.
“The art of communication is the language of leadership,” said James Hume. How true! The most powerful country in the world is poised to chart history by electing the first African-American president. Even more remarkable, he is a total political newbie! Most analysts credit the Obama phenomenon largely to his messaging and oratory, the hallmarks of charisma. “Change you can believe in” resonated with the American public disaffected by the Iraq war and looming recession. Hillary’s handlers were wide off the mark when they used “experience” as her brand position. Experience associated her with what needs to be changed! When they tried to backtrack, it was too late. Her initial lead had been whittled away substantially.
And now, another neophyte, Sarah Palin, has pushed the US presidential contest to a dead-heat. Using language that appeals to soccer moms and the post-Baby Boomer generation, the McCain slate has captured a large chunk of the women vote and the 18-40 age segment as of this writing. The combination of fluency and authenticity is irresistible, something our local candidates might want to learn. The outcome of the US elections may well be proof that the ability to express an idea is almost as important as the idea itself!
And so Ms.Com will attempt to navigate the latitude and profundity of the art and science of communications. It is inexhaustible in all its intricacy and nuance, boundaries and thresholds, power and failing. Readers are welcome to share their own insights, commentary and experiences for an exchange of ideas.
As Robert Frost once said, “Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”
Ms.Com would like to hear from the first half.
* * *
Communicate with the author at mscom@campaignsandgrey.net
