Doubling Down: A Communication Gamble

-->

--> This article first appeared in odwyerspr.com.
 
In the casino game of blackjack, doubling down is the chance to double your bet after receiving your first two cards. Then, you’re allowed just one more card. But doubling down is now code for reinforcing a controversial or politically charged position with a potentially more controversial or politically charged position.

The inspiration for this article, of course, was the days-long verbal attack on Georgetown University law school student Sandra Fluke by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. While Fluke argued that contraception should be made available through any employer, Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” His logic makes us, the U.S. taxpayers, the “pimps.” Limbaugh doubled down when he continued the next day and demanded, “If we’re going to pay for this, then we want something in return… the videos of all this sex posted on-line so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

Was this just a passionate stance on morality or on the First Amendment? Can we excuse it because, after all, Rush will be Rush? Georgetown President John J. DeGioia had it right when he wrote that Limbaugh “responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student." A number of Limbaugh’s advertisers seem to concur. Two sponsors – Sleep Number and Quicken Loans – took a stand and reacted quickly. Now, a total of eight firms have walked away or suspended their support.

So, what about the front-runners for the Republican nomination? Their response has been shamefully, how should I say, impotent. Mitt Romney said, “It's not the language I would have used. But I'm focusing on the issues that I think are significant in the country today and that's why I'm here talking about jobs in Ohio.” And Rick Santorum rationalized, “He's being absurd. But that's, you know, an entertainer can be absurd.”

Seeing the advertising dollars begin to disappear, Limbaugh finally apologized over the weekend:

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

This looks like an apology wrapped in an explanation inside a justification. And, in predictable fashion, Limbaugh told his listeners that he felt no pressure to apologize:

"I reject millions of dollars of advertising a year, much to the chagrin of my ad sales team including General Motors. I made the decision [after the government bailout] not to accept [GM advertising] because you, the audience, comes first. We're going to replace those that leave."

It’s hard to quantify but the doubling down phenomenon seems to be growing; when challenged, the default response is often a lurch toward further entrenchment. President Clinton’s denials about Monica Lewinsky, Mel Gibson and his tirade against Jews, Michelle Bachmann and her assertions that then Senator Obama has anti-American views, Anthony Weiner and the infamous Twitter messages and photos, the list goes on. In each of these examples, and so many more, the offenders were given an opportunity – a big media platform – to reposition or restate their claims (i.e., apologize and just plain ol’ admit that they were wrong or lied). Some do apologize eventually but not until a good deal of damage has been inflicted on themselves and on those around them. Some can recover from the incident depending on the amount of trust and previously banked good will, degree of authentic contrition and subsequent behavior. But why take the chance on shattering credibility, crushing a reputation or poisoning a legacy?

Will Rogers’ cowboy wisdom still echoes: “If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.” No matter how awkward or embarrassing or uncomfortable, bite the bullet and take the pain as early as possible. In his apology statement, Rush Limbaugh asked, “What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?” Exactly, Rush, exactly.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

Remarks to the 12th Southern Connecticut Invitational Science & Engineering Fair

It was my great pleasure to be a part of the 12^th Annual Southern Connecticut Invitational Science and Engineering Fair on Saturday, this time as president of the sponsoring foundation. I made a few remarks to the students, teachers, judges, volunteers, mentors and parents before introducing our terrific keynote speaker, Dr. Dan Riskin. Dan is an award-winning evolutionary biologist known for his work with bats. He’s also the co-host of Daily Planet for Discovery Canada, and the host of Animal Planet’s Monsters Inside Me.

Here’s some of what I said to the students:

There is so much to be gained from your participation here. It goes well beyond the competition – there are life lessons here, too.

The great sportswriter, Grantland Rice, said, “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” True enough. In our case, though, it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s what you’ve learned. I hope all the research and preparation for your projects propel you higher and farther in science or engineering. But even if that’s not your final destination, there’s much to be gained from the process.

Aside science and health, one of my interests is researching the stories of King Arthur and Camelot. I’ve found that there are a number of important lessons in leadership, management and communication to be learned from those medieval stories. And, believe it or not, important lessons on the scientific method.

I want to share just three quotes from T.H. White, who wrote five terrific books on the King. Merlin said to a young Arthur, “Learn why the world wags and what wags it.” The message here is to observe, question, probe and explore. We need to use these techniques in science and engineering but they’re equally important in any school subject or at work or in figuring out relationships.

We think of Merlin as a magician, the archetypal sorcerer, the starting material for Albus Dumbledore in the wonderful Harry Potter series. But he was Arthur’s teacher and mentor, and thought of himself as a scientist. He said, “The only thing worth doing for the race [for all people] is to increase its stock of ideas.” That’s it, isn’t it? We need to keep thinking – and thinking habitually – because that’s the way we solve problems both big and small. We need to turn issues and problems around, look for other perspectives and other options. We can learn on our own and we can learn from each other. We can reuse or reformulate old ideas or create new ones. It all depends on the need.

Finally, when Arthur was an old man and about to face his final battle, he was depressed that his vision for a peaceful and united England was unraveling. He asked Merlin if he was a failure. Merlin snapped back, “Certainly not. [Using the Knights of the Round Table to enforce a new civil code] was an experiment and experiments lead to new ones.”

I can tell you that during my days in the laboratory a great deal of what I learned was what not to do! Unfortunately, in science it seems that there are more dead ends than through roads. But as many of you are finding out, what may look like a wrong turn is by no means a wasted effort. It might be frustrating at times but we need to take what we’ve learned, turn it over, examine it, make good use of the insight and push forward. No one can promise a smooth path but I can promise that it will be a rewarding one.

Thank you for participating this year, and congratulations on your wonderful projects and impressive achievements! 

Groups, Thinking and Groupthinking

We Need Time Alone and Time Together to Be Effective

Several former students from my Strategic Communication class at NYU sent me an article from The New York Times recently. (I already read it but remain so appreciative that they thought of me.) “The Rise of the New Groupthink,” written by Susan Cain, caught their eyes because we had a deep discussion about the groupthink phenomenon. Unfortunately, the article didn’t capture the real essence of groupthink nor did it mention who coined the term.

Groupthink is not just thinking in groups. Dr. Irving L. Janis, as a research psychologist at Yale in 1971, said it’s “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

While it’s important for teams to feel and be cohesive, it’s our mutual responsibility to confront bad or negative behaviors. Too often, team members try to please one another; they don’t want to “rock the boat.” What’s most important to them is to be perceived as team players and to retain their membership or standing in the group. But groups that can’t challenge themselves can seriously threaten (and in some cases destroy) the groups’ very goals and principles. (The examples are too numerous to mention but one of the most extensively studied were the groupthink decisions that led to the loss of the space shuttle Challenger and her crew.)

Janus identified eight characteristics of groupthink:

• Illusion of Invulnerability: A belief that any decision reached will be successful. (How can we lose? We’re too big, too important to fail.)
• Belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group: A belief in the righteousness of the decision. (God is on our side!)
• Rationalization: Objections are overshadowed by perceived negative reactions. (No one will notice or care. It’ll work because it’s always worked.)
• Stereotypes of Out-Groups: Falsely characterizing another group. (It’s the media that’s giving us a bad name!)
• Self-Censorship: What we commit upon ourselves in the guise of group loyalty, team spirit or adherence to company policy. (I should have said something, but…)
•  Direct Pressure: Dissent is presumed to be disloyal or counter to the group’s interests. (If you’re not with us, you’re against us.)
•  Mindguards: Data, facts, opinions kept deliberately away from the group. (Oh well, you already made up your mind anyway.)
•  Illusion of Unanimity: As drawbacks are downplayed and the inevitability of the decision is reinforced, the group coalesces around the decision. (We have to make this happen, we have no choice – so we’re good to go, right?)

In her NYT article, Ms. Cain posits that we’re crushing creativity by teaching in classroom “pods” (where desks are arranged together) and working in open-plan offices. (Yes, it is nice to be able to close the door every now and then.) When referring to brainstorming new ideas she says, “People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure.” And quoting Steve Wozniak of Apple fame: “Work alone... Not on a committee. Not on a team.”

Of course we need time and solitude to think. That's a "no brainer." (I couldn't resist.) I’m a big advocate of carving out some amount of time every day to ponder. More connections form in our brains when we think habitually. (More on this in the previous article, "A Creative New Year's Resolution.) So, generating ideas on your own is great. I’m all for it. But ideation, like just about everything else in life, requires balance. In this case, it's balancing time alone and time together. Refining and enhancing ideas through collaboration and gaining the buy-in of the group are essential elements in any organization and in any business. Indeed, the team concept isn’t at fault; it’s the team dynamic that can lead to trouble.

Janus offers us some help here, too, with some methods to avoid the effects of groupthink: 

• Keep an Open Climate: Keep the discussion free of judgmental attitudes and accept divergent thinking.
• Avoid the Isolation of the Group: Frame the issue/problem from different points of view; bring in outside opinion/experts.
• Allow Critical Evaluation: Grant power to assail the “sacred cows” and challenge areas outside one’s expertise.
• Avoid Being Too Directive: Allow the group it’s own space – leaders don’t need to be present for every meeting.

Ms. Cain concludes by acknowledging that collaboration is crucial, at least in some spheres. “The problems we face in science, economics and many other fields are more complex than ever before, and we’ll need to stand on one another’s shoulders if we can possibly hope to solve them.” My belief is that “many other fields” is more likely most, if not all of them.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

A Creative New Year's Resolution

This article first appeared in the MENG (Marketing Executives Networking Group) Blend.

How many times have you heard it? “Tell me something I don’t know.” “Give me your best creative ideas.” “I want a concept that people will be talking about.”

It doesn’t matter if you’re inside an organization or sitting in an agency – there is a never-ending desire and need for differentiation. Whether it’s a company, product or person, engaging and persuading stakeholders often involves thoughtful, clever marketing. The problem, though, is that creativity is both misunderstood and dropping in supply.

Although LinkedIn reported that “creative” was the most overused term in on-line profiles¹, a survey released in 2010 by IBM of more than 1,500 CEOs from 60 countries and 33 industries emphasized that even “more than rigor, management discipline, integrity, or even vision—successfully navigating an increasing complex world will require creativity.” Creativity was cited by 60 percent of the CEOs as the most important attribute; integrity was next at 52 percent.² With such a high premium placed on creativity, the CEOs in the survey signaled some concern because less than half of them “believe their enterprises are adequately prepared to handle a highly volatile, increasingly complex business environment.”

This may not be just a staffing problem. It may also mean that there are not enough creative thinkers to go around. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that we may be heading for a creativity crisis. A review of nearly 300,000 creativity tests, also called Torrance scores, of children and adults collected over several decades showed that American creativity has been declining since 1990.³ (These tests were based on the work of the late E. Paul Torrance, an educational psychologist best known for his research on creativity.)

Yet, creativity is in the eye of the beholder. There’s more than one definition and more than one way that creativity can lead to a successful outcome. Still, we must ensure that our educational system emphasizes idea generation and problem-solving techniques in addition to the more traditional memorization and drills.

Recognizing the importance of creativity, some advertising and public relations agencies have elevated people into positions such as chief creative officer. You may have also seen the titles creative guru, creative ninja, or even head of creation (which may get an argument from, shall we say, a higher authority). That’s all fine but I have known a few who took their titles to mean that creativity was their personal domain and theirs alone. These individuals would go into seclusion so they could develop “the big idea.” Then, they presented their concepts as a fait accompli, like Athena bursting out of Zeus’s head fully armored and ready for battle. We want and need exceptional thinkers on our team, but they sometimes rail against process and fail to realize that there is, or should be, a team. Without good leadership from the “creative types,” the other human resources in the organization will be wasted and demoralized.

While meeting the business objective is the ultimate measure of success, it’s been known that the quest to be creative sometimes becomes the objective in itself. In the drive to knock the socks off of the client, or win an industry award, the true customer – the end-user – is forgotten. We need to spend more time orienting on the audience, reminding ourselves of the real prize. As King Arthur said when he rose to power, “I don’t think things ought to be done because you are able to do them. I think they should be done because you ought to do them.”⁴

As a fan of the Arthurian legends, I was taken aback by a comment made about his style of thinking toward the end of his life: “The old man had always been a dutiful thinker, never an inspired one.”⁵ What was meant by this? Was it an insult? Was there an implication that dutiful thinking was inferior to creative thinking? The truth is we need both. A dutiful thinker is a habitual thinker, one who is always observing, searching for solutions, and attempting to anticipate the future. The creative spark is precious but dutiful thinking, steady and stepwise, is a virtue of its own. Sometimes we can get to the goal line in one play. More often, though, progress is made in important, incremental steps that ultimately add up to the win. As Merlin, Arthur’s mentor, told him: “…the only thing worth doing for the race is to increase its stock of ideas.”⁶

The creativity deficit could be reversed in short order if more people adopt the concept of marrying dutiful with inspired thinking. Getting ourselves and others to think a bit more and a bit more regularly is surely a lot easier than other New Year’s resolutions we’ve proclaimed and then later abandoned. It’s interesting to note, too, that habitual thinking is a form of mental exercise that, over a lifetime of consistent contemplation, changes our neurological patterns.^{7, 8} More time thinking helps to remodel our brains so that we get better at thinking. If only weight loss and getting in better shape were this painless!

1. Ceyhan, Simla, “Buzzwords 2011: Who’s been ‘creative’ and ‘effective’ this year?,” December 13, 2011,  http://blog.linkedin.com/2011/12/13/buzzwords-redux/

2. 2010 IBM Global CEO Study, http://www.ibm.com/ceostudy.

3. Attributed to Kyung-Hee Kim in P. Bronson and A. Merryman, “The Creativity Crisis,” Newsweek, July 19, 2010.

4. White, T.H., The Once and Future King, p. 246.

5. White, T.H., The Once and Future King, p. 630.

6. White, T.H., The Book of Merlyn, p. 11.

7. R. E. Jung et al., “Biochemical Support for the ‘Threshold’ Theory of Creativity: A Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study,” Journal of Neuroscience 29:16 (2009): 5319–5325.

8. R. E. Jung et al., “Neuroanatomy of Creativity, Human Brain Mapping,” Journal of Neuroscience 31:3 (2010): 398–409.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

A Game's Afoot

Attempting to Bolster Pharma Reputation Facebook Style

I saw an article in Medial Marketing & Media several weeks back entitled, “Boehringer's Pharma-ville could salve industry's bad reputation.” The article was about Syrum, an on-line game where the “objective is to save the world, one disease at a time.” According to their web site, “Syrum is a social game on Facebook which sees you take control of your very own pharmaceutical company. You’ll have to equip and use your laboratory to discover new drugs and bring them to market in order to increase global health.”

Great, but as we’re waiting for further updates, I’ve wondered who this was targeted to and if this was an effort to increase the industry’s reputation, a Facebook game that helps BI find a new audience, both or something else? Reading on, the article said the game could “help address the flagging reputation of the industry,” but John Pugh, BI’s head of on-line communications tried to clarify the intent and said, “The main objective is to create a kick-ass game… It's about pharma and fun."

Too bad. Is that all BI’s leadership wants to get out of this effort? I don’t have an argument with “kick-ass” (however that’s defined) but I wish the endeavor also included some real learning objectives. Engagement and goodwill are important, or course, but can something be taught? Can knowledge be used beyond the game experience? I'd love to hear more about what BI will be measuring.

It’s clear that we need better informed, more knowledgeable customers. How else can they value and trust what we do in research, development, approval and medical education? More knowledge leads to better outcomes. Better outcomes leads to better utilization. Better utilization leads to better satisfaction. Better satisfaction leads to more trust.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t be creative. I’ve said it before: we should use our talents and resources to develop a massive, sustained effort to enhance health and science literacy. When it comes to managing one’s health or the health of one’s family, most people don’t have enough knowledge to evaluate a medical product claim or even formulate the right questions to ask a healthcare provider. This deficit makes the public an easy target for anti-vaccination nonsense, and purveyors of alternative medicines and bogus devices.

If reputation building is a secondary consideration for BI, I suggest a revaluation of objectives because the industry needs all the help it can get. After inching up to 31 percent in the 2008 Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient survey, the numbers fell back to 29 percent in the latest results. In comparison, the technology industry scored 72 percent. Essentially, the scores are mirror images – as many don’t like the pharmaceutical industry as like the technology industry. Pretty sad, indeed.

Unfortunately, much of this reputational gloom is self-inflicted (price hikes, quality problems, data transparency, etc.) but other aspects are controlled by external factors (insurance coverage decisions, political agendas, alternative medicine claims, etc.). It’s complicated and it’s fluid. So, let’s control what we can control: behavior, ethics, standard operating procedures and, in this case, communication and education.

BI deserves credit for exploring the edutainment world. I signed up to receive updates on the Syrum web site and am eagerly await more news. However, I might be outside of their demographic because the cartoonish graphics and sound effects seem to trivialize the point. I hope upon its official launch that the substance, at least, is a little more realistic.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

A Few Thoughts from Orlando

Not Disney, the Public Relations Society of America International Conference.

This brief video was shot by the PRSA on a flipcam after I delivered my address - Arthur: King, Leader, PR Man - Modern Lessons from Camelot and the Round Table. Your feedback is welcomed.

Please click here to view

You can learn more at www.camelotinc.com.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

The Form and Substance Disconnect at HP

More on the CEO Merry-Go-Round

It was just a couple of weeks ago that I wrote about the ham-handed firing of Carol Bartz at Yahoo! (Another Botched Corporate Transition) and now it's here-we-go-again at HP. In the earlier article, I noted that the ouster of Mark Hurd and the poor preparation of HP's Board of Directors was used as an example in chapter 13 of Camelot, Inc. (Passing the Candle: Succession Planning). It was Leo Apotheker who took over from Mr. Hurd less than a year ago and now it's Meg Whitman taking over from Mr. Apotheker.

What was at the core of Mr. Apotheker's failure? Was it a flawed turnaround strategy? After all, his plan to spin-off the $40 billion PC business (hard won by another former CEO, Carly Fiorina, through the controversial acquisition of Compaq) and the deal to buy Autonomy, a software maker, for a hefty $10.3 billion caused a gigantic gasp of concern on Wall Street and among HP's 320,000 employees. No. Ms. Whitman told The Wall Street Journal that she endorsed the strategy. "I think the strategy is right," said Ms. Whitman.*

Apparently, the substance was there but his ability to articulate and communicate the plan was not. In the WSJ article, it was reported that Mr. Apotheker informed almost no one of his business intentions; enormously important decisions were a complete surprise to key people, including the head of the PC unit, Todd Bradley. In addition, he "appeared unable to explain the moves to investors" and the board felt that he "failed to rally his troops well and staffers believed "he was not clear on the strategy, not articulating clearly what the direction was."" Board Chairman Ray Lane said, "We didn't see an executive team working on the same page or working together."

Intellect and vision are hugely important attributes but Mr. Apotheker came up short in other areas of great consequence: communication and team work. As I point out in chapter 6, How to Be the Best Knight: Marrying Method and Manner, we're a package; one dimensional leadership doesn't cut it. It's essential to understand the array of audiences that have a potential impact on success or failure, and to be able to convey information in a clear and timely fashion.

And, lone wolves have no place in leadership roles. Of course, the CEO must ultimately make a decision; it can, indeed, be a lonely job. But leading means providing a forum for sharing ideas and brainstorming others, building relationships and creating an environment of trust, and communicating in a way that inspires others to believe and to follow.

Maybe part of the problem is the lack of incentive to succeed; the CEO merry-go-round has been quite lucrative -- a reported $13 million of Mr. Apotheker and $10 million for Ms. Bartz, for example. (Dear Yahoo!, I'd be willing to be fired for $5 million.) So, while the boards review their CEO vetting procedures and succession plans, they should also take a hard look at compensation schemes and success measures. Failure can be a two-way street.

* Ben Worthen, Justin Scheck, Joann Lublin, H-P Defends Hasty Whitman Hire, The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2011

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

How Google, IBM and Others Can Help Hold Feet to the Fire

A Proposal to Harness Computing Power to Showcase the Truth During Political Debates

Like so many, I'm profoundly disturbed when facts are ignored or twisted. I bristle especially when it comes to junk science and false health claims. Politics aside, Michele Bachmann's repeated assertion that Merck's HPV vaccine may cause mental retardation goes beyond inaccurate; it directly undermines public health. She ignores the experience of millions (and the lives saved, the disease prevented), clinical evidence, and the findings of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics. It would be an absolute crime if Ms. Bachmann's fear-mongering statement leads to just one girl eventually getting cervical cancer because her mother decided against vaccination. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts."

Of course, health advocates, and public health and medical professionals blitzed the news media with the actual facts, which were 100 percent contrary to the presidential hopeful's claim. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. For some, the corrections will stick in their brains; for others, however, it will be in one ear and out the other. In Camelot, Inc., I addressed the challenge of undoing false or misleading statements: "It’s difficult to defeat because once in place, misinformation is terribly difficult to retract and, harder still, to erase from one’s memory. In a study of nearly 900 participants, researchers showed that “the repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.”* Once the information is published “its subsequent correction does not alter people’s beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.” And, “when people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.” The bottom line is that people may continue to rely on misinformation even when a subsequent retraction is made and remembered."

Following last night's Republican debate, Ms. Bachmann denied saying that the vaccine was "potentially dangerous." "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement," she countered. And, yet, anyone can read the transcripts or look at YouTube to see and hear for themselves that she said it again and again. Of course, there were plenty of other flagrant violations of the truth by the other candidates. In the debate follow up, PolitiFact.com and others comment on the veracity of some of their key statements. It's important and worthwhile and... maybe too late to matter. How many listen to the pundits after the main event is over or read the news articles the next day? Just some small fraction of the debate audience, I'll bet.

So, here's a proposal that will hold every candidates' feet to the fire. Let's have all the fact checking completed during the debate. Before everyone shakes hands and calls it a night, a final segment is added: the candidates are confronted with their false or misleading talking points (maybe even a report card on how accurate or truthful they've been) and are asked to address the issues right then and there. During the course of the debate, all of the statements could be crunched through the vast holdings of credible, objective knowledge. Google was a co-sponsor of last night's debate, for crying out loud. And, if IBM's Watson computer can win at Jeopardy!, there's no reason that near-real time fact checking couldn't be a reality. It could be PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter(TM) on steroids. No opinion sites or blogs would be part of the fact checking database -- only transcripts, proceedings and testimony; almanacs and atlases; laws, regulations and policy statements; credible survey data, and peer-reviewed research reports.

Google/YouTube and Twitter have expanded interest and engagement in the political debates. Here's a way for them and others to ensure that the widening audience gets the facts and not the flimflam.

* Lewandowsky, S., et. al., “Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation” (2005), Psychological Science, 16(3):190-195.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Another Botched Corporate Transition

When Will They Ever Learn?
The news this week that Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz was fired took me back to Mark Hurd's departure from HP last year. I used Mr. Hurd and the HP Board as an example in chapter 13, Passing the Candle: Succession Planning, in my book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table. While Yahoo! stock rose and HP stock dropped in the immediate aftermath, both actions left a leadership vacuum -- the Boards acted without naming a successor. Indeed, both companies didn't appear to have a succession mechanism nor was a search firm in place. I wrote, "Succession for executives and managers must not be left to chance; evaluation of internal and external talent, along with a predetermined, orderly process for transition, is required to help guarantee the organization's ongoing success."

In the case of Ms. Bartz, though, a number of other book chapters were violated such as chapter 8, Picking Your Battles: Navigating through Your Audience and Environment. It was a less than graceful exit when she sent an e-mail to 14,000 staffers saying, "I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's Chairman of the Board." In an interview with Fortune, she expanded her remarks by saying, "These people f****ed me over."1 Will that help her to create trust in future relationships? Does that embody professionalism? And, in a blow to chapter 14, Destiny and Legacy: Making Your Personal and Professional Mark, is that how she wants to be remembered?

Of course, the Chairman, Roy Bostock, also trampled on chapter 8 as well as chapter 10, Realism and Idealism: Balancing Vision and Execution. The key take-aways are that one can't allow things to boil over and that important issues - no matter how awkward or uncomfortable - must be handled face-to-face. Ms. Bartz said she called him out on the cowardly handling of the termination by asking, "Why don't you have the balls to tell me yourself?"1

All of this begs the question of whether or not Ms. Bartz was the best choice when she was hired in 2009. In chapter 5, Creating a Round Table: Assembling the Right Team, the importance of vetting and fit - skills, personality, philosophy - are discussed. In an open letter, Yahoo! investor Daniel Loeb noted that Yahoo has cycled through four CEOs in four years. He said, "This board's failures have destroyed value for all Yahoo stakeholders." Ms. Bartz was brought in to turn around a struggling Yahoo! but mostly divested or shut down struggling units and shed employees. She "failed in that she could not build new growth engines for the company."2 And was her "take no prisoners" approach appropriate for Yahoo? As an outsider, I don't know but reports of poor relationships with Asian partners and a "proclivity for verbal gaffes" indicate that trouble probably started early on.3

So, Yahoo looks amateurish and ill-prepared, calls for ousting some Board members have begun, Ms. Bartz will probably continue to embarrass Yahoo! and herself for a while, and no one learned any management or communication lessons. Hint: I'm available for some consulting and I'll bring copies of my book.

1. Patricia Sellers, Fortune, Sep. 8, 2011
2. Maxwell Wessel, HBR Blog Network, Sep. 7, 2011
3. Kara Swisher, All Things Digital, Sep. 6, 2011

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

The Trickle-Down of Distrust

How We Elect Leaders Is Pulling America Apart
Cause and effect are often difficult to prove. This is especially true when there are a lot of "moving parts." When it comes to all of the unrest in the world, we have to examine and weigh the contributions of economics, religion, culture, ego, etc. In health care, the complexities and differences in our genetics and in the way research is conducted leads frequently to conflicting reports on nutrition, drugs, supplements, diagnostic tests, etc.

There are also a lot of moving parts in the political arena and here, too, cause and effect are hard to prove. For example, take a look at the gridlock in Washington, and the expanding and deepening incivility in the capitol and across the nation. Is it worse today than in the past? In fact, there has been plenty of political hate over the centuries. We've seen greed, lies, propaganda, impeachment and attempted impeachment, duels, assassinations and attempted assassinations.

And, yet, this all feels different and not in a good way. Never before has there been such a low level of trust in Government and never before have our leaders trusted each other less. There are many factors, of course, that have conspired to whip-up this historic, stomach-turning divisiveness and cynicism. As I said, it's tough to put one's finger on a single cause and effect but here's one hypothesis: Our endless election cycle is destroying America -- our progress, our ethics, and our empathy and cohesion as a people.

Campaigns used to be episodic -- there was a campaign "season." After a few months of electioneering, the bulk of the name-calling and character assassination would be over; politicians would get back to business. There was plenty of time between election cycles for people to make-up, form relationships, and build some mutual respect and trust. Not today.

With drawn-out primaries, the influence of PACs and SuperPACs, the blurring of reporting and opinion and 24/7 media coverage, presidential contenders (not to mention House members) never stop campaigning. And, they never stop bashing their opposition. It's become more strident, more shocking, in the same way we crave more and more stimulation and outrageous behavior in reality TV shows, radio programs and computer games. The baseline of acceptability, what we're calling normal, has been shifting for some time. In my view, however, the line has been crossed.

Conventional wisdom tells us that politicians are thick-skinned; it's "just politics," no one takes it personally. Wrong. The rhetoric has become more personal and it is, indeed, being taken personally. We can see all the grudges that have formed, with little hope of repair. But the real victims of the constant criticisms are us -- the American people. We're told day in and day out by just about everyone who's out of power that the Government is incompetent. We can't trust the Government to lead. We're told by a great number of companies in highly regulated industries that we can't trust the Government to guide economic development. We're driven to take sides. We're told it's all or nothing.

Sadly, with all the repetition, we're buying-in to the message. Our trust in government has eroded to its lowest point since scientific political polling began. The self-fulfilling prophecy is for real.

Should we have blind faith in government institutions? Of course not! But the side effects of all the political positioning and posturing is that we've become meaner, less tolerant and more uncompromising. With heals dug-in, few are optimistic that our leaders will deliver any meaningful solutions to our enormous challenges. While our Founding Fathers would marvel at our technological advances, they'd be horrified to see the increasing dysfunction and distrust. Their words are quoted often but heeded rarely. The "big picture" is lost while politicians ride the endless merry-go-round of raising and spending campaign cash and undermining the very institution they claim to cherish.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Courage Has Nothing to Do with It

Clausewitz, King Arthur and Our Founding Fathers Weigh in on the Debt Crisis

I'm rereading Clausewitz (the 19th century Prussian general who, many agree, is the father of modern strategic thought) in preparation for teaching the Strategic Communication class at NYU this summer and see a link to the current debt ceiling issue.

As we approach the cliff, we hear politicians and pundits say, "We must have courage to do the right thing for the American people." The problem is that courage has nothing to do with our current situation.

Let's face it. The impasse has much too little to do with being right or about logic or about serving the broad interests of the population. It's much more about power and control. Clausewitz wrote, "Obstinacy is not a defect of the understanding. Rather, obstinacy is a defect of the emotions. The unwillingness to bend, a resistance to judgments not one's own, only have their basis in a particular type of selfishness, which places above every other pleasure that of using one's mind to exert control over oneself and others."

Our Founding Fathers and the generations of leaders who followed didn't take us on a straight line to success. Our history has been a bumpy path but one that always led forward. Yet, we stand on the brink of moving backward in a really significant way for the very first time. The health of our economy (and our society, not to mention the impact a default might have on global markets) is caught up in positioning, gratification and selfishness.

This ties back to my blog post of April 8th (How "Camelot Wisdom" Can Address Our Political and Budget Woes). We need more understanding, mutual respect, empathy and a willingness to accept incremental change -- and fast. I don't know where the much needed wake-up call will come from. Can a nation so divided come together and shake the tree of government to demand positive action? I hope so. But with so much posturing, with such heated rhetoric and message spinning, it's easy to understand that many citizens are dazed to the point of paralysis.

As Congress comes back after the Fourth of July holiday, I hope they can channel even a tenth of the character of our founders and set us back on a positive course. They were the ones with courage. They risked their lives and invented a great nation. Our leaders today must not squander that inheritance.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Redrawing the Boundaries Weakens Crisis Response

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why the Weiner Response is Failing

Unfortunately, we have another soon-to-be-classic example of what not to do in a crisis situation. When reports surfaced that lewd photos from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account were sent to a Seattle woman, the congressman claimed his account was hacked. High profile hacking was in the news – Sony, Citi, RSA, Lockheed-Martin – so what better way to build a credible sounding story? Thus, the first crisis boundary was built.

That dike was breached quickly when questions arose: If such a violation occurred, then why didn’t he call the Capitol Police? Why couldn’t he say with “certitude” that the pictures were not of him? And, was conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s claim that he had more pictures really true?

So, the crisis boundary was pushed back and a second wall went up. Surely an admission would be the last stand. It would all be over when Rep. Weiner confirmed that he sent the photos, and that he was sorry, stupid and scared. Right?

Wrong. There were, indeed, additional photos (some pornographic) sent to more women, and there was a three-year history of “sexting.” And, now, more questions: Was government property used to carry on these activities? Was he conducting himself this way from his Capitol Hill office? What resources and who else might have been involved in covering up his carrying on?

Now he must push the boundary out yet again trying, in his way, to encircle where the next shoe might drop. He’s been calling colleagues directly to explain himself, beg forgiveness and to build some level of support. But, as the circle grows, the wall becomes harder to maintain, the perimeter more difficult to patrol and the imprint on all of his constituents more enduring.

Is he so different from some other high power, high profile politicians, entertainers or businessmen? No, but that’s hardly an excuse. We may be getting increasingly numb to these shenanigans but, for now, our sensibilities demand some sort of appropriate closure.

The bottom lines? He said he’d answer questions, then he wouldn’t, then he would again. He changed his story. He lied. He’s been behind the news, never ahead of it. And what is he left with? A shredded reputation. A seemingly endless supply of material for comedians. Calls for an ethics investigation by the House of Representatives. Demands for his resignation. Chances for his dream job – to be mayor of the City of New York – potentially dashed. Abandonment by friends and colleagues. A wife who has kept silent. The centerpiece of a new case study for the field of crisis communication.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Why Donald Trump Would Get an F (in my class)

The Donald is Not The Researcher

This article is not about politics; it's about veracity and logic. (Yes, it's sad that these words together - politics with veracity and logic - should seem so oxymoronic.)

One of the courses I teach at NYU is Research Process & Methodology for students in the M.S. program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication. An objective is to help them prepare a comprehensive proposal for their thesis projects. After they complete their degree, a few may go further into the research realm. But I'm satisfied if they leave with the tools and confidence to be competent purchasers and evaluators of research.

We're nearly at the end of the semester, and I like to remind students of the original objectives and discuss whether or not we have reached them. That's when Mr. Trump popped into my head. With his rise in the political polls tied to his investigation into the president's birthplace, just what kind of purchaser and evaluator of research is he?

As a purchaser, he hired "people" who were deployed to Hawaii to determine if a birth certificate (the "certificate of live birth" in that state) existed or was altered. On one occasion after another, he told the world, "You're not going to believe what I'm hearing" and "I'm hearing that it's missing." 

I wonder if his research team will get paid now that the state has released copies of the certificate from the official bound volume of documents at the president's request.

As an evaluator, he ignored previously released certified documents, hospital birth announcements, and a mountain of facts from the government of Hawaii and investigators from the news media. As of this writing, he still has not given his blessing to the "long form" certificate of live birth that he sought so doggedly these last few weeks.

Of course, I couldn't have fired Mr. Trump if he were in my class. However, based on his performance and disregard for the research process and ethics, he would have received an F.

With his F, though, he's still one clever guy. As the citizenship issue dies down (but kept alive at some level, I'm sure), Trump is ramping up the next crusade - the president's grades and whether he truly earned his way into Columbia and Harvard. By finding new platforms to question the credibility and legitimacy of the president, he remains in the spotlight - whether it's for political gain or TV ratings. If there were a class on self-promotion, he'd get an A.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.