Incremental Is Fundamental

Many of us are in occupations where innovation and creativity are essential. But an unnecessary divide exists between the valuation of sweeping changes and incremental advances. We should not need to choose – this isn’t a case of mutual exclusivity. Of course, we need big ideas and bold moves. Sure, throw the bomb for a touchdown, swing for the fences. But small things, measured steps, can be important and inventive, too. The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” 

Upsides to any method or process cannot be guaranteed, of course. It’s important to acknowledge that incrementalism can fail us or derail us, just as big ideas can. One of the most notable (and shameful) examples is the nearly hundred-year span from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (and then another hundred to the 1964 Civil Rights Act). And while Lincoln deserves high praise for his role, we need to remember it took him a couple of decades to fully embrace freedom and citizenship for Black people. 

Fortunately, his vast and open mind let in powerful, righteous voices like Frederick Douglass, the freedom seeker who became one of the most important leaders in the fight for abolition and civil rights. It’s notable that Douglass wanted rapid change with the “brave march of a storming party” but came to grips with the “slow progress of a cautious siege.” He and Lincoln understood the political realities. The President knew he had to bring as much of the nation along with them as he could – what he called the “necessary preparation of the public mind.” 

Modern political leaders seem to be catching on to incrementalism but for the wrong reasons. While they often campaign on platforms of big ideas, political rivalries, limited resources, and the complexity of most problems squeeze progress into watered-down initiatives. Or, more common these days, an agreement to simply keep the lights on; passing a stop-gap budget is now viewed as a big win. Reaching across the aisle, finding common ground, and coming to a mutually beneficial agreement have become rarities or even signs of weakness.

Politicians are also helping to accelerate our ever-shrinking attention spans. Ideas are being crushed into attention-seeking social media posts. There is a lack of interest, will, or ability to explain complex ideas and to inspire wider acceptance. Ideologic pandering is replacing idea generation. If it can’t be turned into a catch phrase (“America First”) or a chant (“Build the Wall”), complicated, multidimensional ideas have little chance of being turned into a plan or program.

Preparation requires good communication, using messages that combine both rational and emotional elements. There are too many leaders, though, who get it terribly wrong. Deciding to make a change is often done without thought as to how the change will be communicated. They confuse change communication with checking off a couple of boxes. Sending out a memo to employees or a press release to the public overlooks the reality that change communication is a process – a process to be managed. 

The details, the message, and the messenger all influence the individual and the organization. It can rally a group around an idea or it can alienate the very people required to generate a successful outcome. John Kotter had it right in his book, “Leading Change.” Condensing and paraphrasing some of his eight incremental steps, leaders need to establish the need for change, gather and empower advocates, articulate a vision for what awaits, communicate up and down the organization, define the roles people will have and the processes needed for future success, and demonstrate wins along the way.

It’s great to have big ideas, it's OK to be impatient, we should embrace change. At the same time, we need to be thinking strategically and develop a plan about what needs to be accomplished, over what timeline, and with what resources. We need to define the milestones and recognize each accomplishment as we maintain a focus on the ultimate goal. Civil rights activist Alice Wine had wise words: “Keep your eyes on the prize.”

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.

A Message About Messages

This article also appears in Medical Marketing & Media.

Dr. Marijn Dekkers, CEO of Bayer, feels underappreciated. He has some good reason. At Bayer’s Spring Financial News Conference (on Feb. 28^th), he said, "Almost every day, newspapers publish something about cancer – statistics, the best doctors, the best hospitals, the best treatments." Yet, they don’t discuss, "the molecule, the invention or the scientist behind the invention without which the doctors, hospitals and treatments could not help patients."

People go into a hospital, they interact with health care providers but what they see mostly from the pharmaceutical industry is a little, unimpressive looking pill. This isn’t new. Low trust and reputation scores have been a fact of life for decades now. The anger over high prices and low transparency has not been offset by improved health outcomes or the positive impact on jobs and the economy. Dr. Dekkers said, "I feel that this lack of appreciation for our ideas and innovations has to change." 

More credit ought to be given to the investments and inventions made by the biopharmaceutical sector – no question. But placing responsibility on the media for a perceived lack of fairness seems misplaced. The health care industry is attempting to meet the needs of its customers and so is the news media. In most cases, they’re selling a story with a point of view because that’s what the market is telling them to do. And they’re constrained further by the revolution in social media. There are fewer and fewer “real” journalists, professionals with credentials who have an understanding of the issues and the science. How many health and science sections in major daily newspapers have survived? Can you get beyond one hand? 

Today’s reality is health care is covered largely in the business sections and the industry feeds right into it. The first two-thirds of Dr. Dekkers’ talk was focused on his company’s impressive financial results. It was, after all, a financial news conference. But if getting a fair shake by the press was of such concern, perhaps he should have allowed his CFO, who was the next speaker anyway, to discuss all the numbers.

Next time, Dr. Dekkers may wish to lead off with and stick to some of his briefly mentioned closing messages – Bayer’s commitments to sustainability, ethics, access, value and serving the needs of the patient community. As messengers, as leaders, the tone should be set using the words, images and emotions that best communicate the industry’s contributions, not just the spreadsheets and stock charts. Tell the audiences what’s in it for them.

But there’s still a big missing piece to this communication puzzle. Dr. Dekkers pointed out, “Even the most outstanding ideas and scientific breakthroughs have no chance if people do not accept, appreciate and support them. All too often, people are afraid of – or uneasy about – new ideas, inventions, processes or products.” Indeed, the industry’s stakeholders must have a higher level of health and science literacy. Dropping information – even crucial or compelling data – onto the heads of an unprepared public, or expecting a response to another “call to action,” is unproductive and unrealistic. A massive, sustained education effort is needed to help turn the ship of disbelief and discontent.

Of course, a more knowledgeable public will not guarantee an enhanced corporate reputation. It must be earned. It will take time and the self-inflicted wounds – the reputation-killing missteps and misdeeds – need to stop or at least be minimized. Our job as strategic communicators is to help find common ground and common language, increase mutual understanding and secure the win-wins we know are out there.

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

What Was Communicated by Yahoo!’s Work-At-Home Reversal

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

We have to expect information leaks. Some are intended as part of a communication plan; some are unintended and, thus, may need a communication plan. Yahoo! is experiencing the latter.

A few days ago, AllThingsD reported that the company will no longer allow telecommuting. In a leaked memo from Jackie Reses, EVP of People and Development, employees were told that, “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.”

It’s hard to say how big, what kind or how many problems are caused by the remote workforce. (“Only several hundred” employees work remotely, though thousands “might be at home one or two days a week.”) Whatever those problems are, the new issue for Yahoo! is explaining its move. In the absence of a planned roll-out, here’s how stakeholders might be interpreting Yahoo!’s surprise announcement: 

• Some employees abused the work-at-home policy, which necessitated some unequivocal action.
• Employees working at home were not performing as well as those in the office and/or don’t know how to manage their time at home.
• Yahoo! leaders don’t know how to guide or train their work-at-home employees. They can’t trust what they can’t see.
• Some competitors appear to be able to keep their employees on-site; in order to speed a turnaround, Yahoo! feels that they have to be more like them.
• They seem to be “throwing the baby out with the bath water” – Yahoo! believes a one-size-fits-all solution is best.

The list can go on – we can keep imagining until the source of the issue give us reason to stop.

As it happens, I’m a big believer in face-to-face communication but not necessarily in the 24/7 variety. I wrote in Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table, “The continued cohesion of a team can be helped by having at least occasional face-to-face contact. Let’s take the elevator, the car, or the airplane and get back to our base, our Camelot, every now and then and sit around the Round Table for a discussion.”

King Arthur knew that his knights would be gone for weeks or months at a time while they implemented his plans. Yet, he demanded that they all return at the same time once a year to share their stories, hear updates and reaffirm commitments.

Perhaps Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer and Ms. Reses can take some cues – some Camelot wisdom – from the past:

• Hire people you can trust, which starts with a thorough vetting process.
• Train your people adequately, and ensure expectations are set and followed.
• Communicate as often as is reasonable, practical and appropriate.
• And, allow for flexibility. One size does not fit all.

Clearly, working at home can be challenging both for the employer and employee; it’s definitely not for everyone. But in a world of increasing customization and personalization, they should take the time to understand what kinds of people doing what kinds of jobs can work for how many days away from the office. It’s possible that Yahoo! could increase its fortunes by finding the right talent, not just the talent who can be in the office five days a week. 

Addendum:

Four days after news broke about Yahoo!'s policy reversal, the company issued a statement: “This isn’t a broad industry view on working from home. This is about what is right for Yahoo right now.” In response to a NYT request for elaboration, a company spokeswoman declined, saying, “We don’t discuss internal matters.”

What a missed opportunity. True, it's an internal matter but it's an issue that has much broader, external implications -- look at what's being communicated about leadership, decision making processes, and corporate culture and reputation. Why not address the stakeholders? Talk about your vision, ideas and plans. Cite some research that helps to justify the decision. Take control of the message.

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

How "Camelot Wisdom" Can Address Our Political and Budget Woes

Politicians Should Take Some Lessons from King Arthur's Leadership and Communication Style

The failure we see in the statehouses and in Congress starts with an inability to listen and understand. It was clear to King Arthur that having the ability to comprehend other people, their circumstances, and their environments was not only nice and good, but important in other ways, too. He learned that one could achieve a huge competitive advantage. What better way to know your adversaries? And who do people want to vote for, fight for, or work for? Most often it’s the person who takes an interest in them, recognizes their motivation, and feels their pains and successes.






Just about everyone clamors for some understanding. But this cuts both ways: we want to be understood by others, and others want us to understand them. Yet, we may be losing our collective capacity to understand on an emotional level as some recent studies have shown. Perhaps this is one reason why the “my way or the highway” method of negotiation has become so popular. The belief of many politicians that even a 50 percent-plus-one victory gives them some sort of clear and unassailable mandate is another reason why we can’t move past gridlock. We can’t take a step forward when the first position is to dig-in-your-heals.

This was similar to how Arthur behaved initially in his mission to unite England at a time of competing kings and threats from abroad. Might for Right was his grand strategy: he invented the Round Table to channel the energy of the knights away from fighting toward the enforcement of a new order. Over time, however, it turned out to be a failed policy. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, Arthur said to Lancelot, “…when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too.” He had the sense to see the flaws and began the process of moving, “groping,” toward a newer, better foundation: Equal Justice.

We’d all like to get things right the first time and politicians are no different. Though it’s certainly the most desirous way of operating, it’s hardly the most common. Sometimes the imperfect thing is the only thing to do. Whatever axiom you want to use—half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good”—incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.

Like the uncertainty felt by corporations and interest groups of today, Arthur created a conundrum for the class of nobles in his attempt to change civilization. They weren’t sure if he represented a threat to their positions and wealth or an opportunity to enhance them. And like all threats and opportunities, he had to deal with the rational as well as the emotional sides of the issue. Protecting self-interest, maintaining tradition, helping your fellow man, and doing what’s best for the greatest number of people all had to be balanced. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method and he knew it. He admitted his mistake. That’s the first step in re-railing a strategy: identify the strengths and weaknesses—what should be kept, modified or jettisoned. Acting in the best tradition of the modern innovator and entrepreneur, Arthur took a risk. He went forward with a plan, though there were imperfections 
and gaps in understanding all of the potential issues.


The ability to sustain an effort is frequently underappreciated. Because incremental advances are hard to discern, we often see anxious leaders swapping out one set of strategies and tactics for a new set too soon; they don’t allow enough time for their plans to mature. With enough patience (and the appropriate resources), we know that all the baby steps can add up to become a completed marathon. Rarely do we see or accomplish all or nothing; compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. The two steps forward/one step back process frustrated and even depressed King Arthur but making progress and leaving improvements behind is what’s important.





There are, of course, times when one can (or must) reach the finish line in one bold move. But this “Camelot wisdom” should remind our leaders that the Holy Grail they seek isn’t at the end of this day or the next week but after a long journey of give and take.

You can read more in Camelot, Inc. Leadership and Management Lessons from King Arthur and the Round Table, www.camelotinc.com.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Endorsements for Camelot, Inc.

Camelot, Inc. provides a most thoughtful framework for thinking through some of today's biggest business leadership challenges. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Brian T. Gladden, Senior Vice President and CFO, Dell Computer and former President, GE Plastics

The dos and don'ts in Camelot, Inc. highlight the enduring characteristics of protecting and building personal and corporate reputation. Oestreicher has found a compelling way to teach us as much what to do as what not to do.

John Doorley, Academic Director, graduate program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication, New York University and co-author of Reputation Management

Oestreicher’s book goes well beyond the depiction of King Arthur and his court. The complicated relationships between leader and managers, the balance between personal and work lives, and the conflict between idealism and pragmatism are as much a part of today’s business world as they were in medieval England.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman

Camelot, Inc. is a remarkable ‘mining’ of lessons from the Arthurian legends. Oestreicher has found timeless prescriptions for achieving excellence in leadership.

L. Patrick Gage, Ph.D., enGage Biotech Consulting, former president, Genetics Institute and Wyeth Research

As a child, my introduction to human drama in literature was through the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable. Truly everything you need to know about human values is found in these tales. Paul Oestreicher recognizes that these tales hold timeless lessons for leaders as he brings the reader inside the Roundtable.

Greg Simon, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Policy, Pfizer and former chief domestic policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Camelot, Inc. gets to the heart of the mentoring role in growing and sustaining enterprises—both large and small. In our increasingly “virtual” business and social environment, Paul Oestreicher shows how critical mentoring is to passing along core values to the next generation of leaders.

Victor R. Budnick, Managing Director, Ironwood Capital and Lead Venture Mentor, Yale Enterprise Institute

You can see more information about the book and order at www.camelotinc.com.

Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Roundtable

An Excerpt from the Introduction

What lessons about management and leadership can an ancient king and court bring to us in the 21st century? Can the trials and tribulations of people so removed from us in time and custom truly be relevant in modern corporations, organizations, or governments?

If one thinks of texts and stories even more ancient than those of King Arthur, the answer is obvious. People continue to draw important meaning from the stone tablets, scrolls, and books of the past. Indeed, there are many for whom ancient ways and teachings enhance their well-being and guide their daily lives. The Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote (before the time of Arthur, in the second century), “If you have seen the present then you have seen everything—as it has been since the beginning, as it will be forever.”

So it is with the stories of King Arthur. Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings—personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. Those enduring qualities and complexities of human nature, told and retold in story, song, and scripture, have given us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

In Camelot, Inc. we glean management and leadership insights from Arthur’s evolution from the awkward and out-of-place squire derisively called the Wart to impatient student to compassionate king to tired ruler. We’ll start at a time when Arthur found a mentor (rather, when the mentor found him) and observe how he learned, how he developed his leadership philosophy and his vehicle for communications, what it took to excel, how he created a vision and mission, and then how a failure to confront issues led to his decline.

It’s not just that these royal life-cycle transitions so closely track the rise and fall of modern managers and leaders. Arthur will help us to deal with some of today’s most pressing leadership issues: knowledge retention, developing coherent plans and proposals, building internal and external advocacy, communicating and negotiating, team building, maintaining ethical standards, innovating, ensuring flexibility, moving from vision to execution, and succession planning.

Much of what we hear and what we come to accept as fact or truth has been termed “conventional wisdom.” Here, we have Camelot Wisdom. Camelot, Inc. will not be a history lesson, but I will use history to illustrate the dos and don’ts critical to our success as learners and leaders.

Camelot, Inc., Praeger Publishers. Available February 15, 2011. Please visit www.camelotinc.com for more information.

Afghanistan Speech Plan

Notes for the President
Tomorrow evening, President Obama will address the nation from the US Military Academy at West Point. After three months of deliberating with his “war cabinet,” the President will outline his decision, which is presumed to include sending 30 – 35 thousand additional troops to Afghanistan. Word has been leaking for weeks (from sources including the military) about the proposed strategy, and the sides for and against it are already well developed.

We know that President Obama can deliver a great speech, but I thought I would offer up a few ideas on how to make communicate this crucial communication with maximal effectiveness. Here is what his address should contain:

The Background. It’s laudable that the President has adopted a stance of (at least attempting to) not dwell on the past. The answers are ahead of us, not behind. Yet, it’s important to explain why we are where we are. Not to be condescending, but the President should even consider using a map. Show the region, show the threats, show the opportunities. I know he’s been dinged for being “professorial,” but my view is that it’s a good thing. We have a President, a Commander-in-Chief, smart enough to give these important lessons to the public.

The Goal. Some have challenged the President to accept the military’s recommendations and move on. It’s a simplistic plea. A military strategy must support public policy goals. The question of why we are there and what we must accomplish in the name of national security must be answered first, clearly and plainly. Only after the planned outcomes have been stated can we decide on which strategies (military, diplomatic or both) are appropriate.

The Decision Process. As a corollary to the points above, it’s worth mentioning how this decision was reached. There has been criticism of the three months it has taken to debate the request for more troops. In the previous administration, many decisions came quickly, from the gut. Now, we have a more analytical, deliberative and inclusive decision making process. It needs to be explained. Moreover, the role of the military must be clarified – our civilian government should never be just a rubber stamp.

The Options. After hearing about how the information was gathered and analyzed, we should receive an overview (not the details) of the options the President had to grapple with before settling on his final decision. What were the pluses and minuses, and the potential consequences?

The Path Forward and Back. After laying out the options, make the case for the decision. What does it mean of us, for the people of Afghanistan, for the balance of power in the region? What are the consequences of increased involvement, when will we know when we’ve achieved our goals and how do we leave without causing more harm than good? And, what responsibilities will the world community shoulder? Can we count on a fairer distribution of the burden?

Acknowledge Other Worries. We all know of the disastrous experience the Russians had in Afghanistan. We know the parallels to Viet Nam are many. The President must address the concerns over another potentially bloody quagmire and how his strategy has the best chance of success. In addition, he should acknowledge the costs (human and financial), and the possible impact on the economy and on our security. He should also make the case that the seriousness of other issues – financial reform, jobs, healthcare, energy, climate change – means we must tackle our problems simultaneously, not sequentially.

Conclude with a Rallying Point. At the end, the President needs to seal the deal. That is, obtain the support of the majority of the American public. He needs to convince us that it’s time to get behind his decision and, most important, the brave men and women tasked with carrying it out. And, following the speech, surrogates from all sectors of society should be mobilized to reinforce the President’s message.

The content of the President’s speech must be spot-on but so must the tone. He must be perceived as truthful, authentic, realistic and reassuring. I’ll be tuning in at 8 o’clock tomorrow night to watch some history.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

A Military Man Points the Way, Again, On Strategic Communication

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

An Admiral Sets a New Course
Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th century Prussian general, may not be a household name but he laid the groundwork for the way in which the modern military thinks and plans strategically. In 2001, the Boston Consulting Group condensed and rearranged his voluminous writings into a neat little book (Clausewitz on Strategy: Inspiration and Insight From a Master Strategist) that provided some important lessons for the battlefields of the business world.

Indeed, many of Clausewitz’s observations translate quite well to the issues surrounding successful communication: defining objectives, understanding the audience and their agenda, adapting to changing conditions, clear accountability and communication channels, and, ultimately, changing a behavior.

In the case of executing U.S. foreign policy, however, something has been lost. In his recent “From the Chairman” column in the Joint Force Quarterly, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warns that we’ve “walked away from the original intent” of strategic communication by allowing it “to become a thing instead of a process, an abstract thought instead of a way of thinking.”

Admiral Mullen reminds us of some important truisms not only for the successful execution of policy but for communicators everywhere:

Understanding. We need to start with research and data gathering. The key, of course, is turning the information into insights that will help guide the strategic initiative. What is it that our audience believes? What should be said and done to influence them? What might be our common ground?

Listening. Gaining a greater understanding of the issues and concerns, and building trusting relationships are endeavors with a component of mutuality. “Good communication runs both ways. It’s not about telling our story. We must also be good listeners.”

Relationship Building. It takes time. It’s an investment. “Our messages lack credibility because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises.”

Trust and Credibility. The issue above speaks loudly also to follow through and perseverance. “We hurt ourselves more when our words don’t align with our actions.” And what we say and do cannot be just for show; they cannot be delivered expediently. “We’ve come to believe that messages are something we can launch downrange like a rocket, something we can fire for effect. They are not.”

Accountability and Ethics. Behavior is important. Ethics cannot be optional; they cannot be episodic. “We must be vigilant about holding ourselves accountable to higher standards of conduct and closing any gaps, real or perceived, between what we say about ourselves and what we do to back it up.”

Tone. It’s not just the substance that’s important; the way in which we communicate has a lasting impression. An unambiguous message that is encased in civility and mutual respect is the best case. “I hope we learn to be more humble...”

Admiral Mullen deserves a salute from us civilians for elevating the discussion on strategic communication, and highlighting the importance of how we go about shifting perceptions in the attempt to elicit behavior change. Now, more than ever, we should take heed of the lessons inspired by Clausewitz who, as expressed in the BCG book, offered "new ways to order thinking in disorderly times" and provided a "steadiness in charting strategy in an unstable environment."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

The Latest Message War

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

The Fight to Win Hearts and Minds Over the Economy

The messaging wars are in full swing over the Obama administration’s plans to reverse the slide in the economy. The latest example is still playing out after yesterday’s commentary by CNBC’s Rick Santelli from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. (After hearing about it all day, I became the 220,884th viewer on YouTube.) In a nutshell, Mr. Santelli denounced plans to provide $75 billion to support certain borrowers (“losers”) who face foreclosure. He called for a protest – a “Chicago Tea Party” – against using taxpayer’s money to subsidize someone else’s (and not his) mortgage.

We’ve seen the sides line up. Earmarks, pork, and hand-outs versus stimulus, recovery and investment. Waste versus necessity. House flippers who got caught versus predatory lenders. Socialism versus pragmatism. It’s evident that the middle ground is missing.

Bills are moving through Congress but the process remains ugly. We need a diversity of opinions and ideas but everyone needs to take a quick breath. We need to try really hard to let go of personal agendas and focus on our collective goals. I know, I know, we’re talking about politics – by definition, there’s an agenda. But this situation reminds me of the kind of counsel we’re supposed to give as strategic advisors – tell the client what they need to hear – what’s good for their business – not what we want to tell them.

Clearly, Santelli's message struck a populist chord. We’re supposed to be responsible for ourselves, take responsibility and live with our mistakes. We’re Americans! Yes, fine. I’m with that. Yet, Americans have heart. We volunteer more than any other country. We find strength in our communities. We rush to aid others in times of crisis. Well, this is a crisis.

The messaging mavens are entitled to build whatever walls or bridges they want. In this mortgage crisis, though, it’s interesting to see how “subsidy” has become a dirty word. Here’s where a breath, some perspective, could help. We subsidize all the time. Look at the insurance industry. Non-smokers subsidize smokers. Motorcycle riders who wear helmets subsidize those who do not. Sober people subsidize alcohol and drug treatment programs.

Seventy five billion dollars is, indeed, an enormous sum of money and nearly no one wants to see us spend cash that we don’t have. The scale of all of this is unprecedented. It’s scary. But, it’s been said that desperate times call for desperate measures. That does not mean desperate behavior. When it comes to addressing our problems, we need rational minds crafting rational programs communicated in a rational way.

Betting on Vetting

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why We Need To Ask (and Answer) Questions
It happens every four years but also in lots of places in between. It’s the political vetting process.

Despite the development of an unprecedented process of detailed queries by the Obama administration (including a seven page survey with 63 separate requests for information), it’s been a banner year for viewing some high-profile nominees go down in flames. These include Tom Daschle for HHS Secretary and Bill Richardson for Commerce Secretary. Either the answers to the questions were inadequate or the vetters themselves were inadequate or both.

Sarah Palin, who remained on the GOP ticket after a much maligned shotgun-wedding-of-a-vetting process, might have been the most talked about case. Yes, there were the serious issues of her readiness to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the ethics investigation in Alaska, her husband’s DUI arrest and her unwed teenage daughter’s pregnancy. But it communicated more. Reputations suffered. The unraveling episode was a reflection of the McCain team, and of the man himself and his judgment. Some argue that the Daschle and Richardson picks (and throw in Timothy Geithner and Nancy Killefer) cast similar doubts on the President.

Of course, this isn’t new. I’m not a political historian but just off the top of my head I can remember Thomas Eagleton for Vice President in 1972, John Tower for Secretary of Defense in 1989, Zoë Baird for Attorney General in 1993, Bernard Kerick for Homeland Security Secretary in 2004 and Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court in 2005. The reasons for these falls from grace are various, including mental health issues, tax problems, outright corruption and limited qualifications.

Politics is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lack of vetting – just ask those who were ripped off by Bernard Madoff. It’s clear that questions should have been asked but I don’t have an answer on how to overcome blind faith or greed that blinds.

There are several points here:

Taking the time to ask questions – good questions – is essential. But equally essential is the need to receive good answers – truthful answers – in a timely fashion.

The truth will out. Being transparent and honest is the first, best – the only – approach. And, let’s face it, our 24/7 on-line world is relentless in its pursuit of a good story.

We must accept, however, that decisions must get made eventually and that time is often an enemy. The best decision-makers know when collecting more and more information leads to diminishing returns. We need to learn how to manage and accept risk.

If we are to wear an ethical mantle, then we must commit to ethical standards… all the time, not just when it’s easy or convenient or in public. And, we must ensure that those with whom we work or hire also adhere to those principles.

These lessons are not new to professionals in the communications field. Strategic communicators ask questions and gain insight through rigorous analysis of information. They look around the corners, predicting outcomes and the potential unintended consequences of a particular course of action. They prepare scenarios (from those with high probability but little impact to those with low probability but a high potential for damage) and engage in “wargaming” exercises. They develop comprehensive Q&A documents, and pay attention to language and tone. They determine, in advance, who might be an advocate and who might be an adversary. Once prepared, they move forward.

The call from Washington for more transparency and higher standards is a good thing. Openness and sharing information is what democracy is about. Perhaps some day down the road we might learn that sweeping bad or embarrassing news under the rug is bad business. If not, someone will always be around to ask, “What’s that lump under the carpet? Let’s see what’s there!”