Do You Remember? The Importance of Time and Recognizing Mistakes

Another nurse said three words to me that are the three words that most emergency physicians I know dread.  Others in medicine dread them as well, but there's something particular about emergency medicine because we see patients so fleetingly.

The three words are do you remember?

Do you remember that patient you sent home, she asked matter of factly?  She's back, and she's near death.

True story.

I was having a chat with this senior political adviser guy one time when he breaks out this story about an interview he'd done with a reporter.

This guy, he's built businesses, advised leaders at all three levels of government - he's one of those go-to types with high-brow networks the likes of which most people will can't even fathom.

Back to the interview.  It wasn't going well, the guy told me; for whatever reason, the reporter, a woman in her 30s, seemed to have a dislike for him.  He couldn't place it.  It wasn't until after the interview was over that he found out what was up.

"You don't remember me, do you?" the reporter asked.

"Um, no, why, should I?" the guy queried back.

"I worked for you for years.  Then you fired me."

The moral of the story, according to the consultant, was that he's always happy to see people who'd worked for him succeed doing whatever else.  That was his takeaway.  I asked him how the story turned out; he rolled his eyes and, essentially, said that reporters will write what they want to write regardless.

That story stuck with me.  It reminded me of the countless, hard-working staff I know that engage tirelessly in political work during and between elections.  It reminds me of the countless "faceless bureaucrats" who toil away, considered little more than cogs in the wheel by many of those who work above them.

There are reports about how this faceless, black-hole culture is a massive problem impeding efficacy in our public sector.  The same holds true for countless private sector corporations, too.  I once did a time-audit of a consultancy that makes ridiculous amounts of money, but has ridiculously poor internal organization.  

It turned out that, by improperly aligning internal work schedules and a boss culture that felt meeting times were flexible for them (but not their staff), tens of thousands of billable hours were being lost.  A high price to pay for being too busy (or too important) for your staff.

Money isn't the only thing that gets lost when managers don't take their teams seriously.

One service I offer (currently through Wakata Inc, if you're interested) is internal/external organizational management; making sure that work flow, responsibility, communication, transition and knowledge transfer are all properly designed for efficiency and maximum value add.  My area of particular interest are smaller organizations that otherwise wouldn't have the resource capacity to get organized themselves (being too busy).

What find, consistently, is that where staff turnover is taken for granted (often leading to a focus on lower-wage labour and less training), important institutional memory gets lost without its loss even being recognized.  New staff will develop their own filing systems, ignoring old ones they don't understand, only to abandon their work when they get rotated out and someone else gets rotated in.

When managers take a "someone has to bell the cat" attitude - essentially, putting leadership responsibility on low-wage staff without giving them official mandates as such - they will repeatedly get upset at new staff unable to meet the unclear expectations set by the person in charge.  It becomes clear to these managers what the problem is - a lessening quality of staff.  If it weren't for inept staff, their lives and works would be so much easier.

And the problem only deepens.

I've seen a lot of small Not-For-Profits that do important work fold because they simply didn't have the resources or managerial capacity to get past the moment or, quite frankly, because the people at the top couldn't get over themselves.  These services disappear and don't get replaced, meaning more and more people of the people who relied on these services - battered women, new Canadians, youth with mental illness, etc. - go without.

Meanwhile, more cracks are showing in the services being offered by the public sector.  More blame is being placed on "entitled" front-line staff or the odd Minister or Administrator who double-dips or under-produces, but the focus is always on the individual - get rid of them, put greater restrictions on their replacements and carry on.

This brings us back to Brian Goldman's example.  A busy doctor - too busy and mentally over-saturated to keep track of every single patient made an avoidable mistake and a patient died.  Could he have done something?  Could he have saved her life, if he hadn't rushed her out the door?  What of the second patient - what if Goldman had taken the time to talk with that patient a little more, come to understand the nature of his ailment a bit better?

Goldman is a doctor in a culture that is all about churn - working through a massive patient flow as quickly as possible, seeing as many people as possible.  He has no control over that culture.

My friend the senior consultant guy is not a doctor; what he does is high-level, has no impact on the direct lives of individuals, right?  He's a businessman making money, period.

The people he works with are policy makers - their job isn't to get into the weeds, either; they're too busy for that.  Their job is to make efficient, cost-effective policy at the high-level and punt implementation responsibility down the chain.  When something goes wrong, well, blame is one of those things that rolls downhill.

I know countless people like my friend who are "too busy" to engage with their teams - they expect their staff to come to them, full of piss and vinegar, or go out and find them on the golf links.  

They are the bosses.

These are the people who define the cultures of our emergency rooms, our service centres and, where it comes to managers, our work cultures.

When the people in charge don't recognize the value of taking the time to know their teams, to respect their teams as individuals rather than assets, they are weakening the strength of their own institutions. 

If you can't make the time to remember your team, can you expect them to take the time to fill in blanks for you after they're gone?  Will you be able to recognize growing structural rifts within your own organization?  What about that one client that is back at you with a request, or a complaint, that you know nothing about?

Perhaps there's a lesson in this worth remembering.

Dear Alexis Pavlich, What the Hell is Wrong with You?

Chris Alexander

@calxandr

MP for Ajax-Pickering. Politics and public service for the common good.

Ajax, Ontario · chrisalexandermp.ca

Alexander's office would not confirm if language and education requirements are in the cards.  It said the government is proud of its record of condemning intolerance, hatred, and barbaric cultural practices.

"We can't say the same for Justin Trudeau, who has refused to call honour killings barbaric," said Alexis Pavlich, the minister's press secretary.  "Everyone is expected to respect Canadian values and abide by Canadian laws."

Dear Alexis,

I sincerely hope this message pierces the partisan bubble you reside in and that you spend two minutes actually considering what it says.  

I would have tweeted, or even tried to LinkedIn message you, but you've got zero profile on social media.  That worries me, because it suggests you don't have much contact with the world beyond the Hill or a specific, non-blacklisted suite of stakeholders.

Let me be clear - I get it.  You're a partisan political staffer in a hyper-partisan environment.  You are probably told at staff meetings that it's kill-or-be-killed on the Hill, so don't be afraid to go for the throat, especially of those malicious Liberals.  Can't have Trudeau taking power away from the Conservatives, etc.

And yeah, when you get in a good hit, you may get a pat on the back from your partisan superiors - it's a bit like that scene in Goodfellas where Ray Liotta's character gets out of jail.

But Alexis, listen to yourself.

What you are doing, consciously or not, is fueling the contempt Canadians hold for our political process.  Honestly, when you have a specific question raised to you about a genuine concern of real Canadians, it's not about what your opponent has or hasn't said.  It's not even about whatever frame you've wrapped your record in.

When people are honestly asking you a question that matters to them, don't make it about your party, your record or your opposition.  Be there with them, Alexis - treat them like their concerns actually matter and make it clear that you are listening to them (by actually listening to them).  That's what they want - a bit of humanity, to know that someone in government is at least trying to understand them.  And you might even learn something useful along the way.

By messaging and pivoting, you are failing at your job.  It's not your Minister or your Party who pays your salary, it's the Canadian public, and they want to know their government has their ear.  The press traditionally serves as a conduit for conversation between communicators like you and the masses - you could be doing it via Social Media, but again - no Twitter.

Communication isn't the same thing as messaging - it's about honest-to-God conversations.  You can't have a meaningful conversation without a bit of empathy for your partner and a bit of exposure of yourself.  Alexis, when you keep such a low profile to reduce yourself as an appreciable target, you make communication really, really hard.

I can only imagine you got into politics because you care about Canada - not because you wanted to pad your CV for a good private sector job down the road.  That's a leap of faith I am willing to take on your behalf, Alexis.  The kind of pronounce, defend and deflect messaging all Parties are using these days are harmful to Canada's increasingly fragile democracy.

This isn't your fault - it's a culture that's been warped by successive administrations over time.  What training you've received will have only reinforced this culture of isolated superiority, which is sad - it doesn't have to be that way.  

But now that I've brought you into the spotlight for a bit, Alexis, know that you, as a human being, are not constrained by that culture.  You have it in yourself to buck the trend and stand up for what you, and we, believe in.  

Transparency.  Honesty.  Integrity.  And above all, in the people themselves.

Through people like me, through agencies like Samara and groups like Citizen Bridge, by firms that do real communications like Swerhun and Exhibit Change and through the growing Open Government movement, you can become more than Ottawa's political culture constrains you to be.  There's a whole other world beyond the Hill that wants you to be part of it.

Busy though you may be, you owe it to yourself to get to know Canadians and the communities like those worried about the implications of imposed language/education requirements for spouses.  To make it a bit easier, use an analogy - think about how elderly couples felt when they were forced to separate due to gender constrictions in senior's homes.

More than that, as a paid staffer of the Canadian people, you owe it to us.

When you stop being part of the problem, you empower yourself to be part of the solution.

Canadians want you on our side, Alexis.  Please, help me - the next time I write about you, I don't want the title to be about how you're part of what's wrong - I want it to be about how you're part of what's right.

I believe you're up to the challenge, Alexis.  I'm hoping you prove me right.

Why Leaders Should Think Before They Speak

In short, this decision-making process transforms our vague, generalized emotions into concrete decisions and action.  An excellent metaphor is the igniting of gasoline.  Without the concrete form of an engine and car, this event is a potentially harmful explosion.  With that form, the event becomes a transformative tool in our lives.  Similarly, without the techniques and tools to express ourselves, our emotions lack a practicality that will allow us to enhance our lives.  In some cases, they might even harm ourselves and others.

Cognitive science is fascinating stuff.  It bridges realms from mental health to leadership to creativity and, of course, communication.

Despite what we like to tell ourselves, human beings are not rational actors.  This is even more true when we have such utter confidence in ourselves that we never pause to consider why we come to certain conclusions.  The less you think something through, the more it's your reactive brain that's in charge.  

It's one way to live your life, certainly.  It's what we were originally designed for.  But now that we're capable of so much more, isn't it a sin not to use our cognitive tools to the furthest extent of their efficacy and actually nudge into rational-actor territory?

Mayor Nenshi Communicates

"I don't understand why you'd not spend less to serve more people."

                        - Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi

And that, folks, is how communication is done.  Don't really need to say much more after that, do we?

"Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand." - Colin Powell

Inside The Sausage: Why Open Government Matters #2

Why We Must Say What We Mean -Meaning It Creates Alignment

When we are clear about our values, thought processes, and rationale, our teams get a behind-the-scenes view of our choices.  It is far easier for team members to align with a vision they fully understand.

Sometimes differing circumstances warrant differing responses.  If I don't understand the how and why behind that, though, I might see nothing but hypocrisy.

And if I'm part of your team - a political staffer, for instance - what example are you setting for me to follow?

It may be true that the people don't want to see inside the sausage making process of politics, but they can't influence it otherwise, can they?

Even if you don't want the people engaged, there are consequences to closed-door policies.  We're seeing them manifest themselves right now in Canada.

It's a good thing the solution's emerging, isn't it?

Community of Engagement

There's nothing wrong with a group of influential citizens coming together at Wynne's behest to undertake public consultations.  But when the chattering classes are just talking to themselves, it's an echo chamber.

We live in interesting times.

A whole series of political/infrastructure issues that have received band-aid solutions for years and years are getting to the point where invasive surgery is needed.  Urban transit is in dire need of a structural fix that goes beyond one-off subway lines, requires buy-in from a host of different players and likely will involve a complete cultural revisitation of commutes and work.  For folk in rural Ontario, the appearance of urban bias is distinctly troubling - they want a focus on issues more relevant to them, ranging from service access to broadband and increased economic opportunities.

Healthcare costs continue to balloon; we want to pay less, but we also don't want a reduction in care. As the silver surge begins to crest, this is going to get even worse.  Our economy is stalled - there's enough evidence as to why this would be the case (we have a risk-adverse, weather-the-storm business culture that is refusing to invest in innovation, new ventures and new talent).

On top of all this, mistrust of politicians is at an all-time high (or low).  It seems every new leader comes in promising to be transparent, accountable and honest, then become an even worse caricature than the leader's they were elected to replace.  This is particularly true among youth, who are the future - they don't trust that politicians, or their elders have their interests at heart.  They don't have much hope for the future and are planning accordingly.

Then, there's the silo-based institutional challenge.  Government was designed for simpler times; like files stuffed in a drawer, new additions of service, administration and accounting have been piled beneath what was there before, creating a series of teetering towers of Ministries and Agencies that have insufficient structural supports/information flow between them.  Oh - and no metrics.

And of course, we have political culture operating much as political culture always does; whoever is in charge tries to control the narrative so as to bolster their chances for future electoral success while opposition parties look only to point out flaws, blow them up into scandals and pin absolutely everything on the government of the day.

The problem is, people in general increasingly know how the game and know what to look for. Impossibly puffed-up brands are quickly deflated.  Underselling and over-delivering always works well, but the over-delivering part has become uncommon, as the narrative keeps coming back to the big bad structural issues that are messy to fix, hard to sell and uncomfortable for everyone involved.  There are no big-thinking giants on the stage anymore - the problems we face have outgrown the usual suspects.  

If you're in politics, it's hard to see any way out.  It's easy to avoid the need for a way out - incrementalism has, after all, worked well in the past.  If you're comfortably ensconced in the clay layer at the middle of the bureaucracy - the folk that don't get cut, don't much rise above, but control the implementation of everything - your imperative for change is minimal, too.

At the front lines, though, people are increasingly agitating for change.  They don't know what it looks like, but they know it's long overdue.  Something has to give, they feel, and it ain't them - they've given enough.  Unions are girding for battle.  Community groups are hardening their hearts and sharpening their swords.  Political operators are picking their fights and driving their wedges.  The Private Sector is staying out of it, or strategically fighting only where their interests are at stake.  Winter has arrived.

But this isn't a war any one group can win - because the opponent isn't a nation that can be disarmed, a government that can be supplanted or a community that can be oppressed.  When the dust clears, we're still all going to be here with a system that increasingly serves none of us well.

You can't fight evolution.  You can't cut out overburdened infrastructure.  We, collectively, need to solve this the hard way.  It won't be tough Boss-leaders that lead this charge.  It may not even be political leaders that provide the vision and direction.  In a flat communications landscape, you never know where leaders will emerge from.

Which brings us back to consultations.  There are always lots of consultations going on, but they're not always what they sell themselves as - there's a wealth of difference between discuss, decide, do and decide, message and defend.  The latter has always been good enough; it isn't any more.

A couple of key consultations happening right now that involve the City and the Province on issues of structural importance and, thankfully, they're being done well.  Recruited teams have broken the third wall of the echo chamber and are engaging in meaningful, demonstrable ways with regular people.  It's not easy, this, building trust where none has cause to exist, bridging communication gaps and sifting through opinion to find actionable policy - but it's necessary.  Besides, for problem solvers, easy is boring.  They relish the challenge of building something new.

And that's the key difference right there.  You don't hear about it, but there is a nascent community of problem solvers with voices at all different levels that are putting shared solutions first.  These are senior bureaucrats, the odd political staffer and lots of first-tier civil servants, but there are also lots of community activists, professionals from various fields and social catalysts of all kinds.

This community doesn't have a name, but it is slowly piecing together the foundation of a more integrated and engaged society.  You'll be hearing more about this emerging group as they become better coordinated and as the need for them to step up grows more dire.

Yet the internal forces of inertia, especially with a popular leader at the helm, will be strong.  Not an easy problem to solve.  No, but the best kind.

Interesting, even challenging times, indeed - but don't worry.  It'll be alright.  The best is yet to come.

UPDATE 19/12/13:  Chopra said Canadians were widely consulted about changes and if they read newspapers and follow the media they shouldn't have been taken by surprise when the corporation announced it was raising stamp prices and cancelling door-to-door delivery.  Chopra said 46 communities were consulted about losing daily mail service.

He's using that word consultation, but I don't think it means what he thinks it means...

When Dinosaurs Lived With Humans: A Lesson For Progressive Communicators

 

Why do we do this?  Because in the age of iPads and Netflix, we don't want our kids to lose their sense of wonder and imagination.  In a time when the answers to all the world's questions are a web-search away, we want our kids to experience a little mystery.  All it takes is some time and energy, creativity, and a few plastic dinosaurs.

 

 

You can find anything you want on the internet these days - equally, you can find lots of material that reinforces what you already believe in/stand against.  The access isn't the issue - it's shaping how that access gets used.

 

To strengthen their brand, reinforce their base and in an attempt to engineer a national community of experience that is more conservative in nature, the Conservative Party of Canada has spent a great deal of time hammering home simple messages, denigrating their opponents and stifling facts that don't back their arguments.

 

Some progressive communicators have tried to copy this approach, hitting the fear button and relying on attacks to denigrate their opponents while relying on simple messaging and a low public profile to shore up their own defenses.  In doing so, these progressives are becoming pale shadows of their opponents.  In this tug-of war, it's ultimately the Conservatives who win by putting the breaks on progressive dialogue.

 

So what's a progressive to do?  If you can't beat 'em at their own game and aren't willing to join them, you change the rules of the game.

 

Whereas traditional conservative thought presents the unknown as dangerous and The Other as untrustworthy, progressives see new territory as laden with opportunity and disregard the concept of The Other entirely.

 

It's been easier for the Political Right to channel the current mediums of public preference (video) to their advantage, theoretically, because video is an emotional medium.  Progressives have this bad habit of seeing themselves as less emotional and more evidence-based; as we all know, facts tell, but stories sell.  When you present a fact, it sits on the table like a plastic toy; it has no resonance for the audience, because we understand the world through the lens of emotion.  Literally - we're hard-wired that way.

 

To assume that all emotions favour conservative thinking is to close the door on some pretty essential tools of communication.  Hope is an emotion, too, as are wonder, a sense of belonging and optimism.  In the same way media (not just visual but all sensory mediums) can be manipulated to favour negative, reactive responses, it can be channeled to trigger positive, proactive responses.

 

This is why context matters.  Meaning is derived from association - without context, a thing in and of itself has no value.  Art is like this - the content of a painting, a chorus in a song or a payoff built up to in a movie can all trigger emotional responses, positive or negative. 

 

Here's where Dinovember comes in.  By creating a mystery that has a touch of the taboo (they made a mess), a pinch of whimsy (interrogating a Teenage Mutant Turtle? This is about the new Bay movie, isn't it?) and an ongoing sense of wonder (could it be true? Do they come to life at night?), these folks have created something magical and engaging for their kids.  Is it hard to imagine those youth entering each day of November with the same sense of anticipation kids get leading in to Christmas? 

 

But there's more.  By creating something creative and clever, by giving it a brand but not a fixed set of parameters and by inviting others to participate, these parents have built a movement that other parents (and their kids) are going to want to be part of, like a meme.

 

You can't communicate the complex in one soundbite, but if you can keep your audience coming back for more, you can roll out complexity one frame at a time.  This is how TV shows like LOST (about finding community through acceptance of self) and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (we're on a repetitive cycle of failure - can we become more than we have been before?) built and sustained audiences that debate their finales to this day.  Besides, if you want to expand your market, you need to offer broader sets of value that appeal to them.

 

Progress need not be seen as perilous, nor the Undiscovered Country feared as the end of the familiar.  With a bit of sustained hope, hard work and creative thought towards content and context, it can be something to look forward to.

 

Which is the whole point, isn't it?

 

Memes and Motivation: The New Hearts and Minds Strategy

... our values are Compassion, Innovation, Courage and Trust.  Proud to live them, thx!

It didn't take long for @LakeridgeHealth to start trending after this brilliant ad; I wouldn't be surprised if its designers had a good inkling that's what would happen.  The message is the embodiment of everything that people are keying into at present; it's a statement of integrity, value and value add; it focuses on creating solutions instead of dividing-and-conquering and it was delivered in just the right package with just the right amount of detail.

More than that, this ad has people talking - not in the Ezra Levant, road-rage inducing way, but in a thoughtful manner.  By offering a clever, appealing contrast to the xenophobic charter business coming from the PQ, Lakeridge is helping to shift the narrative from one that feeds Pauline Marois' populist theme of "the sea of ROC is lapping at our shores, we need to keep the tide back" to one that presents inclusion in an appealing light - "hey, ROC's got some pretty cool stuff going on, do we really want to be left out?"

For anyone whose job includes communication - that means, pretty much everyone - there are some important lessons to mine from this.  While wedge issues and pushing the anger button will always work with some, for the majority of Canadians of all backgrounds the themes that resonate the strongest are Compassion, Innovation, Courage and Trust.

Those leaders to learn to live these values will set the example for their teams, leading to greater aggregate success.

After all - diversity is strength.

The Power of Story Telling: Content Strategy Tweaks Businesses Can Implement Today (Syed Balkhi)

The Power of Story Telling: Content Strategy Tweaks Businesses Can Implement Today

 

Have you ever been at a conference where the speaker talked, or should I say read, from their PowerPoint deck and you couldn't stop yourself from yawning? The worst part is after the talk, you forgot all about what they were talking about even before leaving your seat? I have had a lot of those experiences in the past, but I have also attended keynotes where the speaker barely looks at their notes and instead tells a riveting story about their experience. These kind of talks always get me thinking and often inspire me to take action. Story telling is a powerful tool. To be effective in business, the ability to tell your story is a must if you expect to grow and attract an audience to your brand.

 

Creating unique and useful content is a great way for you to inform your clients and potential customers about your products or services. Content created for the sole purpose of selling is often woefully ineffective because it fails to tell a story. Remember when you were in school? Which professors or classes did you enjoy the most? Which ones were most memorable for you? For me, it was the professors that were great story tellers in teaching lessons.

 

Why Use Stories In Your Content Strategy?

 

Thanks to online content marketing, business owners are now able to reach many more people in a much more efficient manner. Along with using content marketing to attract the attention of potential customers, content must also be able to move people in order to be truly effective. One way to accomplish this is by telling stories. Compelling stories entertain, inform and offer value to your customers which makes them more likely to engage with your brand.

 

Telling Your Story Humanizes Your Brand

 

Storytelling should not be used solely as a selling tool. It should be used as a medium to build strong relationships with your clients and customers and to transform them into strong loyal advocates of your brand. I consume a lot of content myself, and I am often more likely to be inspired by other content producers who share their personal story instead of just selling to me. Stories offer your readers relatable human perspectives that help them better connect with your brand.

 

Stories Help Your Audience Better Understand Complex Ideas

 

Some ideas and theories are difficult to understand on the surface. When you utilize story telling as a narrative to illustrate complex concepts and ideas, it can help make your message easier to connect with and much more relatable.

 

Stories Help Establish Your Authority

 

When you tell a story about your professional successes, it tends to better build your authority. When you share stories about your experience and not just the usual boring bullet points, you not only give your readers a glimpse into your business, but your story also serves as a testimonial to your success.

 

How You Can Use Story Telling In Your Content Marketing?

 

The ability to tell great stories can have a dramatic impact on the way we think act and feel. Our brains are, after all, wired to tell stories. Stories can be a great way to capture your readers imagination. They can also help make things much more relatable in a way that cold, hard facts simply can't. If you want your message to cut through the noise, here are some tweaks you can add to your content marketing strategy:

 

Begin Your Articles With A Story

 

One of the best ways to quickly capture your audience's attention is by starting off with a story. It's one thing for visitors to click on your link because of the title, but it's whole other thing to get them to read the entire article. You can certainly share anecdotes and metaphors, but by telling a story that relates to your personal experience, your audience will be much more likely to relate to your brand on a deeper level. Everyone has a story to tell. We are all shaped by our life experiences, both professionally and personally. When you share your story, you give your readers the opportunity to better connect with you and your brand making them feel that they know you personally.

 

Use Photos And Images To Tell Your Story

 

As the popular saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Why do you think Instagram is such a huge hit? People enjoy sharing and looking at photos. It allows them a brief peek into their friend's lives. There are several ways you can use images and photos to tell stories as part of your content marketing efforts:

• Make use of infographics when sharing significant milestones or data. Instead of just writing in all text, why not use images to communicate those same ideas. Not only is it more interesting to read, it is very impactful and easy to share.
• In order to make your content more compelling on social networks, use images when sharing your links. Make sure to choose relevant and attention grabbing images that represent your brand's story and message.

Tell Your Story Through Video

 

Aside from photos, video is another effective way to connect with your audience. Videos allow you to tell your story visually. With advances in technology, you can now create professional looking videos without breaking the bank. Here are some ways you can incorporate video into your story telling strategy:

• Instead of the usual photo and text formatted post, add a video of yourself as part of your about page.
• Take advantage of the popularity of social video sharing sites like Vine and Instagram. Not only are they cost effective, but you are also able to connect with people where they are already engaged.
• Consider using UGC or (User Generated Content) as part of your story telling strategy. Create contests or ask your readers or customers to send in their videos related to a campaign you're running. This way they can participate by telling their stories too and feel like a real part of your community.

User generated content has worked great for us. We've utilized it on several occasions. For example our twitter tips and blogging tips article were a big hit. We also used this to gain traction for a new site, and it worked prefectly.

 

Tap Into Your Client's Success Stories

Most people have compelling stories to tell and this includes your clients. If you have built a meaningful, long term relationship with them, then you probably already know their story. However, before you tap into your client's stories, you have to make sure you get their permission first. Most will be happy to share their stories as long as you don't reveal confidential information. Not only are you helping your client build their authority, but you are also inspiring your customers and readers. There are several ways to tell your client's story. You can certainly do it through a written article, but why not consider doing an interview with your client about how they have built a successful company and share it with your community.

 

The beauty of telling your client's story is that when potential clients read your content, they learn from your client's unique story. You also build on the relationship you have with your client and increase the possibility of working with them in the future.

 

I have shared my story with products I use. For example my article on HitTail is widely referenced.

 

Conclusion

 

Content marketing is here to stay. People will always seek out content that entertains, informs and is relevant to their interests. Companies must implement effective ways to share meaningful content if they expect to grow and thrive in the 21st century. Tell interesting stories and tell them well. What's your story? How will you incorporate your story into your marketing strategy? Share with us by leaving a comment.

Four ways a leader can improve communication (HARVEY SCHACHTER)

Talk, Inc. (REVIEW)

By Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind

(Harvard Business Review Press, 242 pages, $30)

*****

It used to be so easy for a chief executive. He could develop strategic objectives and send them down to the ranks as directives, confident that employees would make his desires reality.

Perhaps that was a deceptive notion – the serene view from the commanding heights rather than the cynical trenches. But even in the rarefied atmosphere of the executive suite, no one today would believe that rosy organizational communications scenario. Command-and-control is gone, and with it the top-down, one-way communications approach.

Harvard Business School professor Boris Groysberg and communications consultant Michael Slind set out to investigate how people communicate these days, interviewing nearly 150 people in more than 100 organizations.

They found that communications revolves around conversation – dialogue between two people, rather than messages from one person to hundreds or thousands. Leaders often speak of their efforts to “have a conversation” with their people or “get a conversation going” about an idea.

And this conversation is personal. Even when the leader communicates in written form, through an online blog, perhaps, the experts interviewed said it should be in his or her own voice; the tone should be personable rather than formal or stale.

“They suggested that maintaining organizational conversation is a task that top executives must adopt as their own – that delegating it to professional communicators is no longer a viable option,” Professor Groysberg and Mr. Slind write in Talk, Inc.

Of course, a lone executive – or even a team of executives – can’t have a conversation with everyone in a large company. Even in a small business, it can be difficult. But the study found a greater intent on the part of leaders to reach out, to talk to people, one-on-one at times, as well as in groups where they would take direct questions. Employees are also invited to make their views known – in a manner that is less varnished than in corporate missives of the past – in blogs, internal newsletters, and in communications to customers.

Four elements combine to allow such conversations to flourish:

1. Intimacy

Conversation between two people requires that they be close to one another, figuratively and literally. Intimacy leads to a meeting of the minds. This means leaders must learn to listen as well as talk. They must be personal, honest, and authentic, building trust through talk. Even when conversing at a distance, that feeling of intimacy can be gained.

The book describes the TelePresence product that Cisco Systems uses and sells, in which an in-person meeting is simulated through life-size video feeds between two distant locations. Each person sees the other in human scale, and there is a specially designed meeting table in each room that mirrors the table on the other end of the video link, so it feels as if they are sharing the same piece of furniture.

2. InteractivityConversation involves an exchange of comments, questions and musings.

“The sound of one person talking, whatever else it may be, is not a conversation,” the authors note. So organizational conversation must be a dynamic process in which leaders speak with – not at – employees. Technology such as TelePresence can help. But it’s the cultural norm favouring dialogue over monologue that will be the determining factor.

3. Inclusion

Organizations must invite everyone to participate in this conversation, not just a chosen few. And the conversation can be outward-facing, as mid-level employees blog to the public or serve as brand ambassadors when connecting with their own friends and acquaintances.

“By empowering employees to communicate in that way, leaders relinquish much of the control that they formerly exerted over organizational messaging. But they gain a great deal in return,” the authors notes.

“Through conversational inclusion, leaders are able to boost employee engagement, to spur innovation and creativity, and to improve the branding and reputation of the organization.”

4. Intentionality

The talk is not willy-nilly, nor idle. The people leading the organizational conversation – and the various conversations within it – have a strategic idea of where they want the conversation to lead. This intentionality drives business value and can lead to greater strategic alignment.

It’s a tall order, particularly for those who prefer control. But the book cites organizations that are thriving through this approach, in lengthy case examples that accompany the chapters on each of the four elements. The authors also end their sections on each element with tips to help you blend these ideas into your own workplace.

Talk, Inc. is easy to read, and captures an important change in today’s workplace, offering a prescription for making it work.

Without Prejudice

I'm not a lawyer, but I am something of a linguist.  That's why I love the foibles of communication so much.  And wording.  Wording is fun, too.  The legal usage of the term "without prejudice", for instance.

Legal Desk January 2008

“Without Prejudice” Communications: Beware This Safe Harbour, it is Shallow

It is a common misconception that marking a letter, email, or other correspondence with the expression "without prejudice”, makes the person using that expression immune from the content of what is written. Examples might include: "without prejudice, I admit I collided with your vessel and then left the scene, but it only happened because your anchor light was not visible”, or "l agree that I owe you the money, but without prejudice, you will never get a dirne from me”, or "l admit l had been drinking all day but I was only at the helm for a few minutes while the skipper was down below in the head [the top of the page being marked ‘without prejudice’]”.

In each of these cases the phrase "without prejudice” does nothing to protect the person from the admission that they were in fact involved in the collision, they actually did owe money, or they had indeed been under the influence while operating the vessel admissions that in many cases are at times unnecessary or unwise to make, whether they are true or not.

The objective of this month's Legal desk is to educate mariners about when using the expression “without prejudice" will protect them, or provide safe harbour for what is being said, and when it will not.

THE POLICY BEHIND THE EXPRESSION: SETTLEMENT PRIVILEGE

Generally, what people expect the expression "without prejudice" will do is protect them from the fact the statement was made. This protection is commonly known as a type of "privilege". When a statement is privileged it means, among other things, it is not admissible as evidence in court. If it is not admissible as evidence the statement cannot, ultimately, be used against the person who made it. Therefore, the real objective in using the expression "without prejudice" is to keep the statement privileged. The public policy behind maintaining privilege over settlement discussions is to encourage full disclosure and frank discussion in aid of settlement so that litigation can be avoided. However, as discussed below, the availability and extent of the privilege is limited by the nature of
what is said.

THE COMMON MISCONCEPTION: BLANKET PROTECTION

The expression "without prejudice” is often used before the person has sought the advice of a lawyer about what to say, and what not to say, when engaged in a dispute with another person. lts use is surprisingly common in communications between parties in the marine industries, and the rough examples above are only a very small portion of cases where | have seen the expression used to the detriment of the person relying on it.

The law varies from province to province, state to state, and country to country. A prominent American internet site on law defines the expression "without prejudice” as follows:

Without prejudice: A statement set onto a written document which qualifies the signatory as exempted from it's content to the extent that they may be interpreted as containing admissions or other interpretations which could later be used against the person signing; or as othemise affecting any legal rights of the person signing.

While this broad or blanket protection may or may not be the correct definition in the United States, it is entirely incorrect in British Columbia and most of Canada.

THE CORRECT VIEW: TWO REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVILEGE

Generally, the expression "without prejudice” will not qualify the signatory of the statement as exempted from the contents being interpreted as the author “admitting” what is said. In other words, the written statement can be used against the author in court as evidence that the facts in the statement are true and he has admitted them as such.

A common Canadian law site says this:

the term "without prejudice" is also used in the course of negotiations to indicate that a particular conversation or letter is not to be tendered as evidence in court. Such correspondences must be made in the course of negotiations and must be a genuine attempt to settle a dispute between the parties.  It may not be used as a façade to conceal facts or evidence from the court and as such a document marked "without prejudice" that does not actually contain any offer of settlement can be submitted should the matter proceed to court.  Courts may also decide to exclude from evidence communications not marked "without prejudice" which do contain offers of settlement.

This is a correct version of the law on "without prejudice” statements in British Columbia and most of Canada. It highlights two important ingredients that are required in the statement in order for "without prejudice” to protect the author from what is said:

  - There must be an active negotiation arising from an attempt to reach an agreement on some issue,

      and

  - the statement must be a genuine attempt to settle the issue.

This view of the law has been confirmed by the B.C. Court of Appeal in the 1984 case of Belanger v. Gübert, when it agreed with the following rule in the 1918 case of Schetky v. Cochrane:

In our opinion the rule which excludes documents marked 'without prejudice' has no application unless some person is in dispute or negotiation with another, and terms are offered for the settlement of the dispute or negotiation... This lays  down that before the privilege arises two conditions must exist, viz.: (a) a dispute or negotiation between two or more parties; and (b) in which terms are offered...

Examples of effective use of "without prejudice” might be: "without prejudice, | offer you $5,000 for the damage to your boat in exchange for you agreeing not to sue me”, or "I agree that l owe you money, however, | am broke and can only give you $500 to forgive the debt". Each of these statements contain a genuine settlement offer in the context of a dispute and are therefore privileged, or not admissible against the person making the statement.

THE SHALLOW HARBOUR OFFERS LIMITED PROTECTION

Even if the two requirements of a statement marked “without prejudice" are met, caution should be had as to what portions of the communication are protected as privileged. Simply because part of a letter is privileged does not make all of the letter privileged. A letter marked "without prejudice" can be segmented into admissible an inadmissible portions and parts that do not relate to a genuine offer to settle the dispute can be used against you.

Another important point to consider is that simply because a communication is privileged as between two parties (the two persons that are party to the dispute) does not mean that the "without prejudice” communication cannot be used against the person-making the statement if the statement falls into the hands of a third party. For example, a without prejudice settlement letter between a mariner and his insurance company may be inadmissible in a further dispute between the mariner and the insurance company, but would be admissible in a dispute between the mariner and his spouse in a divorce (for

example, the mariner receives a $500,000 insurance settlement that the enc-spouse then seeks a portion of).

SUMMARY POINTS TO REMEMBER:

The general rules are these:

   - A communication that contains the expression "without prejudice” that does not relate to the

     settlement of a dispute between two or more parties will not be privileged, and therefore can be

     used against the person who made it;

   - A communication that involves the settlement of a dispute between two or more parties is

    privileged, and therefore cannot be used against that person, whether it is marked "without

    prejudìce" or not.

Darren Williams, a former commercial fisherman, works as a marine lawyer with Williams

& Company in Victoria B. C. 

We Could Hide Out Under There... But Hiding Isn't Communicaiton

 

It's funny - I'm in a pointless, completely avoidable spat with some folk who apparently have difficulty with the concept of value add; the failure to communicate has completely stemmed from my trying to add value for them.  Instead of attempting to nurture mutual understanding, looking for points of commonality and building brand by offering value, they paint by the numbers, following self-serving protocols to the detriment of everything they stand for. 

 

What's the funny part?  I dunno - when "we need to have a conversation" has become a one-way messaging point, I find that funny in a "fall into an open sewer" kind of way.**

 

We can hide behind simplistic protocols and completely avoid committing sociology (i.e., looking for context) but that's the approach that has led to our asymmetrical social system in the first place.  While "this conversation is over" is the approach favoured by Canada's conservative Parties, Liberal leaders, including Ontario's Kathleen Wynne, have theoretically rejected that theme in favour of one that recognizes we can only surmount each obstacle by acknowledging that they are all connected.  And that we are all connected.

 

Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead, after all; and value isn't something others owe to you, it's something you provide to others.

 

For the Jacks of all trades making matters unnecessarily complex by trying to play it simplistically, I offer the following - a Boys II Men song (a wink geared towards adults) in a movie geared towards kids.  There was no need for the film makers to put this much effort into their product, as the target audience wasn't parents - but in so doing, they have landed with an engaged audience that is doing much of their advertizing for them.

 

There's a lesson in this for communicators - if they see value in communication.

Ah... lapo dah...
Tala chi, Ma tol, li na...
Ah...
Laba di, ho chi,
La, No chaaa...

Wu pla na chii, leh ji
Fuh pa pu she
La ma nii...

Under wearr
Lah kah reh, Li rey wee
Gih leh bya
Mah ke reh

Under wearrr
Lah pah kreh, Leh gua ri
Teh lah keh,
Lah peh reh...

Under wearrr
Lah cheh pee, Li bi da
Ee leh gua
Lahh gua rehh

Ley show lee leh duu...
Lah keh rey dee zuu...
Bleh ahh boh dee zu re kah
Zohh reh kah laa...

UNDER WEARRR...

Lah duu...
Leh ah moh dee under wearr...

** (Please note the context of the quote, which refers to self-inflicted wounds caused by not thinking ahead as being funny.  This quote should not be construed in any shape or form as a threat to any persons living or dead, real or fictitious).

Communicating Change: Disruptive Leadership From the Grassroots Up

We can't be creative if we refuse to be confused. Change always starts with confusion." 

- Margaret Wheatley

Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

To keep the blade sharp, you have to periodically walk along it.

Sound familiar?

Risk means doing things that are unpredictable, taking chances, walking the wire without a net.  We want the benefits that come from risk (new innovations, new policy solutions, the first place medal) but not the consequences of potential failure.  When it comes to teams, bosses are increasingly becoming risk-adverse; new investments and new ideas aren't being supported as they could be.  They're relying on more interns and contracts that can be let go of quickly if they mess up and no or little money lost.

What about those who do take risks, push the envelope, push buttons?  There are lots of those, but if you look carefully they aren't so much about taking risks as they are confident in their ability to avoid or download risk to others.  Look at the Senate Scandals; even now the likes of Duffy and Brazeau remain defiant.  Look at any of the other political scandals across the country - nobody is saying they took a risk and it didn't pay off as they thought it would, they're denying risk at all, or placing the blame for failure on others.

 

Look at Lehman Brothers.  Look at the polling industry.  Hell, look at our democratic malaise.  These folk aren't being bold or innovative; they're puffing up their plumage and trying to deflate criticism.  It's a huge difference; more and more energy is being spent on image, not accomplishment.  More and more blame is being placed on the staffer, the consumer, the voter.  When people are blamed for inaccurate polling results instead of methodology, we have an emperor's cloak problem write large.

To fix this, leaders need to be willing to take risks - not the self-serving kind, but the policy risks that may not have precedent and will need to be tested through pilots, revisited and worked through various iterations to get them right.  Look at the work Guardly is doing with Neighbourhood Watch as an example of what this looks like in practice.

 

Leaders need to equally be empowering, too - not looking for their team to fail so they can replace them with better people, but encouraging them to experiment and supporting them through the trial-and-error learning process.  Failure should never be the end of the road - instead, it should be a stepping stone to perfection.  What have we learned?  What can we avoid in the future?  What new horizons have been uncovered as we break down the walls of convention? 

 

At the same time, teams and constituents need to be equally willing to work with leaders at all levels.  We've got a bad habit in Canada of voting people and Parties out, rather than voting anything in.  "I will undo stuff the last guy did that you don't like" isn't a "why" and it's not leadership, but it what we keep asking for.  Ask you and you shall receive, etc. 

 

"What I stand for" is vastly different from "what I stand against" but we seem to have mixed the two up in the same way that we forget that "talking to" (messaging) isn't the same process as "talking with" (communication). 

 

Of course, communication isn't easy, nor is it common.  Most Comms positions these days are focused on messaging rather than a back-and-forth flow involving understanding and compromise.

 

I'd argue that true communication is the biggest challenge we face, and face poorly given the impact it has on our lives.  Communication requires all those soft skills we have trouble quantifying; empathy, lateral thinking, iterative thinking, design thinking.  It demands us to put something on the table first, freely, without the certainty of receiving anything in return; it means having a bit of faith in what the person opposite can do, given the right supports along the way.

 

True communication is a scary concept, a step into the unknown, a leap of faith.

 

Which leads me to one last quote to tie this up in a bow:

 

Do one thing every day that scares you.