Strategically Communicating

This week’s installment of This American Life concluded with another interesting wrinkle in the Scott Walker saga.  Though the effort to recall the Wisconsin governor failed, its aftershocks are still being felt.  Instead of Democrats hurling accusations at Republicans, or vice versa, this time Republicans are pointing the finger at members of their own party; namely, those who signed Walker’s recall petition.

What separates these incidents from the standard charges of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only) is that some of the accused are not actually moderates, but conservatives who decided to break with their party and sign the petition for their own personal reasons.  Yet this seemingly isolated gesture has now become a litmus test for determining who is a true conservative and who is a “liberal, pro-union Democrat.”

The perils of such a practice are obvious.  Perhaps the greatest utility of a group lies in the variety of its constituents, as the multiple viewpoints they bring to the table ideally lead to a discussion in which an optimal solution is either selected or generated.  By ostracizing constructive dissidents and, consequently, enforcing the silence of others through their example, they mistake conformity for consensus.  Predictably, this ideological winnowing narrows the potential range of responses, which in turn reduces the likelihood of the group arriving at the best possible solution.

The issue of balancing diversity with efficiency is one I’ve articulated previously, and after some consideration I think the answer lies in leadership.  Leaders should serve as facilitators, gatekeepers, and referees, steering the discussion toward a resolution while encouraging the genuine openness that such a conversation requires.  Is that a lot harder than it sounds?  Certainly.  But I would argue the benefits far outweigh the inconvenience.

Pen clicking.  Texting. Checking email. Watching the clock.

Whenever I’m asked to chair a committee, I always watch for this kind of nonverbal communication.  Nonverbal communication like this is one of the best ways to determine the level of engagement among committee members.  It’s interesting that when I think of nonverbal communication, I immediately associate it with disengagement.  Rarely do I think of nonverbal communication in a group setting as a positive.

Many forms of nonverbal communication are positive. Nodding in agreement.  Leaning forward. Gesturing. All of these things also happen in committee meetings, but perceptions of this type of positive engagement are often offset by those exhibiting disengaged nonverbal communication. 

The key, I think, is to focus on the group as a whole.   Is only one person’s nonverbal communication indicating disengagement?  Is the nonverbal behavior isolated or part of a pattern?  In what context is are nonverbal communications, positive or negative, being exhibited? Analyzing these elements of nonverbal communication could provide the means to increase group engagement.

Fischer’s Narrative Theory, as described by Edgar and Volkman in Using Communication Theory for Health Promotion:  Practical Guidance on Message Design and Strategy, reflects the fundamental premise of The Storytelling Animal: We are all storytellers; we all relate to story

In Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy, Kolandai-Matchett describe a sustainable consumption mediated communications campaign in Christchurch, New Zealand, as having an “emotional appeal,” which was influenced by the notion of caring.  The campaign featured workers in developing countries and other negative effects of consumerism.  In essence, the campaign told a story – providing context for the need for sustainable consumption.

Stories provide the context for ideas and are an effective means of communications, particularly with regard for advocating change.  Tips from a Smoker, an anti-smoking campaign featuring Terrie Hall, a woman whose voice box was removed as part of her cancer recovery treatment, is estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to have influenced about 100,000 Americans to quit smoking.

While the story and the storyteller need to be compelling, there is the potential for one or both to overshadow the message.  For example, remember the YouTube video of the woman sitting on the toilet.  There was certainly a story involved there – but none of us could remember the name of the product being promoted.  When does the story overshadow the message?  How do we maintain that balance?