Archive for the ‘Worth Reading’ Category
Humility Update: Humility is Strength. Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
The Paradox of American Power
Between the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the foreign policy establishment focused on the difference between “soft power” and “hard power.”
The concepts were elaborated in a 2002 book by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., then dean and now University Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Nye is consistently ranked one of the most influential US scholars on foreign policy.
His book, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone, was remarkably prescient. (more…)
Worth Reading: “Strategic Communication: Getting Back to Basics” by Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Force Quarterly
Taking Strategic Communication Seriously
The United States government is finally taking strategic communication seriously.
This week President Obama used all the instruments of diplomacy to advance the US foreign policy agenda, including getting Russia, France, and Britain to stand with the US against continued nuclear development by Iran.
President Obama’s wins at the UN and in the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh this week are just the latest indication of a more mature and intentional foreign policy that aims at influencing world leaders and the world community in ways that increase the security of the United States.
An important element of this new approach is a renewed emphasis on effective public diplomacy.
Effective Public Diplomacy =
Influencing, not Bullying
Last year I wrote a post about US public diplomacy, and how much of it missed the mark.
I noted that effective communication isn’t about pushing messages to audiences, but rather about provoking a desired reaction from those audiences.
I also quoted Dr. Amy Zalman, who wrote an East-West Institute concept paper, Countering Violent Extremism, that included this observation:
“Good communicators reveal, in speech and action, that they understand the motivations and aspirations of their audiences—and it is via this understanding that they gain their sympathies.”
Dr. Zalman then reviewed US public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world, and concluded:
“A review of U.S. official rhetoric shows an all too persistent absence of this understanding, an oversight which in turn can fan rather than dampen extremist sentiment.”
Worth reading: Booz & Company CEO Succession Survey, “Stability in the Storm” by Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Neilson
A Leadership Test
Leaders are judged on how they deal with their most significant challenges.
As American Express CEO Ken Chenault said on the cover of the November, 2007 Fortune, “We have to remember that reputations are won or lost in a crisis.”
Each year the consulting firm Booz & Company studies CEO turnover among the 2,500 largest public companies in the world. Their report, published in Booz’ online magazine Strategy+Business, is worth reading, and provides not merely statistical data and trends, but also insights into the particular leadership challenges facing CEOs today.
The 2008 CEO Succession Survey, published this month, concludes that the financial and economic meltdown that began in the last third of last year is still causing CEO turmoil. Forced CEO turnover remained high in 2008, but those CEOs who kept their jobs aren’t out of the woods yet: (more…)
Rebuilding Trust
Worth Reading: Harvard Business Review, June, 2009, special section: Rebuilding Trust
I’ve been teaching ethics in graduate business and communication programs at New York University for more than 20 years, and every semester we lament the decline of trust.
But this year seems to be worse than most. Trust in US corporations is at an all-time low, 38 percent, according to the 2009 Edelman Trust Barometer. And most other measures of trust in institutions also point to continuing declines.
The June issue of Harvard Business Review takes on the issue of trust with a 25-page special report, Rebuilding Trust. It’s worth reading. The package includes a forceful critique of business school curricula, a 100-year timeline of highlights and lowlights in the public’s trust of business, and a counter-intuitive piece on how despite recent events people may still be trusting too much.
But the real payoff is the first piece in the package, by James O’Toole and Warren Bennis. O’Toole is the Daniels Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business, and Bennis is University Professor at the University of Southern California. The two are co-authors (with Daniel Goleman and Patricia Ward Biederman) of Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor (Jossey-Bass, 2008).
The special report opens with O’Toole’s and Bennis’ conclusion:
“We won’t be able to rebuild trust in institutions until leaders learn how to communicate honestly — and create organizations where that’s the norm.”
Apology Update: Compare and Contrast
A public apology is a good way to express remorse and offer reconciliation to an affected party. But the very act of apologizing can be daunting.
If delivered effectively, an apology can mend relationships and restore trust between two or more parties.
If delivered effectively, an apology can help maintain company’s competitive advantage, reduce litigation costs and minimize business disruptions.
If delivered effectively, an apology can create a perception of genuine regret on behalf of the offender and mend his or her reputation.
But here is a question:
Can an effective delivery distract the audience from an insufficient apology?
And,
Can a weak delivery diminish a powerful message of a genuine apology?
I invite you to look at three recent apologies and share your opinion about the effectiveness of each apology is in terms of its message and its presentation.
Does Your Corporate Responsibility Program Have a Conscience?
A few years ago, I came across a twenty-five year old article from the Harvard Business Review, “Can a Corporation Have a Conscience?” The 1982 piece, written by HBS Professors Kenneth E. Goodpaster and John B. Mathews, Jr., applies principles of moral philosophy to what was then the relatively new field of corporate responsibility.
I was struck by the relevance of their analysis for business leaders struggling with corporate responsibility today. Since 1982, corporate responsibility programs have proliferated. Professionals seeking to design, implement and evaluate these efforts spend a good deal of time defining corporate responsibility for their organization. Is it compliance? Is it philanthropy? Or is it something more? I subscribe to the “something more” view and encourage my clients and students to go beyond compliance and philanthropy and define corporate responsibility as meeting the expectations of stakeholders.
Goodpaster and Mathews provide another definition, one that could help today’s executives trying to decide which corporate responsibility initiatives merit investment. Their definition suggests executives could measure a corporate responsibility program against two benchmarks: rationality and respect.
On Apology
Photo by KiraKalina
“Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future. ” Paul Boese
A significant increase in public apologies over the past months could be seen as a positive trend.
We saw the most senior leader of this country apologizing to the American public: “I screwed up.” We watched two prominent athletes A-Rod and Michael Phelps issue painful apologies to their fans.
We saw four bosses of British banks saying sorry to the Treasury Select Committee, and watched Japan’s Finance Minister announce his resignation along with a formal mea culpa.
And finally, in the last couple of weeks we heard the words of regret from Rupert Murdoch and Bishop Richard Williamson.
And yet many of these highly visible apologies failed to earn public forgiveness. Some were criticized for being too shallow and insincere, others could be hardly recognized as apologies at all.
So, what does it take to make an effective apology that comes across as true and genuine? And what are some examples of ineffective apologies that failed to resolve conflicts or earn forgiveness?
(more…)
Worth Reading: Countering Violent Extremism: Beyond Words, by Amy Zalman, Ph.D.
Countering Violent Extremism: Beyond Words
by Amy Zalman, Ph.D., EastWest Institute.
Words matter.
Words shape world views. Words provoke action and reaction, which in turn provoke more words. Getting the words right is critically important. Getting the action right is also critically important. And aligning the words and actions is even more important.
Much public diplomacy and other national and international discourse of the U.S. government in recent years has gotten it wrong.
A new policy paper by a Dr. Amy Zalman, published by the EastWest Institute, highlights the mis-steps of the recent past and prescribes solutions for future public discourse.
Dr. Zalman is a senior strategist at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), where she focuses on trans-culturally astute research for U.S. government clients. She also writes the “About Terrorism” reference website for New York Times online division About.com. She has a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies from NYU and is highly proficient in Arabic. I met her when we were NYU faculty colleagues.
In reading Dr. Zalman’s assessment of and prescriptions for future public diplomacy I was struck by how much her underlying philosophy aligns deeply with Logos Institute’s own philosophy about communication as an instrument of strategy. And also how her assessment provides valuable insights not only on ways to counter extremism, but also on best practices in strategic communication across a range of disciplines. (more…)
What Happened? Propaganda
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, by Scott McClellan
Almost 20 years ago I was head of communication at a major company, and I spent much of every day speaking with reporters. The deal I had with the CEO was straightforward: “I won’t lie to you; I won’t lie for you; you can’t lie to me.”
At one point my boss lied to me, hoping I would pass the lie on to the press. I called him on it, and he promised not to do it again. Then he did it again. I unknowingly passed the lie on to reporters. They found out, and called me on it. So I quit.
Leaving my job wasn’t a hard decision, even though it was a painful one. Among other things, my wife was pregnant with our first child. And I didn’t have another job to go to. But it was one of the best decisions I’ve made.
Then as now I taught communication ethics in a graduate program at NYU. And one of the perennial questions of communication ethics is: When is it necessary to quit? I don’t suggest that there are easy answers. Every circumstance is a bit different. And it’s a highly personal choice. But there are consequences to making the wrong choice. And we all have to own the consequences of our choices.
Comes now Scott McClellan, in a tell-all book about his time as press secretary for President George W. Bush, that will be published next week. (more…)
The Ruggie Report on Business and Human Rights: Lessons for Leading Companies
Harvard professor John G. Ruggie has submitted his third and final report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in his role as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations.
The Ruggie Report is an important benchmark that captures current mainstream thinking on key business and human rights challenges. Ruggie’s recommendations are likely to influence businesses, governments, and non-governmental organizations working to improve corporate human rights performance. Companies seeking to meet stakeholder expectations for corporate responsibility should become familiar with Ruggie’s work.