Amazon.com Widgets

Entries Tagged 'communication' ↓

How to make Congress hear you

Often I hear activists ask,  “does it pay to send an email to our Senators?” and “which is better, visits or calls to Congress?”

The recent Friends Committee on National Legislation newsletter has a great article starting on page 5 about how communication with Congress works, what the role of different methods is, and how things fit together.

It’s a great piece based on real data and feedback from members of Congress and their staffs. It is neither starry-eyed nor is it hopeless.

Here are 2 key points:

It is very important for citizens to personalize the messages that they send to Members. Congressional staff members have revealed in our research that they place more weight on communications that convey how a piece of legislation will affect their constituents. While you might wholeheartedly agree with the suggested text that FCNL provides for you, take the time to tell the Member why the issue is so important to you, personally. It’s not uncommon to then see Senators and Representatives go down to the Senate or House floor and say, “I received a letter from one of my constituents who told me how this legislation would devastate her small business.” Those are the letters that persuade Members.

And,

Our research with Members and congressional staff shows that if a Member has not already arrived at a firm position on an issue, the most effective way to persuade her or him is through a face to face meeting.

It’s just a 2-page article, the whole thing is worth a quick read.

Polarization doesn’t just divide, it impedes

The summer before my first year in college I read Lies My Teacher Told Me, an excellent book about the errors and omissions in high school American history textbooks that gloss over the not-so-pretty parts of our nation’s past.

I loved the book, and I remembered seeing a copy on my grandma’s bookshelf. So one day, I tried to strike up a conversation with her about it.

That didn’t go too far.

I don’t remember her exact words, but the essence was that she doesn’t like books that point out the faults in our country’s history, and the conversation stopped there.

All too often the way we discuss American history in the United States leads us to the same place my grandma and I came to: a conversational dead-end. Either the conversation doesn’t go any farther (as it did with my grandma and me), or it goes forward with both sides having closed their ears, minds, and hearts as they open their mouths to shout their views.

This failure to engage other perspectives paralyzes us to be able to confront issues of economic vitality, race relations, the role of the U.S. military, or other important issues of the day.

The polarization of history

There is a polarization in the teaching of history. On the right, American History is a self-important, jingoistic ode to the greatness, glory, and grandeur of the United States. The U.S. is portrayed as a nation that has been an unblemished beacon of goodness in the world. This noble history stands against an endless siege of internal sedition and external threats.

On the left, American history is a litany of abuses, injustices, and exploitations. It is a nation founded to protect the wealth and status of white Protestant land-owning men, and its entire history is a catalog of wrongs against people of color, women, workers, Jews, American Indians, and other nations to defend the interests of the elites. In the face of this bulwark of oppression, a consistent counter-current pushes for liberation for the oppresses. Sometimes this counter-current succeeds, sometimes it is co-opted, but these efforts can never fully redeem the nation from its tainted history and belligerent present.

Truth lies somewhere in the middle (as it so often does), and most people’s views of history also fall somewhere between the extreme positions I’ve laid out.

Polarization and the Cyclops

With only an eye to the good or the bad of American history you can become a cyclops. Cyclopses were powerful creatures in mythology, but they were also monstors.

Adherents to both polarized positions are like cyclopses, the mythical monsters of The Odessey that had only one eye.

Physically we need two eyes to have good depth perception. With only an eye for the good or the bad parts of the American legacy, these polarized positions cannot see the fullness and depth of our country’s past.

And let us remember, while the cyclopses of mythology were huge and powerful (just like contemporary ideologues  can be), they were also monsters capable of extreme cruelty.

Going beyond polarization to keep the conversation open

The problem with both narratives is that they shut out conversation with other views and the ability to learn from each other and work together for a better future.

My grandma’s reaction to Lies My Teacher Told Me shows how the critical perspective of the left’s narrative seems anti-American and just focused on attacking the country. Likewise, the “America can do no wrong”  jingoism of the right’s narrative comes off as dishonest to those whose past ancestors have been done wrong by the United States, as well as those whose current communities don’t fully share in the promise of America.

An honest study of American history will acknowledge both the liberation and oppression in our history. Only a complete history is broad enough to include those whose hearts stir with the words, “liberty and justice for all,” as well as those whose hearts burn with the question, “when will my community see our liberty and justice?”

A Lesson from the Bible

One of the things I deeply love about the Bible is that it is make up of people who are always making mistakes–and who nevertheless are faithful to a higher calling. Noah got stupid drunk after he left the ark. Moses was a murderer, as was King David. Rebekah counseled Jacob to lie to his father and steal his brother’s blessing. The apostles are almost laughable in how often they get things wrong.

Part of the message of the Bible is that we do not need to be afraid to confront our mistakes and the mistakes of our ancestors.  We should take that kind of approach to the study of history.

A lesson from psychology

I’ve blogged before about research that shows that training programs that evaluate mistakes are more successful than those that only highlight successes.

Personally, we need to acknowledge both our successes and our failures to learn and grow. So too as a nation do we need to learn from and face the good and the bad in our history

I’m not calling for an end to conflict over history

When I say that we need to acknowledge the good and the bad, I’m not saying that we stop arguing over what those are. I have no illusions that the right and the left will agree whether or not the Vietnam War was a just war to stop Soviet aggression or an unjust war to prop up a corrupt and oppressive government. What I am saying is that in the debate, both the right and the left should be open to acknowledging that the government could have done good or bad things.

Why I think this is so important

I was recently assigned to serve the Racial and Economic Justice task force at Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, and I’ve been doing a lot of reading to catch up.

I’ve been reading Courageous Conversations About Race as we look at how we can support efforts to close the achievement gap in local schools, and I’ve been reading Uprooting Racism as part of our upcoming Racial Justice Book Group.

Courageous Conversations quotes and article by Julian Weissglass discussing causes for the achievement gap which says:

“White people lack informatnio about the history and nature of the oppression that people of color have endured. They learn little, for example, about the genocide of indigenous people, the kidnapping and slavery of Africans and the oppression of their descendants, the military seizure of the southwestern U.S. territory from Mexico, or the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II…. Given the lack of information and the spread of misinformation, it is not surprising that white peopel do not always understand the feelings of native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, or Asian Americans.”

I agree with Weissglass’s point, and experiences like the one I had with my grandmother lead me to ask the question, “how can we create the setting in which white educators and conservative Americans will be willing to look at the mistakes in our history?”

Paul Kivel’s  Uprooting Racism does an excellent job to set the stage to make it possible for white Americans to explore issues of race and racism, and part of his strategy to do that is to avoid the blame game. He writes, “This book is not about whether you are a racist or not, or whether all white people are racist or not.” That is, he evades the temptation to put the discussion in cyclops terms that only see good or bad, that can only either indict or defend.

I believe a similar approach will help discussing the history of race or other difficult issues in American history.

This approach does not give the same self-satisfied sense of moral superiority that a polarized position does. But I’m willing to give up a bit of smugness for a better chance of connecting with people; opening ears, minds, and hearts; changing people’s perspectives (perhaps even my own); and thereby changing the world.

Outreach isn’t just reaching people who already agree with you

But a capaign can go to far. In this case, too far is when people believe that believing is enough, without factoring in the differences between the passionate few who run the campaign and the barely interested many who actually vote. –Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, referring to the 2004 Howard Dean campaign

In my wife’s work with the GetDowntown program, she hears avid bicycle commuters suggest ways to get non-cyclists to bike to work. She hears from avid walkers about how to get non-walkers to give up their cars for a good pair of shoes.

In my work, I hear from deeply committed environmentalists about how to get indifferent people to lower their carbon footprint. I hear passionate peace activists tell me how we should get the apathetic public to care.

This input is valuable, and many good ideas come from it, but what these true believers forget, and what I often forget, is that the “barely interested many” aren’t approaching our issues from the same perspective we are, and what motivates us may not motivate them. To reach the “barely interested many,” you have to set aside your interests to see what it is that they are interested in, meet them where they are, and help them take the next step.

It can be fun to connect with the people who already agree with and to talk the shared language of what already motivates you, and there is a place for that in sustaining a movement, but it is not enough.

If you are going to change the world, you can’t just talk to people who already agree with you. You can’t just speak the language of what motivates people like you. You need to reach out, talk to new people in their own language. That’s why they call it outreach.

You live or die by your database

Your groups most important resource is the people involved in it. Your database is how you connect with them. Keep you database healthy to keep your organizaiton healthy.
Your group’s most important resource is the people involved in it. Your database is how you connect with them. Keep you database healthy to keep your organizaiton healthy.

Trust Agents by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith tells you “you live or die by your database.”

Their point is to be personally effective, you need to have a way to track your personal contacts and keep in touch with them.

The same is true for a nonprofit. I often say at ICPJ, “Our most important resource is our people: our volunteers and donors. Our database is how we keep track of this most important resource.”

Since you live or die by your database, you need to:

  • Make sure your database has accurate contact information;
  • Make sure that when you send something out it gets to it’s destination (not caught in a spam filter or lost because of a bad postal address); and
  • Use that database to keep in touch with your contacts.

Chris and Julien aren’t exaggerating, I’ve seen nonprofits live and die by their databases.

The first nonprofit job I had was with the Nicaragua Network, a small group that has stayed active even as U.S. policy toward Nicaragua has become less of a concern in the media because their co-director, Chuck Kaufman, does an excellent job of  working with the NicaNet donor database.

Think of your contact list like a muscle, you need to use it to keep it strong. Chuck Kaufman is a master of using his NicaNet list and keeping it strong.

On the other side of things, I’ve seen nonprofits fail because they didn’t keep up with their database. People got dropped from the email list. The only mailings they received were infrequent donor appeals. The nonprofit didn’t keep up with their database, and they suffered as attendance, engagement, and donations dropped.

Keep your organization healthy by keeping your database healthy and active. It can mean life or death for your group.

Can a post-it make your fund appeal work better?

Can post-its increase your fundraising letter response?

Can post-its increase your fundraising letter response?

Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive gave me an idea for improving fund appeal response rates.

Here’s the setup: researchers sent 3 versions of a survey to potential respondents. The surveys either had:

  1. a hand-written post-it asking the person to complete the survey;
  2. a hand-written message on the cover sheet; or
  3. the survey and cover sheet with no hand-written note.

The surveys with the sticky notes had the highest response rates by far.

The unpersonalized letters had the lowest response rate, just 34%. A hand-written note increased the response up to 43%. And the letters with the sticky-note had the highest response at 69%.

Many nonprofits invite board members and volunteers to write personal messages on year-end appeals. The research indicates that this kind of personalization can increase response rates.

But it also indicates you can take the response up to the next level by adding a post-it note. Somehow that added touch makes it feel more real and more human.

I plan to give it a try this year. If you try it, let me know how it works for you.

How to act like a human online

People want to connect with people, and that true online as well. That means you have to act like a person online. Heres how.

People want to connect with people, and that' true online as well. That means you have to act like a person online. Here's how.

Sometimes online communication strips away the human touch in interactions, especially when we’re online to promote our cause.

In Trust Agents, Chris Brogan and Julien Smith give seven great tips they title “How to be human.”

  1. Remember to ask about other people–first.
  2. Understand the culture.
  3. Promote others 12 times as much as you promote yourself or your company.
  4. Use your picture (and a good one) as your avatar on your profiles all these social sites (never your logo).
  5. If you mess up, remember the three A’s: acknowledge, apologize, act.
  6. Share a bit of your personal life in your professional.
  7. Remember that this new online world is about relationships, not campaigns.

I’m not convinced about never using your logo, I think it depends on the context. I have both a personal twitter account and ICPJ, where I work, has a twitter account. My personal twitter has my personal photo, ICPJ uses its logo.

That issue aside, Chris and Julien put together a good list, though it’s sad we need instructions on “how to be human” to begin with.

Jargon doesn’t make you sound smart

Wordy messages wont convince your audience. Clear speaking and writing will.

Wordy messages won't convince your audience. Clear speaking and writing will.

I’ve ranted on this blog before about the perils of bad writing. Now I have research to back it up.

Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive gives an example of jargon overload:

We’re leveraging our assets and establishing strategiec alliances to create a robust knowlege center-one with a customer-ruled business structure using market-leading technologies to maximize our human systems.

According to the book, that means “we’re consultants.”

What happens when you use language like this? Yes summarizes research by Daniel Oppenheimer which shows that “the message is deemed less convincing and the author is perceived as less intelligent.”

The lesson is clear: you will be more convincing if you communicate clearly. Use simple sentences and words your audience can understand.

Why you need to have that conversation you fear

One of the best things I learned in my fellowship with the Center for Progressive Leadership was the value of having difficult conversations.

That lesson was reaffirmed in a recent post by Peter Bregman titled How to Talk About What You Most Dread. He writes:

Here’s a general rule: the more you fear a conversation, the more you probably need to have it. Think of fear as an indicator of a problem that needs to be addressed. [emphasis added]

Bregman then goes on to give some top-notch suggestions for how to have those conversations.

Having the courage to have  difficult conversations will transform your leadership. I’ve seen it.

Since the CPL training, there have been countless times in which I’ve remembered that lesson, summoned up my courage, and spoken to somebody to deal with inappropriate behavior, clear up misunderstandings, or to apologize for my own mistakes.

In every case, they apparently ‘easy’ thing to do would be to just ignore the issue. What I’ve found is that the value of speaking up and listening is much greater than the discomfort of avoiding a conflict.

Read Bregman’s article. Think about the conversation you most dread. Try dealing with it directly. It will work wonders.

Marnie Webb on the art of the follow through

In tennis, the initial contact with the ball isnt enough for a good serve, you need to follow through. Same thing in organizing, its not the initial contact, you need to follow through.

In tennis, the initial contact with the ball isn't enough for a good serve, you need to follow through. Same thing in organizing, it's not the initial contact, you need to follow through.

I am a big proponent of following up with people. I believe it is the little bit of extra effort that often separates success from failure.

That’s why I was delighted to read Marnie Webb’s post on the Case Foundation’s blog on the art of the follow through.

Why follow up? As Marnie writes, “we also want to make sure that the people who do sign up have ways to increase their engagement. And that’s about the art of the follow through.”

She offers five easy ways to follow through:

  1. Write them a note. For no reason at all.
  2. Show up at their party.
  3. Give your supporters something special.
  4. Give them something else to do.
  5. Ask for feedback and change because of it.

These are just the highlights. Read Marnie’s post for some great tips and comments on them.

Don’t Write Crappy Content

I’ve often wished for a short guide to help my interns break all the bad habits that academic writing instills in them.

Jocelyn Harmon’s in Fundraising Success Magazine, “Don’t Write Crappy Content,” is a pretty good start.

Her main points are:

  1. Write to one person
  2. Use active vs. passive voice
  3. Make an outline
  4. Speaking of stories … tell one!
  5. Edit, edit and edit some more
  6. Add images
  7. Bonus: Use metaphors

Consider giving it a read, unless you’re one of my interns, in which case I will be insisting you read it before writing for me.