Entries Tagged 'communication' ↓
September 26th, 2009 — communication, leadership
It's hard to put your foot in your mouth when the words "thank you" are coming out of your mouth.
Of the 20 destructive habits Marshall Goldsmith identifies in What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, five have share a common solution.
Say “thank you.”
Sometimes this is obvious, as with habits #10 and #17, “Failing to give proper recognition” and “failing to express gratitude.” In that case, saying “thank you” is a no brainer.
Goldsmith also recommends saying “thank you” as a remedy for less obvious problems, such as habit #18, “punishing the messenger.”
What does saying thank you have to do with not punishing the messanger?
Think of it this way, it’s hard for you to put your foot in your mouth when the words “thank you” are coming out.
In this case, the “thank you” is less about expressing gratitude and more about stopping you from expressing harmful emotions. “Thank you” is a way not to take out your anger on the messenger.
That’s also why saying “thank you” is part of the prescription for habit #3, “passing judgment,” and habit #6, “telling the world how smart we are.”
For habit 6, he explains how “thank you” works, “Stopping this behavior is not hard–a three-step drill in which you (a) pause before opening your mouth to ask yourself, ‘Is anything I say worth it?’ (b) conclude that it isn’t, and (c) say, ‘Thank you.’”
For this to work, though, you have to just say thank you. If you say, “thank you, but…” and then launch into a self-serving lecture about how you could improve on the idea (thereby showing how smart you are), you’ve defeated the purpose.
I picked up on this not because I think it’s an easy fix (I don’t think it is), but because it ties into one of my destructive habits. I often get defensive and bristle when given negative feedback or when I feel at my limit and I’m asked to do more or criticized for not having done more.
Goldsmith’s suggested response of “thank you” would be a big improvement over my defensiveness.
Are you saying “thank you” enough? Are there things you shouldn’t be saying where you’d be better off just saying “thank you”?
August 28th, 2009 — communication
Just a little rant here.
If you’re sending me an agenda, a report, minutes from a meeting, or anything else that is just text, PLEASE include it in the text of the email.
My computer is slow. Don’t make me open another program just to read what you’re sending.
That goes double if you’re sending something to my volunteers. Not all of them have Word. Not all of them have high-speed connections. Don’t put barriers between them and your content.
August 25th, 2009 — communication
Jeff Brooks from the Donor Power Blog recently covered how “Emotional messaging works; rational messaging hurts” in fundraising (from a post on the Neuromarketing blog titled Emotional Ads Work Best).
Here’s the thing. People think rational should work. The healthcare debate should be decided on a rational weighing of the plans. A fundraising appeal should be based on a rational evaluation of which nonprofit best achieves the donors’ ends.
But it doesn’t work that way.
Emotional arguments move people–even highly-educated, ivory-tower, college professors and hard-nosed, data-driven corporate leaders.
Use emotion in your community organizing. Use what works.
August 8th, 2009 — communication
Just because you know everything about a topic doesn't mean the person your talking to wants to hear it.
Do you know your issue inside-and-out?
Can you talk about all the intricacies of your campaign plan and all the political tradeoffs it will take to win?
Have you felt the need to explain the whole history, significance, and vision of your organization to people who don’t know about it?
You may have expert-itis.
Definition: Expert-itis is a condition in which someone has deep knowledge of their topic area but does not have a filter to regulate how much of that information their audience needs.
Expert-itis can impede social interactions and can inhibit effective community organizing and fundraising efforts.
Treatment: Since expert knowledge is a good thing, treatment of expert-itis focuses on developing the filters necessary to know when to stop talking. Treatments include:
- Asking: Since a sufferer of expert-itis has difficulty understanding what is too much information for a non-expert, it is important that patients develop the skill to ask, “should I keep going,” or “what do you need to know about this?”
- Seeking Help: You may not be able to overcome expert-itis on your own. Don’t be afraid to ask for help! Ask a trusted friend or co-worker to let you know when you’ve said too much. Please not, this person must not also have expert-itis in the same field as you, though expert-itis in a different field is acceptable. For example, a climate change expert and a craft brew expert could support each other in knowing when to stop talking about carbon emissions targets or carbonation levels in stouts versus pale ales.
You don’t have to let expert-itis ruin your social life or your organizing efforts.
April 28th, 2009 — communication
This is a re-print of a handout I created for a discussion on getting the word out now that our local paper, the Ann Arbor News, is closing.
The mass-market broadcast model (How things were)
Synopsis: The established media market was a broadcast system. There were few players that had the resources to run large-scale newspapers, TV, and radio. Because there were few sources, it was harder to get any coverage, there was danger of bias of these sources. But, they did have resources for investigative journalism and if you got covered in these sources, you had a reasonable assurance that you would be noticed.
Strengths:
- Covers a broad range of topics (sports, business, community, etc)
- Both quick beat coverage and in-depth investigative coverage;
- Broad circulation–reaches most people who follow local issues;
- Accessible, you just need to be able to see and read
- Discussion of opinions (editorials, letters to editor, other voices)
- Analysis
- Provide some level or authoritative coverage
Weaknesses
- Gatekeeper keeps out some voices
- Bias to not aggravating advertisers
- Only so much space for coverage
- Resource intensive (a lot of trees cut and a lot of gas burned)
- Discussion through letters to the editor is slow and limited to just a few voices
The micro-media/social media model (How things are becoming)
Synopsis: In a world with hundreds of cable TV channels, satellite radio, blogs, podcasts, Internet video, Facebook, Twitter, and more, no one source has the same level of reach, influence, or market share that the major print and broadcast media had. This means that it is easier to get a message out; there are fewer corporate media filters. It also means there is much more competition to get your message listened to. Personal recommendations and word of mouth play a larger role in deciding what people pay attention to.
Strengths:
- Fewer barriers to entry, less gatekeeper/censor role for mass media
- More community based
- Increased opportunity for discussion
- Fewer dead trees
- More information is available and easier to retrieve
- Length of a story is not constrained by a limited number of space on the page
Weaknesses
- “Drinking through a fire hose” effect
- Self-selecting narrows range of opinions people are exposed to
- Online reading tends to be more superficial than print reading
- Limited accessibility
- Will there be funding for investigative journalism?
- Questions of reliability
- Fragmentation of media creates difficulty to create broad awareness of issues
Key challenges/opportunities
- Ensure access to information means for all residents, overcome the digital divide;
- Ensure that solid investigative journalism takes place
- Develop capacity of local groups to use new tools
Resources:
Local issues:
How to use new media:
Recommendations:
- Personal: Learn to use RSS Reader like Google Reader or Bloglines to help you keep up with local news sites
- Organizational: Learn to use the tools out there (Facebook, blogs, twitter, etc); develop relationships with new media news sources;
- Movement: Expand the Progressive Ann Arbor calendar to a more comprehensive Progressive Ann Arbor/Washtenaw site;
April 23rd, 2009 — communication
In my job with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, I’ve had the chance to work with Peter Dietz as part of our Social Citizens Makeover award from the Case Foundation.
Peter’s main recommendation was to create a cycle where we post videos of our events online and use a Facebook Page and email to create a feedback loop to announce the video and promote our next event.
As we’ve worked to implement this strategy, we’ve hit a few snags. Here are Peter’s recommendations to work them out.
PROBLEM 1. blip.tv is not working well for us due to problems converting longer videos to flash format.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Look into Vimeo (and also maybe DoGooder)
PROBLEM 2: quantity vs quality of videos, we will have a hard time getting videos up fast AND having high quality videos.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Also, after each event ask panelists or speakers for short clips, get those up fast as a teaser for the full video
PROBLEM 3: migrating our current Facebook group members over to our page.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Recruit a few leaders to the Facebook page, then message all Facebook group members. Message Facebook Group members every now and then to try to get them to move over.
PROBLEM 4: How to include branding and call to action overlays on online videos.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Use online video hosting tools (such as YouTubes) rather than desktop software.
PROBLEM 5: How to manage email segmentation/integration/double opt-ins.
RECOMMENDATION 5: This is a tough one. Check Salesforce and Vertical Response boards for conversations about this, as well as groups like idealist.com. Perhaps look into products such as Convio’s Common Ground. Perhaps try to get a volunteer to code this.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS:
Peter recommended to put a lot of website space into promoting Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube feeds. BeExtra.org and the Case Foundation websites are good examples.
He also mentioned Facebook Page applications to integrate our YouTube and Flickr postings into our Facebook Page.
He also recommended that I blog about this process to add to the converstion and get additional feedback (and that’s just what I’m doing!)
April 19th, 2009 — communication
Being in a meeting is a lot like waiting for the train.
No, I don’t mean that they both seems to take forever.
I mean they are both easier to deal with when you know what’s coming next and when.
Consider this. I used to live in Washington, DC, and when you had to wait for the train there, you never knew when it would come. So, you would sort of switch from foot to foot, look down the tracks for the train lights, and then go back to fidgeting.
It’s not like that anymore. A few years ago they installed displays that tell you how long until the next train comes and where it’s heading to. Now waiting is much easier to bear. There’s something reassuring to know that the Grovesnor train will come in 2 minutes, but that you’ll have to wait 5 for the train to Shady Grove.
The time displays don’t make the train come any quicker (but then neither did looking down to see the train lights), but somehow knowing when the train is coming and where it is going makes the waiting easier.
The same is true for a meeting, and that’s why an agenda is so important. If people know what to expect, it makes it easier for them to be present.
That’s why plays print programs.
That’s why churches print orders of service.
That’s why when I run a movie showing, I tell people, “We’ll show the movie, then take 20 minutes for small group discussion, then we’ll check in with the small groups.”
People feel more comfortable when they know what is coming and when. Make them comfortable. Have a plan for your meeting or event and share it with them.
March 27th, 2009 — communication, Publicity, rules of organizing
Yesterday I posted about the importance of following up quickly. Let me add one more point to that: follow up with a personal touch.
Again to quote from Tools for Radical Democracy, “Adhere to a twenty-four- to forty-eight-hour rule: within twenty-four to forty-eight hours, you call people with potential and have a deeper conversation” (emphasis added).
You call people.
That’s a personal contact. It’s human-to-human, and in this age of electronic bombardment, it’s a rare and valuable thing.
In Milk, there’s a great scene where Cleve is rallying people to come out for a demonstration. What does he do, he goes out to the phone booth and he calls people. They spread the word, and soon the streets are filled.
Follow up. Quickly. Personally. It’s the heart of organzing.
March 26th, 2009 — communication, rules of organizing
I’ve been reading Tools for Radical Democracy, and you’ll be hearing a lot about it here, it’s a great book.
In their chapter on recruitment, one of their instructions is:
Follow up. Adhere to a twenty-four- to forty-eight-hour rule: within twenty-four to forty-eight hours, you call people with potential and have a deeper conversation.
Confession time: I fail at the 24-to-48-hour rule. But I think it is a good goal to have. As the authors say, “If you wait too long, people are likely to forget about your conversation and the interest the experienced when speaking with you face-to-face.”
If you don’t follow up, most of your outreach efforts will be wasted.
Follow up, and fast.
March 11th, 2009 — communication, rules of organizing, strategy
“The number-one rule about politics, like fundraising and movement building, is that it is all about relationships.”
–Mike Roque in Grassroots Fundraising Journal
Organizing is all about relationships. Fundraising is just organizing for money, and political activity is organizing for policy.
And they are all about relationships.
Sometimes, though, activists resist building relationships with potitical figures. We spend so much time criticizing the political establishment we convince ourselves we should have nothing to do with it.
I believe it is a mistake when we refuse to build relationships with people in positions of power.
Some activists have a vision of themselves as the perpetual outsider, and that limits our ability to get inside where the decisions are made.
Yes, sometimes doors are closed to us, but sometimes what keeps us outside is that we don’t even try to open the doors because we assume they are closed to people like us.
So go ahead, build those relationships. Try to open that door (as a person rather than as a rampaging cause). Create human connections. Establish the lines of communication that will carry the policy changes you want to see forward.
