Writing Boots

On communication, professional and otherwise.

Will Al Qaeda survive without bin Laden?

by // Leave a Comment

On the one hand, there is nothing more essential to a cohesive organizational culture than an iconoclastic leader who embodies the spirit of the place.

On the other hand, Chrysler survived the departure of Lee Iaccoca, Southwest soared after Herb Kelleher took off, and General Electric didn't blow up upon the departure of Neutron Jack Welch.

I wonder what do communicators think: How could an organization as decentralized as Al Qaeda possibly survive without an iconic figure at the top—or at the very least, some serious communicators who can keep Osama bin Laden's legend alive even after the man is dead?

Consider the question with the executive communication pros who hang out at the Vital Speeches blog.

I’m imagining a communication conference without lies

by // 3 Comments

One of the reasons people tell so many tall tales at communication conferences is the darn things are so big that no one ever gets to feeling secure enough to tell the truth. So the first liar doesn't stand a chance.

Another reason is that most communication conferences are aimed to rope in everybody—from employee communications to marketing, from public relations to organizational development. So you can't assume the other attenders share your aims, or even your language.

And a final reason is that the conference producer shares everyone's interest in phony big talk, because flattering the crowd is a big part of the racket.

What if you got just a few serious communicators together—a certain culture of communicators, executive communications pros and speechwriters only, say—and the discussion was moderated by someone interested only in knowing the truth about how things really work. Someone who understands that no communication department feels "world class" from the inside. Someone who acknowledges you weren't born to be a corporate communicator and you've got other ideas still.

And then one at a time, everyone just shared the work they'd done that they were proudest of, and let the others ask questions. Then after that, everyone went around and shared their biggest problems, and let others make suggestions?

And everybody ate and drank in between, and got to know each other real well, and kept in touch, some for many years?

Wouldn't it be fun to go to a conference like that? Wouldn't it be exciting to go to a conference like that?

Well that's the kind of meeting that Vital Speeches is holding, at Pfizer headquarters in New York, Oct. 14-15. It's called Leadership Communication Days, and the format won't vary much from what I've just described.

I know, because I'm organizing the thing, and I'm going to be that awesome moderator.

There's a downside to keeping a group small, of course (we're capping it at 25): We have to charge about $2K for the event; and because it's such a pint-sized posse, the hotel drove a hard bargain and people have to reserve their room by Aug. 13.

So if you happen to be interested in coming to this one, register quick.

If you're interested in going to another conference like this on a subject closer to your heart, let me know.

I always love to get together and tell the truth about things.

Don't you?

Good client, bad client: How to know the difference

by // Leave a Comment

In my talks to speechwriters and other communicators who support leaders, I tell them there are basically two kinds of clients in any give c-suite: clients who value communication and clients who don't. "You want to work only with clients who do," I tell them, assuring them good clients are out there.

It's an oversimplification of course. So I thought I'd flesh it out a little; maybe you can help. (Pardon my use of the universal "she"; it's payback time.)

A good communication client thinks she got ahead in the world by making persuasive arguments.

A bad client thinks she got ahead by avoiding saying the stupid thing.

A good client doesn't try to be perfect, but has faith that people will get the right impression from an amalgam of a million honest words and a thousand well-intended actions.

A bad client knows that her actions speak loudly, but doesn't know what her actions say. Meanwhile, she worries that one false word in one speech will ruin her reputation forever.

A good client worries about the thrust of the message, lets others handle the details. "Tell me where you want me?"

A bad client deflates the thrust of the message by focusing on a thousand details. "You want me to do what?"

A good client is tough: "You can do better."

A bad client is tough: "It still isn't right."

A good client is experienced enough to know a sharp communicator when he or she sees one.

A bad client assumes all communicators are weak-minded space cadets, and unfortunately manages to gather plenty of evidence for her point of view.

A good client knows communication is hard, and acknowledges it.

A bad client knows communication is hard, and pretends it's easy.

A good client remembers what she wanted to know when she was a middle manager.

A bad client wonders, "If I were an employee, what would I want to hear?"

A good client assumes that her audience knows most of what she knows, and struggles to figure how she can use her unique vantage point to offer them a useful perspective.

A bad client assumes her audience doesn't know half of what she knows, and struggles to figure out what she can say that they will be able to grasp.

A good client wants to share ideas.

A bad client wants to make impressions.

If you have a bad client, look for a good client—either inside the organization or outside. And if you have a good client, serve her well and help her win.