THE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS OF LIFE

Of late, we’ve been pondering intangible stuff.

Like authenticity, truthfulness, honesty, and so on.

And figuring out how, exactly, it relates to what we do.

This millennium’s writers are similarly obsessed, whether it has to do with temptation or excess or authenticity.  Our wonderment, though, concerns less of the weighty observations (i.e., ‘what’s the world coming to?’ ‘where did we stray?’) in favor of the how to identify and embed sincerity:  techniques for spotting; methods for infusing speeches, videos, even annual reports with the straight stuff; and ways to differentiate between the different kinds of truths.  [And yes, Virginia, there are many; it just depends on the side you’re representing.]

After all, we specialize in framing and creating those conversations.  It’s important to us that our readers, our audiences, our viewers understand that we’re being as sincere as we can be.  It’s somewhat easy to see if a speaker is disingenuous; body language, tone, and style are usually the give-aways.  It’s not that easy to see through emails and emojis and Internet copy to determine the truth-telling factor.  Sincerity is more than the facts; it’s a cinch to validate those.  Rather, it’s the communication’s intent and its desire to not deceive, to not boast, to be clear and honest in its content that has us thinking. 

Many writers in past centuries would have pooh-poohed our quest; it was Oscar Wilde who said, “a little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.”  Truth – or dare?

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM UNCLE SAM ... (AND THE QUEEN)

A slightly improved  ‘please pay your taxes’ letter netted the U.K. 15 percent in unexpected revenues.

A ten percent cut in military energy expenditures was predicted when processes were changed in mid-air refueling, in vehicle usage, and in equipment handling.

And for many years, experts have stated that highway speeds of 60 mph, reduced from 70 mph, would save 2 percent of all U.S. household energy.

Common sense?  Well, sorta.  Within the relatively new discipline of behavioral science, changes in human actions and reactions can account for some amazing results.  And though in many cases academics rule  this philosophy and these procedures, it’s we as communicators and marketers and designers who make transitions happen.

Think with us here as we expostulate on three of ‘their’ principles:

• Frame the change in language that appeals to the audience.  Hmmm:  Ever send the same message to front-line customer service reps as you would to an R&D organization?
• There’s a bias towards the status quo.  Benefits folks will swear on a stack of comp statements that the choice to opt out of a new program yields a higher number of recruits than making an active choice … or opting in.
• Make it easy.  We favor checklists, fill in the blanks, almost anything that’s a snap to finish and send.

A few years ago, the U.K.’s Behavioral Insights Team, with a budget of a mill or so (in US $$), performed so well that the government now mandates behavioral science as a civil servant course.  Business, take notes!

THE VOICE, PART TWO

Not every leader and corporation can afford voice coaches like Adam Levin and Blake Shelton, Gwen Stefani and Pharrell Williams.

On the other hand, they have us – communicators and marketers and branding gurus.

We’re serious.  Because guiding our executives through the process of defining words and actions of value for themselves and for the business – a/k/a the voice – is a commitment based on experience, intuition, and no small amount of tears and sweat.

It goes beyond the tried and true message platform, to the heart of what’s believed and what’s been accomplished.  The voice integrates values, vision, and purpose.  And the process never stops.

Where to start?  With an examination of self (and of company).  Begin by asking some standards:

• What gets you up in the morning?
• What do you and the business stand for?
• What motivates others to do their best – for you and for the company?
• Who are you/the company when both are at your best?
• What attitudes and beliefs move you forward … or hold you back?
• How would you define success now, and in the future?

Balance those responses and the initial voice with the leader’s style and personality, a combination of presence, attentiveness, bedside manner, decisiveness, and, oddly, the traits of humility and confidence.  Most of all, the final voice must be a comfortable one, one that connects well with the leader/company.

There’s no audition.  No contest.  And probably no recording contract.  But it’s one of the most rewarding contributions we make.

THE VOICE, PART ONE

It’s far different than the NBC-TV contest of coaches and wannabe singers.

Yet it’s similar in its appeal to the heart.

Helping craft “the voice” is one of the most fundamental and most critical jobs we as communicators, designers, and marketers can undertake for our leaders, our corporations, and, yes, ourselves.  It’s also one of the most challenging.

For leaders, the voice must reflect how they support and help, coach and deliver feedback, articulate the vision, and give context and meaning to events inside and outside the business.  It mirrors their style, their personality – and is consistent, clear, and certain.   Of course, given the state of the world, it will also flex to demands and to situations that might be beyond anyone’s control.

A big task? 

For sure. 

Combine it with the goal of defining the corporate voice – and then sometimes, things go awry.  Voices of leaders and companies are often intertwined.  Among the most familiar:  Steve Jobs and Apple, Jack Welch and General Electric, Ray Kroc and McDonald’s. 

It’s when there’s a disconnect, a note of inauthenticity that the voice wobbles. Sometimes, it takes a while for a new leader to pave the way for a re-set of the voice, time to figure out how the two gestalts merge.  And often, employees are the first to identify the variations; usually, front liners will speak up (especially if they’re encouraged to do so).

Starting right is, in our eyes, the best fix.  Stay tuned …

AN OPEN OR SHUT CASE ...

No file cabinets.  No assigned desks or phones.  A backpack to carry materials from meeting to meeting.  And a large swirl of desks and chairs.

There’s much complaining among our cohorts about open space offices.  Conceived by German engineer-architects in the 1950s, and now boasting a 70 percent footprint in U.S. workplaces, office openness has long spurred a contentious discussion, with retorts right and left:

              “It’s a great concept:  Our organization is flatter and executives are more approachable.”

              “Help!  I can’t hear myself think – and am constantly interrupted.”

              “Just think about the other benefits – in terms of real estate savings and increased collaboration.”

              “Where’s our focus – and concentration?  I go home at night with migraines.”

The two factors missing?  One, self-determination – that is, the ability to decide what, where, and how to work – is absent.  Millennials, for instance, pride themselves on selecting environments that help them contribute in a big way; the mere presence of open offices indicates that there is no choice and, probably, few options to make a difference.  [Quite a few years ago, European workers passed laws to allow forms of co-determination.]

Two, communication.  The havoc generated by having to figure out where to work each day, to find colleagues, even to identify the ‘what I need to-dos’ is considerable.  Plus, instead of fostering collaboration, open offices often cause us to retreat, requesting every private cubbyhole and avoiding conversations. 

What’s your take?