I've been thinking a bit about the skills that communicators bring to the challenges of reputation, public opinion, political action and the like. Almost any situation, and certainly most emergencies, involve a myriad of details. In preparing almost any communication there are a great many more things that could be communicated than should be communicated. This becomes really challenging when you are working with a group of individuals, all with a significant stake in the game.
There are some, the engineering types, who think that without getting deep into the data, facts and details it's not worth saying anything. Others seem to think putting a happy face on your message is all you need to do, and others think it's best if you do not say anything at all. Some see one question or concern as the most critical issue, and others disagree believing the focus should be in a completely different direction.
The ICS mercifully relieves the communicators from wondering who to listen to, but in most other communication situations it is essential to establish a process and understanding about who has editorial input versus who has approval authority. This is easier said than done as anyone in that situation will attest.
Having established that, it is the communicator's task to know all the relevant facts and details, understand the issues and concerns, then make crystal-clear recommendations on what needs to be said to whom. I'm suggesting the skill of effectively doing that is what warrants the big bucks communicators always get (ha!).
How does one see through the fog of war to create order out of chaos? The most important thing is the ability to identify the primary audience and put oneself in its members' shoes. I think picturing actual people you know who fit the audience profile is very helpful. Then thinking (or better, actually talking to them) what would they want to know? What questions would they have? What would be of highest concern? What details do they not want to get bogged down in? What information do you have that would cause the greatest consternation, and if it would, how best could it be conveyed?
If you have a clear idea of who you are talking to and what they expect from you it becomes much easier to organize, prioritize and fill in the appropriate details. But that doesn't mean you can get the job done, because inevitably you will go back to those who don't have the same picture of the target audience or the same perception of what they really want. There are some folks in senior positions who simply don't seem to be able to imagine that anyone could possibly be interested in anything different than their interests.
If you have the time and patience, it seems the only way is to use the Socratic method of asking them questions: Who do you think is the most important for us to communicate with? What do you think is on their minds? What do they most fear in this situation? What do they most want from us?
I have often said that the very hardest thing in communications is the three-foot jump. That is moving from my position, my ego, my values and my priorities to that of the person I am talking to. The ability to make that three-foot jump, help others to do that, and prepare information and messages to meet the needs of those important to you is where the real value of a skilled communicator lies.
