As always, the wisdom and humor of Scott Adams' Dilbert strip uniquely captures the corporate culture.  This speaks to the importance of authenticity and credibility.  Those of you in sales organizations should get a kick out of this.

A colleague emailed me a link in reply to my blog post on Barack Obama's concession speech from New Hampshire. The link led me to Peggy Noonan's piece "Declarations" in the Wall Street Journal online. I found the following excerpt very interesting and related directly to my thinking about authenticity.

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

I am reminded of a comment made by David Geffen of Dreamworks SKG (G = Geffen) who is currently supporting Barack Obama for President and raised $1.3 million for his campaign. On February 21, 2007, in an interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Geffen described Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton in unflattering terms: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." He said that Hillary Clinton was "incredibly polarizing" and described Bill Clinton as "reckless" and cast doubt on those who say he has become a different person since leaving office.

When I heard this story, it reminded me that many people have expressed concern that Bill Clinton has a thorny relationship with the truth. OK, sometimes their language was a little stronger. Bill's credibility seems to have become an issue in Hillary's Campaign. My guess is that Bill's credibility is the last thing they want people talking about. When Bill becomes the focal point of the campaign, what message does that send? The importance of authenticity and credibility in communication is never to be underestimated.

As I was driving to San Francisco Monday evening, I was listening to "It's Your World" broadcast by the World Affairs Council of Northern California on our local PBS station, KQED in San Francisco (which I recently heard has the third most popular dot-org website behind Craig's List and Wikipedia).

The speaker was John Hofmeister, CEO & President of Shell Oil Company and the event was titled, "How the US Can Ensure Energy Supply for the Future." This appearance was part of a 50 city tour that Hofmeister and other Shell executives have been conducting to start a "dialogue" with the American people.

I was impressed by Hofmeister's candor and willingness to acknowledge the poor reputation that the oil industry is suffering in the media. They are experiencing record profits while gas prices are at their highest levels in history. The public's perception of his company and industry are so poor that he reports receiving a death threat in the mail - a drawing of his body hanging from a tree.

As the event was held in San Francisco, you can imagine that Hofmeister responded to questions about the companies record profits, offshore drilling, conservation, and alternative energies. Hofmeister candid and measured responses sounded both well-informed and balanced - acknowledging the US need for new sources of energy with the long-standing 100 + year dependence on oil and a highly-developed oil-based infrastructure.

I came away thinking that Hofmeister was a very effective communicator and leader. As he speaks about in the interview, Hofmeister earned a bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from Kansas State University. He comes across as erudite. and seems to fully grasp the "big picture" of his industry and is able to articulate it's dynamics extremely well.

His candor typified the qualities of transparency and authenticity that I've written about in many posts here.

You can listen to the recording, see the video or download an MP3 file of that speech at the WAF audio and video archive here.

 

 

Hearing Barack Obama's concession speech after the New Hampshire primary, I was deeply impressed. He is clearly echoing Martin Luther King Jr's great "I Have A Dream" speech by treating adversity as a challenge, inspiring his campaign and supporters to redouble their efforts. His repetition of a simple phrase "Yes, we can" is a use of a recurring theme that makes his presentation memorable, 'sticky' and very effective. Note the audience picking up the chant … in spite of the fact that he "lost" the primary, this audience doesn't seem deterred. They seem even more committed to their candidate. Partial transcript:

For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.

This is superb communication and leadership. He uses language that makes the audience feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves, something meaningful, something important and exciting. They are cast as heroes on par with Jefferson, Washington, Louis and Clark, Lincoln, and King. It's heady company and intoxicating to think of one's self as part of a movement. On the macro level, his themes of hope and change have given him a competitive advantage against Hillary Clinton, who many saw as the front runner in this election — as though it was hers to lose. But I don't hear any consistent message coming from her candidacy other than experience and wonkiness. When Obama speaks about hope and change, it comes across as authentic. When the Clinton campaign (and all the other campaigns) suddenly picked up on the theme of change after Iowa, it seemed like a lame and inauthentic attempt to hitch themselves to Obama's message, as though it was their own.

 

 

Consistently, I find myself deeply moved by his speeches. No one else inspires us like Barack Obama. It's important to acknowledge Garr Reynolds again for this post from his terrific blog, Presentation Zen. I recommend it highly to all my readers and clients and I encourage you to subscribe.

I found this video through Garr Reynolds' superb blog, Presentation Zen. Severn Cullis-Suzuki was only 12 years old in 1992 when she raised money with members of ECO, the Environmental Childrens Organization (a group she founded) to attend the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. Severn presented environmental issues from a youth perspective at the Summit, where she received a standing ovation for a speech to the delegates. This video presents that speech.

What struck me the first time I watched this deeply moving video were the reactions on the faces of the adult delegates. I imagine them as typically distracted and jaded, creatures of politics. When they listen to Severn, their faces are rapt and attentive. Their feelings and thoughts are as evident as neon signs - their protective masks are stripped away by the directness and passion of this terrific young speaker - this "child" who communicates with the wisdom and craft of a veteran speaker.

This video reminded me of one of the deeper truths that I have observed in my work as a presentation skills coach and trainer. Authenticity and passion are the most compelling qualities a presenter can have. So, what is authenticity?

Websters defines it as "true to one's own personality, spirit, or character." I like this quote from Mahatma Gandhi who said, "Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony." that is a great description of authenticity, in my estimation. Authenticity is evident when someone is speaking from the heart. David Henderson, my mentor in this work, used to say, "Speak your first truth first."

She also speaks with passion ("a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept") is evident when you give full expression to your deepest desires and feelings. Severn has both authenticity and passion in spades. She provides a superb and humbling example for all of us.

 

"Wag more. Bark less."

Terry Gault
Sent with Wireless Sync from Verizon Wireless

Jon Harmon, a PR Consultant with Force For Good Communcations, wrote a piece in the LA Times about the recent Utah mine tragedy and how CEO Robert Murray managed his role as the face of Murray Energy Corp.
Harmon makes an important point about effective communication in a time of crisis - that the good of genuine authenticity can often help counter the bad influence of mistakes. He writes:

The 67-year-old Murray was in Montana when he got word of the collapse at the mine owned by Murray Energy Corp. He hopped on a private jet and was at the scene within hours, taking command of the rescue operation, providing the media updates. All this was textbook PR in the best sense. The presence of the concerned chief executive on the scene of a disaster has been understood to be essential to successful crisis management since Exxon's CEO infamously took far too long to travel to Valdez, Alaska, in 1989, to take stock of the oil spill that caused one of history's worst environmental disasters.

But after that, Murray broke so many rules of crisis communications he had news anchors, on-air, asking what they'd just witnessed. From his first briefings, Murray angrily denounced the media (seldom a winning strategy) and blamed union organizers for suggesting that the dangerous practice of "retreat mining" had led to the collapse. He blasted environmentalists for their crusade against global warming, calling it an affront to the coal industry and to the American economy.

Crisis communications experts universally panned Murray's rantings as "callous," "damaging" and "not helpful" to the families of the trapped miners.

Murray also insisted that an earthquake had caused the mine collapse, then doggedly held to that theory despite seismologists' conclusions that the tremors were caused by the collapse.

These would appear to be disastrous mistakes, guaranteeing Murray a shot at The-Worst-PR-Gaffe-of-the-Year-Award. Indeed, the following paints a picture of miner's families who have lost faith in Murray:

After three rescuers were killed in a cave-in, Murray dropped out of sight, leaving a subordinate to conduct briefings. A representative for the miners' families said, "We feel Bob Murray has abandoned us." Without any explanation for his disappearance, one could only assume that he was made to understand that his abrasive style did not fit the increasingly grim mood.

In spite of all this, Murray is noted in at least one blog for his candor and refreshing authenticity.

"Despite [Murray's] occasional moments of near-insanity, I suspect he's better liked by the general public than he would be if he'd gone by the crisis communication book," David Murray (no relation) wrote on his public relations blog, Shades of Gray.

In times of crisis, spokespeople should trust in the redeeming power of being authentic. We empathize with the leader who bravely steps up in a time of peril. We readily forgive an unpolished and even shaky presentation — as long as we feel in our hearts that the spokesperson is being truthful to us, a feeling Bob Murray has not always inspired.

We can recover from mistakes, especially honest ones. But once our credibility comes into question, once our authenticity is compromised, it is a steep uphill-climb to regain the trust of those who experience such a lapse.

PS: I did a web search to find the Murray Energy corporate website. My search string on Google was "Murray Energy Corporation." On the 10th page of search results, I gave up. The first 10 pages were almost ALL links to news stories or blog posts about the Crandall Canyon mine collapse. This reminded me of the story about Dell in my post about Radical Transparency and Authenticity.

Will future generations look back and see this as The Age of Spin?

If they do, I hope they look back from an age when being authentic and credible is the norm, rather than the exception.

On Fri, May. 25, 2007, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, posted a column titled, "Dishonesty is sanitized in a world of spin." The column opens with these paragraphs:

"One hopes there's a little something extra in the pay envelopes this week for whatever flacks represent Jimmy Carter and Clinton Portis. Surely, the spin doctors have earned it.

Take Portis, a Washington Redskins running back, for example. In an interview Saturday, he defended Michael Vick, the Atlanta Falcons quarterback under investigation for dog fights at a home he owns. Portis, 26, said he didn't see what the fuss was. 'I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not. But it's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it.'

Just hours later, Portis issued a statement saying in part he wished to make it clear he does not 'condone dog fighting in any manner.'

Former President Carter, meantime, was asked in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to rate the administrations of Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush. He said, 'I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.'

Carter would hardly be the only person to hold that view, but apparently he had second thoughts about violating the unwritten rule that says one president never speaks ill of another. Days later, he claimed on the Today show that his remarks were 'maybe careless or misinterpreted.' "

It seems that daily, I am reading retracted comments like this in the newspaper. I wonder if these folks (Porter and Carter) really thinks that anyone believes their retractions.

Though I certainly have not lived under the kind of scrutiny these guys have, I wonder how I might deal with such a situation. I like to think that I would stick by my statements, if they truly matched my beliefs or opinions.

These questions come up for me:

• What is driving this dynamic?
• Is it the press, shoving microphones into people's faces - shouting, "President Carter, do you stand by your statement that the Bush administration "has been the worst in history"?
• Can't they see that their credibility takes a hit every time they retract their opinion?
• How far will Political Correctness go?

Perhaps the deepest question of all are:

• How does one remain true to one's self and opinions while remaining open to other viewpoints?
• How does one be willing to admit honest mistakes while remaining credible in the public eye?

All tough questions to wrestle with. More thoughts to follow …

The cover story "The See-Through CEO" for the April 2007 issue of Wired Magazine addresses a new philosophy in business driven largely by blogs and the internet. They call it "Radical Transparency."

The article argues that it is impossible to control the image of your business anymore.

" 'You can't hide anything anymore,' Don Tapscott says. Coauthor of The Naked Corporation, a book about corporate transparency, and Wikinomics, Tapscott is explaining a core truth of the see-through age: If you engage in corporate flimflam, people will find out. He ticks off example after example of corporations that have recently been humiliated after being caught trying to conceal stupid blunders. There's Sony, which put a rootkit - a piece of spyware - on music CDs as a secret copy-protection technique, only to wind up in court when bloggers revealed that the code left their computers vulnerable to hacker intrusions. There's Microsoft, this time on the wrong side of the transparent shower curtain, offering to pay people to buff up the company's Wikipedia entry. And Diebold, which insisted its voting machines were unhackable - until a professor posted a video of himself rigging a mock election on them. The video went viral and racked up some 300,000 YouTube views."

The example they provide that drove this point home very powerfully was this:
"When Shel Israel and blogger Jeff Jarvis wrote about wretched treatment by Dell's customer service, their posts were so gleefully linked to that for a while they appeared as the number one and two search results for 'Dell.' "

I found this article extremely intriguing. This made me think of transparency not only from a corporate standpoint (a company being transparent to build trust with customers, employees and investors) but also on a personal level.

Authenticity is an important element in the work that I do with The Henderson Group - leading workshops and coaching clients on their communication and presentation skills. This idea of transparency is strongly connected in my view. If you have developed superb communication technique but are not being fully authentic, your co-workers and audiences will sense that there is something amiss.

Transparency on a personal level translates to being vulnerable and up-front. It means revealing personal details and quirks. Trying to hide them suggests that you are concerned that people will discover your true self. That invariably comes across as lacking in confidence.

In our workshops we address the dynamic of "explaining" when receiving feedback. When we try to show that our intentions are perfect and there were understandable reasons for the reason that our performance was not perfect, we come across as defensive and lacking confidence.

Truly confident people (who know themselves and are willing to be seen as vulnerable and imperfect) project a rock-solid belief in themselves: "Yes, I made a mistake in this case but I still believe in myself."

It also means being proactive in pointing out our mistakes. I remember vividly early in my management career the lesson I learned about fessing up when I'd made a mistake.

If I did not report that mistake to my boss, ESPECIALLY if I tried to cover it up, he would be on me like white on rice. (Does the phrase "reamed" have special meaning for any of you, too?) If I went to him and said, "I've screwed up" and explained the problem, invariably he was very understanding and compassionate.

David Henderson, my dearly-departed former mentor and co-founder of THG, used to tell me, "Tell your first truth first." By that David meant that in moments of fear and confusion to turn inward and examine deeply what is most truthful for one's self.

A client recently asked me about giving feedback to her teenage children. She confided that they were often resistant to feedback. (Really?!?! Teenagers resistant to feedback from parents?!?! Alert the media!) I spoke about the idea of authenticity and framing her feedback as a positive statement. I asked her, "What is your core message? What is most important to you?" She thought for a moment and her voice dropped into a deeper register with her eyes welling up. She replied, "I want them to understand that I am setting limits because I care about them." I suggested that she make certain she said that when she speaks to her kids. "If they see that deep sincerity, they will get it. They may still resist but they'll understand and be more likely to comply."

Finally, the willingness to laugh at one's own foibles is a liberating way to demonstrate transparency. When I was younger (and much stupider) I used to spend inordinate amounts of energy focused on being "right." It was more important to me to be respected than liked, I have since learned (largely due to this work) is that vulnerability, transparency, warmth, good-humor and empathy are FAR more important.

One of my favorite writers, Frank Herbert (author of Dune, the world's best-selling science fiction novel) said something like, "A person who has the ability to laugh at one's self has taken a step toward the highest level of civilization."

The willingness to be up-front, vulnerable, show one's warts can go a long way in being authentic and building trust.