Political "Reality"

This is the paper I mentioned - social constructionism and politics. Obviously, I had to try to present the argument in a neutral manner, which was tough in light of Conservapedia.

The political atmosphere today makes it easy to seem as if Republicans and Democrats are living in entirely different worlds, with entirely different realities. Rational debate is difficult, as each side believes its value set is accurate and morally correct. The dichotomy between the two viewpoints is hard to understand - how can two groups of people, looking at the same facts, have such wildly varying conclusions?

In 1966, Peter Berger introduced the concept of the “social construction of reality” in his book of the same name, positing that the social world is the ongoing creation of humans and the language we use. Reality is modified, reified, and institutionalized over time, leading to the creation of what we consider “fact”. Individuals seek to associate with the reality that most closely resembles his or her internal beliefs, thereby reducing cognitive dissonance. Organizations serve to reinforce this reality and associated beliefs. By examining the political debate in this light, we can better understand the existing polarity.

“Things are that as which they are named” (Berger and Pullberg, 1965, p. 203). While we tend to look at word definitions as concrete facts, Berger would argue that language and meaning are part of the social process. We assign meaning to words based on our construct of reality and our associated values. One of the most fascinating aspects of the political conversation is that that certain words seem to have different (and loaded) meanings to different parties. If we look at the word “liberal” across three websites - Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, and Conservapedia - we can see the wide variance in definition.

Dictionary.com offers no political commentary, simply definitions pulled from Merriam-Webster dictionary and assorted anthologies. The site defines the word “liberal” as “favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs; favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. protection of civil liberties; favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief”. To me, a self-proclaimed liberal, this seems to be a reasonable and unbiased definition. Wikipedia uses a similar definition on its user-generated encyclopedia, describing “modern liberalism” as a combination of “social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy”, and lists causes such as voting rights, freedom of choice for women, and “government entitlements such as education and health care” as examples of liberal policies. Again, to me, this definition seems neutral and unbiased, as Wikipedia is theoretically a neutral aggregation of facts.

However, to many conservatives, Wikipedia demonstrates a strong liberal bias and distorts the facts accordingly. Conservapedia states that its purpose is to “convey knowledge free of liberal bias”. It does not embrace a conservative bias (anymore than Wikipedia claims a liberal bias); instead, it attempts to present just the facts. According to the site, a liberal is “someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing”. Obviously, this is a very different definition than the two previous sites, with a much more pejorative slant. As a liberal, I find this definition offensive, but many conservatives see this as the unvarnished truth - this is their reality.

It would be easy to claim that one site is “real” and the other “fake” (according to the reader’s personal views), but a social constructionist viewpoint rejects that option. Individuals and organizations create meaning based on their reality and interpretation of events, even if that constructed reality is repugnant to others. If we accept that reality is fluid, must we then accept all versions as valid? Perhaps or perhaps not. However, as a society, we should be aware of the power of groupthink and the danger of institutionalized views based on factually incorrect information.

Grad School

So it's been a while since I've published anything. I've been in school and volunteering at the Humane Society, which is fabulous.

School is interesting. I LOVE the reading. I really, really do. And I adore the professors. I'm conflicted about writing anything else. I tend to be very academically focused, which is a luxury - I don't have to work right now. It's hard to judge anyone else for getting their masters for fiscal reasons only. Also, I'm freaky anti-social - I'd be happy doing all independent studies and never going to class.

So how to reconcile varying points of view? I don't know. I love theory and am delighted to geek out with abstract discussion. However, this isn't realistic for the majority of students.

Should I move to a PhD program? Should I accept the fact that my borderline Asperger's tendencies just need to be managed and that I have to behave?

Again, let me restate that I LOVE the professors and the reading. I love being in class and I love learning. I'm just trying to find the correct program for me.

Banking Analysis

Looking back on my time in the banking industry, I can identify multiple cases of retroactive sensemaking, cognitive dissonance and the subsequent attempts to reduce equivocality, and systems theory gone awry. The industry is currently in serious flux, and I believe that much of the current instability is due to poor sensemaking and blame. I looked at three examples in the brokerage business: the compensation structure, management efforts to create structure, and the dilemma of bank brokers. These failed examples demonstrate the power of sensemaking, and the damage it can create if used poorly.

Cognitive Dissonance

The complex nature of banking pay rewards short-term productivity, rather than long-term corporate success. In order to justify their high pay, the bankers must feel as if they are contributing to the success of the company - even if their bonuses require pumping up short-term (and sometimes artificial profits). This gap creates cognitive dissonance, in which they render the outcome sensible by creating a good story to explain it. In the brokerage business, the distinction between annuitized, fee-based compensation and short-term commissions creates a sense of disconnect between the brokers and the clients.

Brokers are encouraged to develop long-term relationships with clients, always working in the client’s best interest and not making recommendations based on potential fees. Transactional business is strongly discouraged in this client model. In this type of relationship, it can take years before a broker is actually paid for his or her work. Meanwhile, managers demand monthly targets. It is entirely impossible for a broker to meet these monthly targets without doing some transactional (read: high commission) work. These dueling messages - make money each month, don’t make decisions based on money - create an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance in brokers. In order to resolve this, many convince themselves that transactional business is in the client’s best interest. And if it magically happens to be in the client’s best interest on the last day of the month, well, then that’s just coincidence. They create a reasonable (albeit often false) story to reduce this tension between their choices.

Systems vs. Chaos Theory

Brokers are an odd bunch, highly independent and authority-averse. Many entered the business because of its slightly chaotic, minimal management structure. They liked the idea of not having a boss and operating on a strictly commission basis. However, as the industry matured, brokerage firms began to create more structure in the form of meetings and layers of managers. I initially worked in an office that was very loosely coupled, with a hands-off manager and very little requirements. People did their work on their time with no interference, demonstrating Margaret Wheatley’s theory that order is a naturally occurring phenomenon. As she stated in 1994, “if people have access to one another and to information, they create the order they need to get the work done.” Unfortunately, as banking and brokerage merged, Wachovia decided to impose a more classic structure, which led to an enormous drop in morale. The firm brought in two managers with military backgrounds, who immediately demanded daily meeting attendance and strict work hours. They looked at the flexibility in the current system and saw nothing but chaos and a lack of control.

Unsurprisingly, the new artificial order lowered productivity. The new managers were too focused on planning, rather than letting the brokers organize themselves. This classical management style was entirely at odds with the employees sensibility, leading to rebellion. Their strict adherence to their plans was at odds with the essential equifinality of the situation. The new managers’ alterations to the work structure could be considered second order changes; however, in this case, the deviation-amplifying feedback created a negative effect on the office.

Retroactive Sensemaking

One of the biggest issues facing the combined bank/brokerage was the existence of bank brokers, located in individual branches. These brokers had similar, but less extensive licensing, plus the ability to gain new clients simply by asking a teller for a referral. In the brokerage offices, we were unable to see any account balances on the banking side. This was a huge disadvantage, as we could not identify clients with large cash balances or CDs about to come due. The Chinese Wall was alive and well on the brokerage side - in fact, we couldn’t even see which Wachovia Securities client was also a Wachovia bank client. The bank brokers had an entirely different situation. Not only could they see bank balances, but they could also see the brokerage balances of bank customers. While they weren’t supposed to discuss brokerage business with Wachovia Securities clients, the reality was that they used this knowledge to solicit our clients.

Clearly, this was an issue. Bank brokers were poaching our clients at an alarming rate, with absolutely no consequences. Clients were confused, brokers were angry, and the press was salivating over the disorganization. Yet Wachovia continued to insist that it was an excellent situation - despite all evidence to the contrary. Why? The bank had made a decision to merge the two sides of the business without much thought to the working details. Admitting that it was a failure would be unthinkable. Instead, they used retroactive sensemaking to create a story explaining the issue. The firm convinced itself that this split between the bank brokers and ‘regular’ brokers was intentional and a positive outcome, stating they wanted clients to have options. Accordingly, they looked at any disputes as individual problems, refusing to see the pattern because it went against their story.

Conclusion

We all know what has happened to the banking industry on a nation-wide level, but I think it’s important to note the changes that happened on a local level. Managers who talked out of both sides of their mouths, firms that refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and the convergence of banking management with brokerage management all contributed on a micro-level. Personally, it led me to leave Wachovia for Merrill Lynch, and then to leave the industry as a whole. Sensemaking is a powerful tool that can be used in a very harmful way to reduce dissonance, even when that dissonance should be a warning.

Thoughts?

I just hate the idea of dropping another grad program (even though the business school drop out wasn't by choice), but I'm just so hesitant about this one. Theoretically, it should be right up my alley, but I'm not loving it so far. Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe I'm just overthinking it. Maybe it really isn't the right program for me. But if it isn't, then what is?? Anyone ever been through the same thing?

Paper #3

Based upon your supplemental readings and your past experience, identify the major themes in the historical development of the field of strategic communication. In other words, why does the field of strategic communication exist?

If we define strategic communication as communication designed to purposefully advance a specific mission, then organizations, corporations, and individuals have always communicated strategically. However, academic study and exploration of the field have been relatively recent. Theoretical focus has instead been on narrower uses of communication within an organization, such as advertising, public relations, and marketing.

By analyzing the roots of these traditional fields, we can better understand the development and uses of strategic communications. Based on our readings, I believe the rise of strategic communications as a defined field is based on three main trends.

Technology

Technology has progressed so fast and so far in the past two decades that the communications field has been entirely restructured. These advances have made it difficult to define communication channels and tasks by traditional titles - advertising, marketing, public relations. Communicating organizational goals to an increasingly fragmented media requires a broader study of communications, based on the end goal of the corporation rather than individual departments. Messages - no matter the channel - must be deliberate, focused, and coordinated. However, the increasing speed of these media channels means that real-time responses are required. In order to coordinate the speed and size of information, communications must be managed on a holistic and strategic level.

Sophisticated consumers

In today’s market, increased importance is placed on transparency, interactivity, and the customer experience, rather than one-way information transmittal. Customers demand a relationship with organizations, which is by nature more communication-intensive. This requires that management takes a more central role in developing communications to ensure consistency and high level strategic content. Managers can no longer delegate a one-off press release to a lower level employee and be done with it, nor can they rely on hyperbole and advertising to get their point across. Instead, they must actively manage a high level communications strategy based on honesty and openness. Sophisticated media consumers demand truth, and corporate reputations are increasingly based on this type of consumer goodwill.

The public audience/consumer market is also increasingly segmented, specialized, and global. A high level of expertise is required to adequately address the needs of these audiences, and strategic coordination is essential.

While this trend seems to be more prevalent in today’s technological market, it actually began in the 1920s as journalists exposed the hidden workings of many industries. This era saw the emergence of the first public relations experts, including Arthur W. Page, who stated that management must thoughtfully analyze its overall relation to the public in order to engender public goodwill. Despite economic and business changes, this statement holds true today as consumers continue to hold high expectations of organizations.

Large Corporations

As organizations grow, they tend to become more standardized, but often only within individual departments and functions. Communication between departments becomes difficult as organization charts become more complex, and organizational communications can suffer as a result. Because of this fragmentation, there has been a push to integrate interdepartmental communications at a more holistic strategic level.

Experts have suggested a number of structural changes to alleviate this tension, with the essential goal of making communications a function in and of itself, and not a division of other functions.

By allowing communications professionals to operate in different functional units, but under a centralized strategic command, allows even the largest organizations to standardize its message. However, the potential disadvantage of a centralized communications department is the loss of specific functional knowledge, which can be particularly important in a corporate setting. For example, technical communications must be done with an in-depth knowledge of the product/technology, not simply by a communications expert. This challenge of balancing product knowledge with communications expertise is an increasingly important area in the strategic communication field.

Conclusion

It’s particularly interesting to analyze the roots of strategic communications - the field of study is relatively young, yet the practice is as old as communication itself. It’s my belief that these three areas of discussion (technology, sophisticated consumers, and corporation size) give us a starting point for the analysis. However, the true roots of the field will most likely not be identified until many years later, when the field has better established itself and we can track trends over time.

Paper #2

In response to the technological shift of the Internet, an organization's identity may differ in a physical space (in real life - IRL) from its online identity. What implications does this difference have for strategic communication?

And second, strategic communicators should play a strong role in leading online communication. How would you advise an organization trying to strike a balance between the benefits of online communication and the hindrances provided in online communication?

One of the major issues facing organizations today is how to communicate their strategic mission in a consistent manner across a variety of channels. There are a number of organizations whose identities are highly linked to their brink-and-mortar presences, while others are more flexible and translate easily to the online world. Others are simply reluctant to create and develop an online identity for fear of losing control.

Traditional retail stores may have made the easiest transition, as most are able to present a consistent message in both mediums. In fact, many successful retailers have promoted both outlets through special offers that differ between the channels.

For example, I received a JCrew catalog in the mail today and really liked a pretty ring on one of the models. I looked for pricing and details in the catalog, but was directed to the website instead. Apparently, some colors are only available online and some in the stores. In this way, the company promotes consistency of message (cute rings!) across several channels. The company’s variety of options is not accidental; instead, they clearly have a sophisticated understanding of consumer needs and corresponding communication solutions. We don’t normally think of a clothing store as being a strategic communicator, but I believe these companies are at the forefront.

One of the major reasons that retailers have succeeded online is due to their ability to track their communications via subsequent transactions. Other industries do not necessarily have this ability, since they are not promoting online sales. On the contrary, most organizations with an online presence are promoting their strategic message and building relationships with the consumer market - by nature, a significantly harder goal to accomplish than selling a specific ring.

These organizations might be tempted to dedicate scant resources towards their online identity, thinking it’s only a secondary part of their overall image. However, this would be a mistake. An online presence has become a necessary part of a corporation’s strategic communications, even if it’s somewhat static. Again, a corporation must include this media as yet another channel under the strategy umbrella - for the simple reason that consumers expect this presence. Secondarily, an online presence provides a corporation with the ability to react in real-time to any crisis or strategic changes.

Other organizations are hesitant to enter the online world for a number of reasons, primarily fear. Many organizations are unwilling to find out what their consumers are saying about them. These companies see the web as separate from the real world, and consequently dismiss any negative online comments as “disgruntled, pajama-wearing bloggers”. What these companies don’t realize is that online discussions mirror discussions in the real world, and by dismissing them, they are missing out on a valuable window into their consumers.

So what’s a company to do? In my opinion, they should look at their web-based presence as simply another channel for their strategic message - not as something novel or cutting-edge. By considering their online presence as nothing more than an extension of its real-world presence, an organization is able to better translate their existing communications without getting caught up in semantics and trepidation.

Strategic Communications

Hey guys - a bunch of people have asked about my new grad program. Here are a couple of short papers I wrote for class tonight. I'm still on the fence about the program - it seems so "mushy", so qualitative. Maybe I'm just used to a more concrete business approach? Maybe I'm just not suited for this program? I'm just a little disappointed so far, which could very well be a product of too high expectations. Anyway, this is some of the stuff we're discussing.

And to follow-up, let's get personal: Based on your experience tonight, what do you see as the major issues for communicating online (vs. having us together in class)? How can these issues be resolved through a more "strategic" communication?

Personally, this is a definitively more difficult way to analyze the material. I thrive on in-person discussions, as they are (by nature) real-time and constantly changing. However, I also realize that speaking up in class is difficult for some. Class discussions are always going to feature the opinions of a few outspoken individuals, and miss out on the contributions of others.

Meeting in person provides the following benefits:

- In-person communications allow for the analysis of non-verbal communication

• Participants are forced to defend their opinions on the spot, leading to innovative responses
• Online energy is much more passive and disconnected
• Real-time correction from the professor allows for more focused discussion

Online communications have the following benefits:

- Equal opportunity opinion sharing

- In-depth analysis of ideas

- Distancing of opinions from personalities, allowing for more objective responses

- Presentation of evidence supporting points

- Pajama wearing (no, seriously - I suppose this makes people more comfortable and more willing to contribute)

I suppose this comes down to personal preference, as neither method offers a clear-cut objective victory. Again, I prefer the Socratic method of learning, which by nature requires an active discussion leader. Perhaps I’m demonstrating a bias towards authority, but I believe a professor is an essential part of any theoretical discussion. If we, as graduate students, had all the correct answers, then we wouldn’t be in this course.

The question remains - how do we communicate effectively in an online learning environment? I have to imagine that this type of learning environment will only become more prevalent as social mores regarding online media change. How do we keep the discussion from treating incorrect answers with equal importance as more correct interpretations? Perhaps, instead of essays, the participation in an online chat or forum would allow for a more guided - yet still democratic - approach to online class. This would certainly be more in line with the goals of strategic communication. We would be advancing our mission (education) in a holistic and guided manner, while maintaining a consistent message through professorial supervision.