The Myth of the "Strategic Communicator" Part I

This is the first of a series of posts, based on an article that first appeared in the Journal of Employee Communications Management.

****

It’s the Holy Grail, the career pinnacle, the place where we are all supposed to want to be: sitting proudly, confidently (and perhaps with just a slight smirk of self-satisfaction) at the so-called strategic table. That’s the place in any big organization where the real decisions are made, the long-term direction is set, the moment-by-moment tactics are hashed out in the heat of crisis. A place that smells of leather and cigar smoke with a panoramic view, where food comes out on shiny trolleys just when you’re feeling peckish, and the coffee pot is always full.
    And it’s a table on which, in nine out of 10 businesses, non-profits, associations or government departments, there is no seat for a communicator. Not even a place setting. Not even a friggin’ kids table in the next room.
    For years and years I have joined my fellow communicators in bemoaning this fact, and I have sat in keynote conference sessions listening to respected senior communicators give inspiring motivational speeches telling us how we can earn those executive washroom keys.
    It’s hard work, we’re told, but the path is clear: What we have to do is make sure everything we do is aligned with the goals of our organization. We need to prove that our work has a measurable impact on the bottom line. We must build detailed plans, and pitch those plans to executives using the language of business. And then we must execute those plans with the precision of a CFO, the crazed energy of a sharp-toothed operations executive, and all the bullheaded stick-to-it-iveness of a marketing VP. In other words, if we act like business people, we will be treated like business people.
    If we don’t, the party line goes, we will all be relegated to mere “tacticians”----lowly “order-takers” who get the sausage factory jobs of communicating the latest changes to the pension plan, how we’re working together to make a safer workplace, and how management is “operationalizing” its long term strategic vision to the benefit of all stakeholders. And other forms of finely pureed B.S.
    Interesting. My spell checker puts a red line under operationalizing, and Microsoft suggests I replace it with “operational zing.” Zing indeed. Like white-shirted, laptop-wielding cheerleaders, we non-strategic types are expected to put some well-choreographed zing into our sad sack workforce with saccharine, controversy-free prose that warms executives’ cold hearts and prompts violent eye-rolling among everyone else.
    Well, I’m here today to tell you that I’ve been a temporary dinner guest at that strategic table more than a few times in my long and sordid career. And I’m ready to share a little secret: most of the time the guests are insane and the food is undercooked, overcooked, rotten or poisoned. Very few decisions actually ever get made. Long-term direction is often nothing more than the path of least resistance, or whatever your cranky investors are insisting you do next. And battle tactics are devised in a very deep, cushy bunker in which the primary goal is not victory, but self-preservation.    
Want to have the ear of your CEO? Fat chance. So few chief executives actually listen to anyone, let alone a lowly communicator, that you might as well just forget it.
    Want to be seen as a “go-getter” and turbo-charge your flagging career? All you have to do is commit philosophical suicide, throw away your values and submit to the Tyranny of the Positive – that weird weather system that moved into the corporate world about 20 years ago in which there are no problems (just challenges) no stupid situations (just opportunities for positive change), and no bad decisions (just difficult situations that occurred because of “unanticipated market conditions”).
    The simple fact that the strategic table, as it is postulated by our profession, is not the right place for us, and we should not aspire to sit at it. We just don’t belong there.
    Communicators, after all, have many qualities that do not suit them to an executive role. We are compassionate. We are sensitive to the needs of others and we can almost always see an argument from both sides. We are drawn to conflict and crisis, not because we need to breath the fresh air of victory, but because we are compelled to fight for peace, reconciliation, renewal, and hope. In the world of big organizations, we are the closest thing there is to a shaman or witchdoctor, a mystic who heals with spells, metaphors and symbolic actions. Or, to put it in more modern and mundane terms, we are corporate social workers who gently intervene in the family battle and say things that help everyone make nice with each other.
    If that’s how we’re wired, then why in heaven’s name should we want to behave like executives … or like business people?
    I heard recently that some academics are studying how the characteristics of textbook psychopaths are ideally suited to the role of today’s CEO--a lack of conscience, an extremely high opinion of oneself verging on narcissism, an ability to manipulate any situation in one’s favor, a wildly attractive combination of charisma and cruelty that inspires unquestioning devotion as well as blind, fearful servitude. And the potential to inflict severe and lasting damage on organizations and the people who inhabit them.
    Don’t get me wrong. Not all CEOs are psychopaths. Some are great engineers who progressed up the ladder until they finally got a job they aren’t suited to. Others are business geniuses who are just kind of retarded when it comes to dealing with people. And still others are nice, well-intentioned, smart, ambitious folks who get caught up in the trappings of executive power and lose their ability to communicate effectively with anyone but their fellow executives. The common thread is today’s executives live in a world that is very far away from the working stiff. A world where it makes a big difference whether you earn two million or four million a year, and where profile, prestige and power are the drugs of choice.

"THE MYTH OF THE 'STRATEGIC COMMUNICATOR" CONTINUES IN THE NEXT POST.

Comments

[Zizou]

Its all about the content, and its ideenntd audience / purpose. I was debating this very issue with a friend yesterday who had family overseas and they created a Blog so people could track them on the journey. Yet here I have a Blog for recording and sharing information uncovered when assisting / consulting to organisations in my field of expertise.In this blog the reader will not have to wade through postings about hobbies, family and friends to find what they are looking for. Nor do I want my family and friends wading through postings about work related topics on my personal blog or facebook account when attempting to organise social activities.LinkedIn is more business and networking, Twitter and Yammer are public/in-house micro blogs that act as a real time notification of whats happening right now, and do a mighty fine job of getting people to improve their writing styles to be more precise, topical and timely.(Note: If your also asking if WordPress was chosen over other Blogging systems for a reason, then the answer is no. We used wordpress only because we know it and feel comfortable with it, but other Blogging tools are just as effective).Hope this helps ..

[Ramkarn]

I loved sociology from the first soc class I took in cleolge. The discipline never appeared to be the path I needed to take for my chosen vocations. That changed when I became an interim pastor 10 years ago. I had an excuse for lifting up sociological perspectives on congregational life and I wasn't going to get fired for it. I've long been a proponent for the relationship between the social sciences and ministry and though there are still many detractors, at least the conversation is growing. Thank you for continuing the conversation.

[Ron Shewchuk]

Dave: In the end it does boil down to sustainability, and doing things purely for profit is simply not sustainable in this day and age. By sticking to our values we can inject some humanity and accountability into the system.

David: Good times indeed. I don't know how many CEOs I've dealt with who complain about news coverage that's essentially accurate, and are surprised when the reporter doesn't just repeat whatever positive messages that were contained in the news release. But we forge on, and over time I think it is possible to educate executives on how the media works, and how to work with the media.

Jim: One of the most important roles of an internal communicator is to serve as the conscience of the organization, and to speak for people who otherwise wouldn't have a voice. It's easy to feel you're not making an impact, but over time, I think you do.

[jim haynes]

Gad, what a bullseye shot! Been there. Psychopaths for sure. But we sensitive communications types also seem to harbor the 'do the right thing' compulsion. Just before that 20-year-old sea change to bullshit corp p.c. rationalizing of action via language, a great PR leader posed that we were the "conscience" of the org. Maybe overblown, but helped us keep pitching the "right thing." And the rape by CEO's took off anyway...but I hope we at least slowed down the de-volution of corp honesty.

[David Jones]

Brilliant post. I couldn't agree more. I've found myself at odds with the big boss on a number of occasions. They usually want to spread some nasty stuff about their competitors to make them look bad, but don't want any of it sticking to them or their company. Or sometimes you have to explain that a reporter who writes something absolutely true about the company that the CEO doesn't like is just doing his job and reporting the truth.

And they look at you like your some sort of idiot for casting doubt on their "strategies." Good times!

[Dave Traynor]

You've hit on some key points here Ron. I've also sat at the corporate table that we're all so eager to join and the experience was not all it's cracked up to be. I still think there is a need for communicators to understand the executive level and be prepared to demonstrate our value in a way that the other parts of the business can relate to (like effective measurement results). But I agree that there are some fundamental differences between most communicators and other members of the executive suite.

As you mention, however, today's executive requirements are driven by demands that companies deliver shareholder value, which means improved bottom-line performance. Over time, I don't think this emphasis on profit at all costs is sustainable and there will be a redefinition of what corporate responsibility truly means. I hope that the values that communicators hold (as you so clearly spelled out) become much more closely "aligned" with the strategic objectives of business.

I'm looking forward to the next post on this topic.