Jackson Nickerson, on what the elections can teach us about corporate communications
Jackson Nickerson is a professor of organization and strategy at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, director of the Brookings Executive Education program and a nonresident senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. His new book, “Leading Change in a Web 2.1 World,” describes a set of guidelines and processes that leaders can use to build trust, create understanding, and accelerate organizational change. I spoke with Nickerson about what corporate leaders could learn from yesterday’s results. An edited transcript of that conversation follows.
What differences did you notice in the way the Obama team handled its communication strategy, before and after the presidential election?
The Obama team appears to have changed its communication strategy after taking office. While there were many aspects to Candidate Obama’s communication strategy, I was intrigued with his use of web-based videos to engage America in a conversation. Brief and focused, these weekly communications created a conversation that helped the electorate understand and to some degree formulate our nation’s most pressing challenges. The Internet also enabled feedback, which is a necessary part of a good conversation.
The practice of engaging in a community-wide conversation greatly diminished after the election. Health care offers a good example. Complaints voiced through the media indicate that citizens did not understand the full range of problems health care legislation was attempting to address. The lack of understanding in our national conversation opened the door to negative rumors and attacks that cumulatively may have had a profound effect on the outcome of this fall’s elections. If people don’t understand in detail what problem is being solved, how can they accurately assess their interest in it and support the solution?
What do you think corporate leaders can learn from that example?
Before implementing any substantial organization change or even suggesting a solution, leaders can benefit from focusing on formulating a challenge with their community. Only if the challenge is fully formulated and understood by a community can the change be accelerated. If you don’t, lack of trust, resistance to change, negative rumors and strategic misrepresentations can and do easily arise. This will undermine – if not kill — change. The key to building trust and creating understanding is to engage the community in a conversation about the challenge and to collectively formulate the problem before attempting to solve it. While such an approach can initially take alot of time, engaging in a conversation ultimately can speed developing a good solution and accelerate its implementation.
Video has long been a staple of political campaigns. What advice do you have for CEOs who would like to tap its power to drive change initiatives in their organizations?
Leaders need to find ways to engage in a conversation with their entire community all at once if they want to build trust and create understanding. Otherwise, the rumor mill will be one step behind the leader and undermine her or his communications. Short, focused “ChangeCasts” with the leader authentically communicating with the community and the enabling anonymous feedback through simple information technology — as Candidate Obama did — is the foundation of a process that can engage an entire community.
These ChangeCasts can reach all community members practically at once. Web-enabled anonymous feedback provides a necessary voice that can close the circle to create a conversation. Remember, however, that not all video is created equally. Like all good conversations, demonstrating that you listened is as important as what you say. Brief videos framed appropriately ensures that the videos create conversation.
For instance, I do wonder what this fall’s election outcome would have been if President Obama had stuck with the communication strategy of Candidate Obama for leading change?
Readers, what do you think?
Image credit, matthiashaas, via iStock
Posted by JSB on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:36 am
It's rather challenging to sell an intelligent person a sow's ear while calling it a silk purse. I suppose it is beyond the sphere of reason to suggest that it is not the communication strategy problems that is sinking this administration, but the raw content of its policies. The veil has been lifted, the huddled masses really don't like what they can now see, and last night was the proof.
Posted by James on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:40 am
Communication is almost always assigned as the root cause for failures – to the point that it has almost become a copout. I'll concede that at many times it is at least a strong contributor.
When Mr. Nickerson says that "there was a lack of understanding in our national conversation…" – how can there not be? When laws like the health care bill are not read by our lawmakers, who is going to inform the public? That's a communication breakdown, alright. – not because the channels of communication were not open or appropriate, but because there is no information at the source. (to be continued..)
Posted by James on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 am
(continued)
To that degree I can assign "communication" as a part of the problem. But, did anyone think that maybe the communication was fine and that nobody liked the message?
Communication tools and techniques are enablers. Leaders, however, have to have a vision and the ability to execute toward that vision. Obama, through crafty communication tactics like those mentioned by Mr. Nickerson, convinced enough Americans to think that his vision was right for America. It wasn't long before the vision was clearly seen as not where the people wanted to go.
At the root of this debacle is content, not communication.
Posted by Guest on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 am
It wouldn't have changed a single thing. The electorate clearly voiced its opinion that it was his policies and his actions in office, not his lack of communication, that were the issues here.
Posted by David Himes on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:42 am
communication strategy can only make a difference at the margins. Obama's fundamental message has been rejected, to a large degree. changing the communication strategy cannot overcome this degree of rejection.
If it was 51-49 against Obama, strategy could make a difference. But in reality, it was more like 70-30 against Obama. Strategy is only a small part of the solution. He needs a substantive message change.
Posted by Guest No 2 on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:45 am
If change is supplying the Speaker of the House with a private military jet to fly home on the weekends – at my expense – it is not a good change. No amount of communication makes that acceptable.
Posted by Cuyle on November 3rd, 2010 at 3:06 am
Politics aside, Dr. Nickerson's point is well-taken. Anytime government proposes a change (or business proposes a product or solution), do not underestimate the need for open and transparent public engagement. It is one thing to debate facts in the public arena; it is another to debate rumor or interpretation. The age-old rule applies – always be the first and most reliable source of information. Lay all of the cards on table (let's see government or corporate America do that) and duke it out in the court of public opinion.
Posted by Nelson Cook on November 3rd, 2010 at 3:08 am
Here we go again with another left leaning media member making excuses for the president and his team.
Bottom line is that the American people were asleep during the last presidential election. This is what we got for that dozing at the lever of the voting booth. As mentioned previous to my comment, it is not the communication that is boing rejected, it is the message.
Posted by Harvey Armstrong on November 3rd, 2010 at 3:21 am
You are implying that the American people may have wanted what Obama is selling if he had communicated it better. I think you may be missing the point. The American people learned quite well what Obama is selling during the last two years and don't want it.
Posted by Mark W on November 3rd, 2010 at 3:23 am
It was not a failure to communicate. It was a failure to manipulate. I think people understood the message. But, they couldn't be "talked in to" agreeing with the message.
Every time someone says "failure to communicate", I hear "the people were not smart enough to recognize that our way of thinking is correct" . In the end, I think most folks are simply insulted by "failure to communicate". If the new message is there was a "failure to communicate" there will be simply more failure to communicate.
Posted by maryslayter on November 3rd, 2010 at 3:47 am
Whether you agree with Obama's policies or not, I think Nickerson's observation about the actual change in communication strategy is worthy of any business leader's attention. Technology (social media, web video, etc.) can be very effective in promoting change, but you have to stick with it.
Posted by Mario Gomes on November 3rd, 2010 at 4:01 am
Right on the spot!
Posted by Dan on November 3rd, 2010 at 4:11 am
The concept Nickerson is addressing has to do with what business can learn from this election in terms of White House communications. Obama was remarkably effective as a campaigner and has never equaled that in office. People disagree about his policies but his gentlemanly style of leadership does not carry the day in the Roman Circus that American politics have become. Much of the health care bill reflects Republican thinking and Sen. Baucus' futile attempt to get Republicans to vote for it. It had wide support in the business community. Yet it was demagogued and many voters never understood it as the product of compromise. This was a communications failure by the Obama administration.
Posted by Tweets that mention Jackson Nickerson, on what the elections can teach us about corporate communications | SmartBlog on Workforce -- Topsy.com on November 3rd, 2010 at 5:16 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SBWorkforce, SmartBrief Finance. SmartBrief Finance said: RT @sbworkforce: Jackson Nickerson, on what the #elections can teach us about corporate communications http://t.co/HWX1fXb [...]
Posted by Jim on November 3rd, 2010 at 6:01 am
Well we have hijacked a thoughtful blog post and turned it into a political commentary. Anger is such a powerful and useless emotion.
Posted by Hank Wasiak on November 3rd, 2010 at 6:30 am
Not sure I agree that the issue was communication about change. The issue seems more about some failing to grasp the basics of marketing communications in two ways. First, the President was highly effective in engaging people emotionally in the hope and change he so eloquently promised. Then he did not deliver on the promises especially on being a listener, bringing power back to the people and a unifier at the center. Just the opposite happened. Pre-purchase expectations were high, initial purchase/consumption was strong and post purchase satisfaction fell off a cliff. A truism in marketing played out here. "Great marketing makes a poor product worse"
H
Posted by sicoviews on November 3rd, 2010 at 6:39 am
To quote the 2008 national Democratic campaign: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig." Communication had nothing to do with yesterday's defeat. Americans rejected the policy. The sooner the White House understands that, the better off they will be. Chris Christie in 2012. <a href="http://www.draftchristie2012.com” target=”_blank”>www.draftchristie2012.com
Posted by Guest on November 3rd, 2010 at 7:05 am
Sustainability requires authenticity and a deep passion to serve. Both authenticity and passion are missing. Social media is simply a means – not an elixir to create authenticity or passion.
Posted by Bob Radder on November 3rd, 2010 at 7:29 am
I feel this is a weak rationalization of both recent results, the electorates understanding of the issues, and an understanding what the adminstration has been doing. I do not feel the issue here was a technologocal issue of how communication was accomplished but more of the message being commnicated.
When Obama was running he was selling his idea of change…..once elected the message from Obama and others in the administarion changed to "this is what "we" are going to do regardless of what you think or feel about it and never mind the details." No matter what methodology is used this style of leaderdship fails in politics or business. Arrogance cannot win an argument or convice others to follow.
Posted by Chris on November 3rd, 2010 at 8:52 am
What a bunch of spin! Does the Nickerson work for the White House? Most people I've spoken with understood more of what was in Obamacare than the President and Congress combined. They kept trying to put lipstick on a pig, e.g. Pelosi saying "we'll pass the bill and then see what's in it." The message, regardless of the means of communication, was hollow and it was clear to most people that it was intended to cover up what was truly in the bill. When anyone with a different view spoke up he/she was called an obstructionist. (Witness the public meeting with the Republicans where they where lectured.) It's not very effective communication to call others names.
So, the lesson for corproate leaders is listen to your consituents, engage them in the problem identification and solution, respect their views, be transparent, and communicate in a way that creates a dialog that matters. None of this was done in the development and passage of Obamacare, or the stimulus, the bailout of the auto companies, etc.
Posted by Tom O'Brien on November 3rd, 2010 at 9:58 am
The American electorate is diverse. Some understood the policies at stake — any policies — but most don't anymore than they can tell you off the top of their heads what post-WWII administration balanced 4 budgets or had highest marginal tax rate. The health care bill is complicated. People are both afraid of change and also hope something better can be enacted. Complexity and major change in the same thing means that people fears can be easily manipulated. Prof Nickerson is right: If you are going to attempt to bring change, you should try to get as much buy-in as possible first and you should look for communication vehicles to help you do it effectively and affectingly. I would add that you should also play devil's advocate and brainstorm all the horrible things that can be said about the change you propose. Keeping it simple and getting out in front of negative talk may mean the difference between life and death for your plan. Thanks for the piece.
Posted by Chi-town Johnny on November 3rd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Not sure what facts you have to support that it had wide support in the Business community. It did not.
It has, however, had the impact of raising costs and/or reducing benefits provided to employees.
Posted by Scott Asai on November 3rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
He created hope with hype, but now we're realizing it was all smoke…
Posted by Darin on November 3rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Anger can be very useful. It can motivate, stir determination, and identify problems. There are valid reasons to get angry. Dismissing anger out of hand is dangerous.
Posted by Darin on November 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Many interesting thoughts here, but I think Nickerson misses an obvious flaw in Obama's communication post election. During the campaign, Obama spoke in generalities. He offered platitudes on hope and change without saying what changes he would bring. Post election, he began to reveal his idea of change and those ideas were not exciting to most Americans. People are not as afraid of change as some suggest. They fear the unknown. By being vague in the campaign, he allowed people to imagine their own ideas of what changes would or should occur. This is a fatal flaw in leading change.
Posted by Bob N> on November 4th, 2010 at 5:27 am
As John Wooden said:
Industriousness: There is no subsitute for work. Worthwhile resutls come from hard work and carefull planning.
Since Obama was elected, neither the Obama WH or the Congress worked hard for the American people. And their planning was based on what they wanted us to accept. So, had they used other less traditional means of communciation to sell a bills of goods that were flawed, it would have been better? Not sure I follow that rationale. Seems to me there would have been more opporunties for Americans to be duped in believing the self-serving political rhetoric being cramed down our throats. Personally, I am glad their tactics did not work! They may also want to reconsider relying on the traditional liberal media to tell their story. Because it appears not too many people are tuning in their either.
It's a good day to be an American!
Posted by ellen on November 4th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Thank you, if it is a bad message you can wrap it in satin or or in burlap, the message will still be the same. I agree, this was bad example to use to make his point and politically Obama read the tea leaves wrong when he embarked on his Messiah run.
Posted by John on November 5th, 2010 at 5:11 am
Too much about "conversation." Posting web videos is not having a conversation, even if you allow "feedback." Not to say it isn't a good idea and useful, but let's not overstate the impact.
Posted by John B on November 5th, 2010 at 5:51 am
I don't think the results of Tuesday's election have anything to do with poor communication. It has more to do with the arrogance of the Obama administration and congressional democrats and utter contempt for the will of the majority of Americans. This could be most blatantly seen when the Democrats rammed through health care reform despite the fact that most Americans were against it. The Democrats used procedural loopholes to avoid a re-vote and pass health care reform. They were more interested in passing a bad bill than no bill at all.
Posted by Guest on November 5th, 2010 at 6:46 am
That is true, but when anger blinds one to civil discourse or closes the mind to new ideas it is not very productive. There is such a thing as righteous anger, but I wonder how many of those expressing anger at Obama can articulate the facts of what it is they are angry about. I think many people are angry at Obama because the media or some talking head has told them they should be. Please note that I said MANY and not ALL. I'm not taking a stand as to whether the anger is justified or not. All I'm saying is that righteous anger is a productive anger and can lead to positive changes whereas free-floating anger is not. My hope is that all of those who voted in this midterm election because they were angry have voted in people who are going to provide the solutions that will ease their anger. That remains to be seen.
Posted by al miller on November 5th, 2010 at 9:46 am
thank you Jim for bringing a sanity check to these comments. most of these comments are from people who probably did not vote for Obama in the 1st place. I said probably but could be wrong, maybe they fel betrayed. What I find is people don't research on their own, use their own logic to reason and rely on tv news stations that ar purely in it for ratings and money. People don't want to face the truth about our issues in this country because when you know thr truth you become responsible for it. In a preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the constitution written by the Cato Institute, it states" it is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system". I find too many people use TV netwrok news to do their thinking for them instead of being a responsible informed citizen with independent thinking. Just my opinion.
Posted by Marc L on November 6th, 2010 at 9:36 am
This is a great post. I fully agree with what you're saying: when communications from leaders is inadequate, the rumor mill takes over and the mission does not get accomplished. I've worked at companies where leadership (or lack thereof) doesn't communicate and then gossip and rumors take over the company and make it an uglier place to work, which in turn drags down other aspects of that organization. I agree that President Obama never communicated as well as Candidate Obama. Using your healthcare example, had Obama first engaged the public more and been specific rather than vague in spelling out the issues needing repair, laying out all of the potential options, and hearing the public's requests for what they wanted repaired so that they felt a part of the process, then the legislation could have been crafted more in a way that helped more people, made more people comfortable with change, left more people understanding what was going on and left less room for rumors to fill the void. Instead, misinformation took over and lobbyists got to fill the void that a supportive public could have filled….helping craft legislation that left even fewer people happy with the results. Good communication could have resulted in a better bill, better understanding, less rumors, and an overall happier public.
Posted by Alethea on November 9th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Hey Bob – I could not have said this better myself. After everything with this President, arrogance, tone deaf, all about me, someone actually use his message as an example.
Posted by Communications Stratgey…Check… at The Integral Connection on November 12th, 2010 at 7:06 am
[...] But it is a lesson and opportunity for us as leaders to make sure we are using the tools at our disposal to start and keep the conversation going with our teams. Here is a good article to read. [...]
Posted by Links and Comments 16/11 | politicaldot.com on November 16th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
[...] http://smartblogs.com/workforce/2010/11/03/jackson/ You cannot effectively communicate change if you haven’t done a thorough job communicating the challenge; so far so good for the corporate world. Couldn’t we understand elections as just this activity of ” communicating challenges” (I guess this falls under framing, doesn’t it)? (That’s being an optimist, of course.) [...]
Posted by Dominica Mesdaq on December 3rd, 2011 at 9:11 am
I take pleasure in, cause I found exactly what I was having a look for. You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye