Muskrat Falls–Mastering the Art of Communication Failure

In marketing you must choose between boredom, shouting and seduction. Which do you want? - Roy H. Williams

You don't need to be the good guy to get a good message out. - LL Cool J

Watching the dialog around the Muskrat Falls energy project continue to degrade into a noisy cacophony of he said / she said (much of it veiled in secrecy or not based on data) in Newfoundland and Labrador makes me wonder who is in charge of communications on this project and within the Government.

Oh sure, many of those names are public domain but in truth, Muskrat Falls has moved from being a project of potential strategic and economic importance to one where the Government is unable to mange the message of its potential and so the project has morphed into a communication failure regardless of its potential in other areas.

Dear Government of Newfoundland and Labrador:

It doesn’t matter if the project is the greatest project on the planet.  If you can’t sell it, then it isn’t.  The world of the voter is less one of facts and more one of perspective and optics.  Failure to manage either or both produces failure for the Government no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise.

In other words:

To influence or move the mind, you must touch the heart – not stab it.

Engagement is easy, as I illustrate in this oversimplified overview of engaging the populace (click on the diagram for a larger version of it).

When it comes to managing the message around Muskrat Falls, the Government’s actions and message need to be centered around:

1. What do we want the voter to feel?
2. What do we want the voter to think?
3. What do we want the voter to do?

As far as I can tell, it is pretty easy to guess the answers to the first two questions and with an answer to those two in-hand, it’s pretty easy to anticipate what the answer to question three will be in the next general election.

If the Government can’t sell the numbers, then either:

1. They don’t have all the numbers.
2. The numbers don’t work.
3. They don’t understand the numbers.
4. They don’t know how to sell the numbers.

If any of these is true, they have a high probability of ending up in this embarrassing dilemma:

The Bottom Line

Scammers and spammers with almost no budget can write a compelling message to convince people to give up their identities and billions of dollars.  A guy in Nigeria can convince people to destroy their Lives with a simple email that promises unlimited wealth.

Infomercials on TV can convince people to buy every ridiculous product under the sun when knowledge exists in abundance that such products are merely the latest incarnation of snake-oil.  Monty Python’s bits about stringettes (miles of string cut into 2-inch lengths), Titan Missiles (the novelty missile) and Scum (the combination hair oil, foot ointment and salad dressing) are perfect parodies of this.

And yet the Newfoundland and Labrador Government still can’t convince the media and much of the electorate that the numbers for Muskrat Falls work.  However, they do appear to have mastered the art of failing to set, meet or manage the expectations of the Province (a dubious honor that occurs when there are issues in listening and adaptation as well as in communication).

Their inability to manage the message, touch the heart or influence the mind screams a loud warning to me in the areas of ignorance, indifference and incompetence.

What does it say to you?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – Clarification of my stand on Muskrat Falls

Within the first hour of this blog being posted, I received a number of emails from people with some criticizing my strong stand in favor of Muskrat Falls and others criticizing my strong stand against it …. all based on the same post.

My response to them is “How can you find enough information to create an informed opinion at all?” and that is my primary concern.

Unfortunately for anyone in the business of communication, leaving a knowledge gap or void in someone’s mind invites that gap to be filled based on the knowledge and Life context of that person.

In other words, leaving the potential for influence to chance.

I don’t like to leave my results to chance.

Do you?

As to whether the Newfoundland and Labrador Government has the project well in hand in the areas of strategy, communications, et al, listen to this interview (part 1 and part 2) between James MacLeod of The Telegram and Natural Resources Minister Derrick Dalley, read Mr. MacLeod’s article here and form your own opinion.

Addendum 2 – March 1, 2014

Previously mentioned reporter James MacLeod of The Telegram continues to ask difficult questions that are not being answered.  His latest exploration of the Muskrat Falls project can be found here - Feds won’t confirm details of Muskrat Falls watchdog report.

What worries me about Mr. MacLeod’s questions is that they are not tricky, underhanded, sly or designed to trip anyone up.  They appear to be honest, straightforward questions simply designed to obtain information that the people of the Province should already have.  When the answers provided to him are nonsensical, inconsistent or evasive, he asks additional questions to obtain clarity and he does so firmly, politely and respectfully.

So this journalist appears to be merely trying to obtain the truth in a non-sensationalist way which is a rarity in modern news media.

The inability for the Newfoundland Government to provide the truth either represents an inability to communicate or a refusal to.

I wonder which one is worse.

Story Telling–Applying Personal Context to Data

As a long time strategy guy, I am the type of person who drives people crazy with questions like “why?’ and “how do you know?”.  I have always believed the idea that if the mere existence of a question evokes anger or other emotions in someone, then there is something buried in the emotion that warrants exploration. 

Sometimes when asking questions, what appears obvious to us may not appear obvious to someone else and it is at that point that the best, sharpest and most clearly illustrated data in the world just won’t convince someone of the point that we are trying to make.

It is at this point that we realize that if we don’t find a different way of making our point that we are condemned to an impasse, each side frustrated that they couldn’t “sell” their idea to the other.

This morning I attended a conference call regarding national emergency preparedness for a variety of scenarios.  After getting off the call, I had one of those moments where I just wanted to go throw up somewhere (not all of these meetings are gentle).

Shortly after getting off the call, a friend walked by, saw me, sat down for a moment and we exchanged pleasantries.

When she asked me what I was working on and I told her, it sparked a passionate conversation around her wonderment and bewilderment about why mankind seemed unable to embrace unlimited, unquestioned, unconditional love and trust in all scenarios – that to accomplish this would solve all of our problems.

It seemed so simple to her.

Try as I might to illustrate a response using tons of data and historical references (data is my life), my answers didn’t satisfy her questions at all and we were both getting frustrated with the conversation.

And then I explained it this way.

“Assume you are on a dark street at 3am in the morning and you are alone.  You see a large stranger approaching you in the dark.  What do you do?”

She replied “I blow my security whistle”, as she held up the whistle on her keychain.

“Why?”, I asked.

“Because I am afraid he might hurt me”, came her answer.

“And why would you think the worst case scenario and not assume that he was approaching you in perfect trust and love?”, I asked.

“Because of my past history”, she replied.

And as she replied, the light came on.

Sometimes when you find that all of your glorious charts, graphs, tables, decision trees, logical perfection and everything else don’t seem to resonate with your audience, take a step back, pause and then find a way to wrap a personal story around what you are trying to present.

A story tailor-written to the context of the recipient’s Life experiences and not your own.

Because oftentimes the only thing that separates us from clear communication is the common context that best arrives in a good story.

In other words, we must touch the heart in order to influence the mind.

Have you touched any hearts lately?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Politics–Converting a No Into a Yes

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - Samuel Adams

The average voter has to hear a point seven times before it registers. - Paul Weyrich

The political and media fight to convince Americans to attack Syria continues unabated, being driven by passionate pleas from President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry.

Since many people thought that their initial reaction to reject the strike seemed like a no-brainer, many have wondered why the appeal to attack Syria has not only continued unabated but appears to have escalated.

They forget that politicians are using a tried-and-true technique that commonly turns a passionate “no” into an equally rabid “yes”.

Here is what the process looks like (click on the image for a larger version of it).

It’s an iterative battle, with each proposal using information gleaned from the previous rejection and playing on people’s emotions as I wrote about in Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation. 

Occasionally, if the message recipient is particularly resistant to the message, more than one iteration may be necessary within each of the steps shown above.  In addition, some steps may occasionally have to be revisited if something new is added to the message that introduces resistance that was not previously expressed by the message recipient.

Each proposal not only factors in the responses from the previous proposal but includes a lot of additional information that is misleading or which overloads the recipient so that they cannot create the space necessary to properly evaluate the proposal before them.

Each iteration also gets more complex, the stakes get higher and the deadlines become more critical (at least as suggested by the politician).

It is a battle of attrition … one which the average citizen eventually loses (most times, not all) because they don’t have the resources to keep fighting, the information to make an intelligent choice, the time to keep fighting or because they are so worn out just trying to survive their own battles that they don’t have the energy to fight something which they have become convinced is not a big deal to them anyway.

Such techniques are not limited to the Syria issue.

In fact, it’s the common technique that politicians use to bring you to their viewpoint instead of the other way around, the latter being a more appropriate, more effective form of representation “for the people, by the people”.

Who will win the battle?

It depends on how badly each side wants to win their side of the argument and whether or not someone else enters the conversation with an idea that either works for all parties involved or derails the original intention of one side or the other.

What side of the battle are you on?

Would you recognize the signs that the other side is changing your position even if it against your fundamental beliefs?

Are you sure?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – September 9, 2013 – Resisting the Cycle

I would be remiss in my thoughts if I didn’t share a brief musing on resisting the cycle described in this blog.

Many people are susceptible to the traps described in this blog because they respond with emotion (not to be confused with passion) instead of data / facts.

If one responds with requests for data / facts (or responds with data / facts to challenge the original assertions), one has a better opportunity to get to truths and to be able to make effective choices based more on truth and less on emotion.

People who hide behind “everyone knows this”, “it’s protected under national security” or something similar or who respond to data or requests for data with sharp emotion don’t have facts.

When they don’t have facts, they aren’t worthy of your time, your influence or your support.

And when you can use their own data against them, that’s even better.

It reminds me of the apocryphal story of the man who was solicited in the mail by a fraudulent evangelist who promised that for every $100 that the man sent to the evangelist, God would reward him in kind with 7x the donation from unexpected sources.

The man wrote on the donation card “If you truly believe that God rewards people in this way, why don’t you send me $100 a month and you will receive $700 as you describe”.

He never heard from the evangelist again.

Quantum Physics and Problem Solving

I have always been fascinated with the double slit experiment, one of the fascinating elements of quantum physics where an electron acts as a particle or a wave depending on whether it is being observed or not.

For those of you not familiar with this principle, the following video explains it nicely.

Many people in the business of solving problems would do well to understand the double slit experiment.

Oftentimes when someone is asked to solve a problem, the necessity to observe the problem actually alters the problem or the factors contributing to it.  When people are being observed, they may accidentally or purposefully change their behavior to please the observer or to hide something from the observer. 

The observer in turn may intentionally or accidentally offer information that enlightens or discourages the observed, also changing their behavior and perhaps causing an accidental solution (unlikely), the hiding of the original problem or the creation of a new one.

Add as well the notion that for human beings, unless we rely on appropriate data obtained before the process of observing the problem began, our previous experiences and emotions may taint our view on what we are observing.  This may cause us to possibly see the wrong problem, the wrong solution or not be aware that our participation may have altered the problem.

This of course creates an additional recursive dilemma – it is not always easy to gather data created before observation begins. :-)

The fact is that once the observer begins to participate in the problem solving exercise, they become part of the observed system, thereby influencing it.  This  participation influences the current direction of the observed system before any recommendations can be made to solve the original problem, potentially creating a moving target in relation to problem definition / solution.

And if we continue to attempt to solve the problem without the use of appropriate data, we will likely make choices based on what we already know and will therefore likely get the result we know (which may not be right).

Meanwhile the original (or a new) problem remains, buried in obfuscation, theory and a lot of activity but not the productivity necessary to solve the problem. 

Finding the right data – difficult albeit essential

Selecting the right data to analyze, knowing how, where, when and why to obtain it, with minimal impact on the observed and accepting the same limitations of human behavior to avoid selecting “the data we know” isn’t easy.

In fact, it’s the holy grail of problem solving.

And while it is difficult and complex to identify and select the right data, doing so produces a more powerful solution than to rush into immersing one’s self into the problem, redefining it by the mere insertion of one’s self into the system being observed.

Knowing how to do use  the right data, the right way and at the right time will make the difference between solving the original problem or solving (or even creating) a different one.  And if the new problem is the one that gets solved, there’s a high likelihood that the original problem remains in the same form or a different one when the observer leaves, inviting the problem solving process to repeat itself ad infinitum.

Do you know how to identify and use appropriate data in an appropriate way when solving problems?

Are you sure?

How do you know this to be the case if the system you are observing is changing merely because you are observing it? :-)

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I had a humorous incident about an hour after this blog was released that reminded me of the difference between using facts and using “what we know”.

Exiting a bathroom in a coffee shop, I was confronted by an angry woman who demanded to know “What the hell I was doing in the lady’s room”.

I pointed to the sign by the door that indicated that the bathroom was for men and women to which which she replied “The sign is wrong.  Everyone knows that the bathroom on the left side is the lady’s room”.

I replied that she could have used the bathroom opposite which appeared to be vacant and which also had a sign indicating that the bathroom was for men and women.

She pushed past me with a harrumph, bringing this Confucius-like thought to mind:

Always strive to leverage the data right in front of you lest what you know leave you in a pi$$y or crappy mood.

Sorry – I couldn’t resist. :-)

Society: Are We There Yet?

Most parents have heard that dreaded question at some point in their driving lifetime, the question that, if left unanswered, gets asked again and again until the parent goes crazy but if answered, probably draws an unfavourable response that the answer is not good enough.

The question is “Are we there yet?” (insert whining tone for effect).

The other common event that many a driving parent has had to deal with are kids who love to argue once they are in the confined space of a vehicle, poking at each other and trying to incite unrest in what would be a blissful drive otherwise.  Many children also have a sixth sense that the longer the drive ahead of them, the more they need to misbehave (at least until they get bored).

Many parents in such situations occasionally look in the mirror and make comments such as “I can see what you’re doing back there”, lose patience and yell at them, attempt to bribe them with teasers like “There will be no treats when we get to grandma’s” or say something more threatening like “You know that distracting the driver is very dangerous and could kill us all, don’t you?”.

And despite how many times this is repeated around the world and barring an unforeseen incident, the vehicle usually makes it way to its destination at the time it was meant to despite the arguing, noise and unrest that was contained within the vehicle during the journey. 

No amount of mindless questioning or making demands of the driver have any significant influence on either the direction, the destination or the arrival time.  The vehicle’s mechanical systems are indifferent to the noise and unrest contained within its passenger compartment and the driver is focused more on getting to the desired destination safely than figuring out how to keep the kids placated unless not responding to them places the vehicle in greater danger. 

The driver is also limited by speed limits, driving conditions and performance characteristics of the vehicle and therefore is not able to get to their destination faster than is possible given these constraints …. no matter how much they wish they could.

Is society any different?

In observing some arguments on social media in recent days, I believe many people fit the description of “the kids in the car”.

They forget that our judicial, legal and financial systems have for the most part, far outstripped us, their creators, in terms of our ability to guide, direct or even predict their behaviour or outcomes.  Such systems operate at their own pace with their own destinations despite our belief that we can define or change them.

And because many people forget this, they spend an inordinate amount of time yelling and screaming at each other, at “the system” or at “the drivers” in an effort to make the system change its direction or get to its destination faster.

In the case of the driving parent, smart children who understand more strategic ways of asking questions discover that they can influence the driver in ways that benefit everyone as opposed to yelling and screaming which for the most part expends more energy but produces a less favourable result.

The same is true about society.

Yelling and screaming at each other will not influence a system that has a life of its own and which is indifferent to our passion and our arguing.  Nor will yelling and screaming influence the people who believe they are “driving the system” unless the person who is “driving” perceives a greater threat by not responding. 

In situations such as the latter, the person “driving” will offer just enough teasers or threats to keep the “passengers” quiet so that the “driver” can return to that which is more important to the “driver”.

The bottom line is this …

Being strategic about asking the right question, the right way, at the right time and with the right intention can produce a much more significant result for the “passengers”.  Otherwise, if we create too much noise and distraction, we may inadvertently cause the “driver” to make an error.

And then a lot of people may get hurt.

We need more focus on the road ahead right now than ever in our known history.  The “drivers” see potholes, detours and delays ahead that may not be immediately obvious to the people sitting in the backseat.

And on the rare occasion that a “driver” is unqualified or unsuitable to be driving, one doesn’t merely overpower the driver to take command of the vehicle.

There are better and safer ways of influencing the “driver” that must be used.

Do you utilize them or are you too busy poking and insulting the person next to you?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

It has been said that many people project outwardly what they struggle with inwardly and for this reason, we can often ascertain someone’s demons and struggles based on what they are screaming about the most.

For this reason, we should probably be careful about what we scream and shout about, lest we tip our hand to others regarding a potential weakness within ourselves.

It is for this reason that some “smart” people intentionally evoke emotion, especially anger, in some people in an effort to expedite the revealing of such weaknesses.

Some related musings ……

Asking Questions That Get Answered

Solving Puzzles–Follow the Breadcrumbs

Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation

Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation

I was delighted by the response to my weekend blog “Danielle Smith: Something Wicked This Way Comes” as it provided me with an opportunity to review a technique commonly used to direct people at will and against their will.

That technique is the leveraging of emotion, most specifically the use of anger, to achieve a specific objective.  Unfortunately for those who are expressing anger, it is not their objectives that are being achieved.

The most rabid responses to my blog about Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith drew immediate responses from her supporters such as you “f___ing this” and you “idiotic that” and the like.  It even drew a weak taunt from her press secretary that provided a source of amusement.  I was tempted to direct them to an online Eliza program (a program that simulates a therapist) to watch them get angry with a program that for the most part mirrors what they say back to them.

People who are unable to discuss or debate ideas rationally, respectfully and with data and facts often resort to such tactics, believing that their anger will somehow win the argument.

When it comes to people who prefer to use anger in this way, I could cite some pithy quote such as:

“Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned" - Buddha

I could say things about how anger hurts everyone, doesn’t solve anything and all that stuff, but that will just make them angry for a different reason. Even sharing “feel good” stories like this one don’t work on the truly angry.

The Fence

There once was a little boy who had a bad temper.  His father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down.  He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.

Finally the day came when the boy didn’t lose his temper at all.  He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.  The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence.  He said, “You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence.  The fence will never be the same.  When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one.  You can put a knife in a man and draw it out.  It won’t matter how many times you say I’m sorry, the wound is still there.”

There’s something more important at play that the angry people need to understand.  Here’s a dirty little secret that they probably don’t want to hear.

Oftentimes when people want to direct the will of others (I won’t say manipulate, it sounds too covert), they look for outbursts of emotion. 

Happiness and sadness can be used but outbursts of anger are the indicator of choice.  It is an indicator that screams “I am open to manipulation and eager to have my will unknowingly bent to serve your needs”.

The fact that they don’t know what’s happening makes it the most valuable tool of all.

For when one is acting and reacting out of anger, especially uncontrolled anger, they are most susceptible to being manipulated and directed to perform actions as needed by others.

The angry people have in fact become stepping stones to be used by people who know where they are going, how they are getting there and who are willing do whatever it takes to make their goals a reality.

We should all remember this when we feel our blood pressure rise if we see or hear something that we don’t like.  Not only might we say or do something that we may regret later, we may be opening ourselves up to be used by a master of manipulation.

In the worst case scenario, we may have in fact been intentionally set up.

<Whisper> This is a tactic commonly leveraged by politicians.

When angry people come in my direction, with words and actions that suggest bullying, intimidation and the like, I don’t get angry at all.  I do my best to treat the angry person with respect, civility and dignity, which produces one of two scenarios:

1. The rational person will realize they have erred and cooler heads will prevail (which doesn’t automatically imply agreement between the parties).

2. The truly ignorant will get more angry and indignant, citing their opponent’s “holier than thou attitude” and the like.  Their anger consumes them and distracts them from everything else they would be better spending their time and energy on.

The rational person made a temporary error and recovered.

The ignorant person however demonstrates how useful they have just become … to anyone who can use and leverage emotion to their advantage.

They angry people are, after all, inviting others to leverage them to the other person’s advantage and at their expense.

I’d like to believe that no one deserves to be used as a stepping stone to satisfy the goals of others. 

I believe that human beings are worth much more than that.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), there will always be humans who step up and loudly cry via their actions (knowingly, wilfully or not) - “Use me to serve your needs. My own needs don’t matter.”.

And equally unfortunately, there will always be humans who respond to this and take the “stepping stones” up on their offer.

Are you easily manipulated by others because of unnecessary or inconvenient bursts of emotion?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS There are some who will read this and will become immediately angry and will react as such.  It’s unfortunate that they don’t realize that they are the most useful stepping stones of all.

Addendum – March 4, 2013

I was struck by this editorial by David Frum regarding the anniversary of the death of Andrew Breitbart.  In particular, Mr. Frum’s closing paragraph really resonated with me in regards to the subject of this blog and my prior one about Danielle Smith (I underlined specific text for emphasis):

We live in a time of political and media demagoguery unparalleled since the 19th century. Many of our most important public figures have gained their influence and power by inciting and exploiting the ugliest of passions—by manipulating fears and prejudices—by serving up falsehoods as reported truth. In time these figures will one by one die. What are we to say of this cohort, this group, this generation? That their mothers loved them? That their families are bereaved? That their fans admired them and their employees treated generously by them? Public figures are inescapably judged by their public actions. When those public actions are poisonous, the obituary cannot be pleasant reading. – David Frum

To Influence the Mind of Others ….

… you MUST touch their heart.

In order to touch the heart, you must KNOW  the individual you wish to influence.  You must know what turns them on and equally important, what turns them off.

And despite this, many people seek to influence others in a somewhat random way and are often disappointed with the results.

One of the things I learned in my many years on Wall St. is the importance of knowing who I am dealing with.

When I have a need to establish a relationship for the purpose of collaborating, I immediately research the other person to understand:

• what they like and what they don’t like
• what ignites their passion and what throws cold water on it
• where they believe their sense of purpose is
• how they prefer to execute
• who their organization serves
• what their organization does and how it does it
• what my organization does and how it does it
• what I bring to the table to enable the person whom I am establishing the relationship with
• how the intersection of all of these areas produces the sweet spot for success for everyone involved.

People talk about establishing win/win relationships and yet they don’t know the person they are dealing with.

If someone doesn’t know what motivates another, how can one expect to influence them?

One may get lucky, but then again, who wants to rely on luck?

So, before attempting to influence someone else ask yourself two questions:

1. What do I REALLY know about the person I wish to influence and collaborate with?

2. Having learned as much as I can about them, how can I serve the needs of that person, in a manner that resonates with their own beliefs, values and execution style?

This is the age of knowledge, knowledge equally accessible by all.

Use it to your benefit and to the benefit of those whom you serve and collaborate with.

Some people think this is a lot of work.  Yes it is.  However, if you really want to produce positive results consistently, you will discover that it is definitely worth it.

Also, as you do this you will discover that in spending so much time learning about the other person that you are in fact making an investment in a very long-term relationship; the kind that produces true win/wins for many years to come.

Then again, you could rely on luck.

Which would you prefer?

In service and servanthood.

Harry