Pat Rocchi Communications

Reasoned Political Analysis

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:59:00 +0000

Dear Readers:
As I am wont to say, I don't like to write about politics, as I am more committed to communications than ideology. However, I direct to an article by Ted Van Dyk, a career Democrat and assistant to Hubert Humphrey. He writes that Barack Obama should "reset" his Presidency. I don't include include it here for the political stance, but because in all the partisan bloviation and vitriol that's out there, this is a very even-handed piece of writing. Regardless of our politics, I wish there were more analyses like this out there.

Sen. Coburn, you and your ilk have some 'splainin' to do!

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:07:00 +0000

I couldn't believe it when I heard it during Sonia Sotomayor's hearings yesterday. And even though I know I heard it, I still can't believe it.
Sonia Sotomayor was responding to an abstract question about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She was talking hypothetically, and good-naturedly, to Sen Tom Coburn (Republican of Oklahoma) about getting a gun to shoot him in self-defense. He said to her that if she did that, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do."
Let me repeat that.
A white, male U.S. Senator said to a judge who is about to become the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do."
Class, let us review the sins that have been haunting the Republican Party of late as they entered these hearings. I will read from the latest polls:
The Grand Old Party is viewed as being out of touch.
As being insular.
As being a country club.
A group that, when faced with economic problems, turns to tax cuts for rich people and hardly ever proposes solutions for the common citizen.
And remember, these are the voters talking, not me. In my line of work, I deal with images and impressions, not politics.
So in light of all these perceptions, a Republican senator evokes the 1950s stereotype of an Hispanic character that has long been disavowed.
Look, what he said isn't the crime of the century. It was merely THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE HEARD A POLITICIAN SAY IN A LONG TIME!
However, this is only part of the problem of this show. When you add it to the entire hearing, many of the Republican Senators have done their image no favors. First, let's all agree that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark was thoughtless and controversial, and it deserved examination. And let's also agree that if a White Man had said it, his career would be over. (Perception is a powerful but often unfair animal. It is still quite incredible to me that George Allen lost his Virginia Senate seat and possibly a shot at the Presidency with his "Macaca" comment.) But guys, do you know when to quit? You made your point days ago. I'm a white male too, and even I'm tired of hearing this. How do you think Hispanic voters are feeling, hearing this line of questioning over and over?
Let's also consider the condescension that Judge Sotomayor has faced. There are too many to list, but today contained a particularly egregious example. Sotomayor was asked why she wanted to be on the Supreme Court by Senator Al Franken. (Once again, a fact I'm trying to get used to, and the funniest, most incongruant combination of title and name since "Congressman Sonny Bono.")
Sotomayor made a point about her commitment to the job with a story: Her mother asked her if she would have to take a pay cut if she got the job, and Sotomayor had to admit that, yes, it was a huge cut, apparently about 75 percent.
Nice story. Shows how the job and her service to the country is more important to her than money, right? So how does the tin-eared Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Georgia) respond? He points out that the salary of $250,000+ is four times that of the average U.S. household and says quite acidly, "If you can't live on it, you probably shouldn't take the job."
Way to go. Now is the time for all big dopes to come to the aid of the party.
All that we heard in the media for days leading up to the hearings was how risky they would be for the Republicans, as the party have been losing the Hispanic vote, a bloc the party cornered for years after the leadership of Ronald Reagan. The strategy was clearly spelled out. Instead, quite a few of these guys decided to behave counter-intuitively.
Sen Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was a model for his party, and perhaps all citizens, in his decorum. He clearly had issues with Sotomayor, but he was able to express them in a courtly and respectful manner, calling to mind a level of discourse that we once had in this country until we Rush-ed in another direction. And as a former Judge Advocate General (JAG, like the TV show), he was well-qualified to question Sotomayor on legal issues.
For those of us in the public eye and ear, we should remember that tone and context are so important in our communication. Even the most seemingly innocent comment can come across in a way never imagined. But this is not news. There is no excuse for much of the attitude that was displayed over the last few days, given all that was at stake.
I heard something else today. Did you hear it? It was the sound of Coburn, Sessions and others shooting themselves in their feet and many others.

Why the Economy is Interesting (and should be presented that way!)

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:51:00 +0000

Tomorrow I am scheduled to speak at my Siemens Toastmasters club. According to this, and I'm supposed to open with a light-hearted or amusing story. Then the rest can be about whatever I want. I am going to write about the economy and the austerity that we are facing in the near future.
In preparing this speech. I was reminded about how little we really teach about the economy. We should really pay more attention, as it affects so many matters, some as large as the numbers of jobs available, others as seemingly minute as where a toll road will be placed (or whether it should be built at all). But many of us are reduced to calling it "the dismal science," or resorting to Shaw's overused quote about how if all the economists in the world were place end-to-end.... You know the rest.
I'm not an economist, though I studied economics as part of my MBA. I tried to make it more interesting to the laypeople who will hear this speech by giving them background, such as:

Growth in the economy of two to three percent each year was normal until the end of WWII, and then our economy took off because of post-war demand. Also, our foreign competitors were bombed out of existence. Once we got back to two to three percent growth before the actual recession of 2008, it seemed like bad times for us. But actually, that is quote normal. However when all you know is an "up" market, then skyrocketing growth looks normal to you.

Productivity has improved to the point that we need fewer workers. Therefore, the job creation rate for American workers has fallen. As a result of fewer jobs and many bodies to do them, the wages for the average American worker has been falling since 2001. We should not expect to see higher wages in the foreseeable future. (I remember reading years ago that we possibly face a permanent underclass that cannot find work. Are we there now?)

The prices of everyday items that we take for granted are bound to rise once we pull out of this recession. The demand for food, raw materials, fuel and water will increasingly outstrip available supplies. T. Boone Pickens, the famous oilman, is trying to buy up water rights in some areas, because he sees it as "the next oil."

Still, there is promising news on the horizon. Since the credit crunch started in late 2008, the average U.S. household savings rate has jumped from 0.7 percent to 4 percent of income. Many Americans have already relearned the value and satisfaction of saving, which is a promising trend.

Is this all learnable? I believe so. Many economists I was reading predicted this credit crunch for years before it happened. As a result, I stopped investing in my 401k's inflated stock prices and paid off my mortgage instead. The benefit has been that I have more disposable income during a rough patch in the economy. And I admit again, as I did earlier, I'm no economist.

My point is that our popular media are failing us in informing us of the economy. Our business media, where I got my information, are doing fine. Still, I don't think most people turn to those media. We need more than a crazy man on basic cable television ranting and making largely inaccurate predictions (you know I'm talking to you, Jim!). We should be demanding more.

The King is Dead; Long Live Real News!

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:04:00 +0000

Be still my beating heart. I turned on my TV today and there was news that did NOT include the late. great Michael Jackson. I am hearing about the efforts of U.S. Congressman Patrick Murphy -- an Iraq war officer and veteran -- to keep gay soldiers in the military. I am hearing about Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. Yes, there is hyperbole there from her Democratic supporters. (Is there a hook we can use just for Sen. Chuck Schumer? Jeez, what a windbag!)
There is also some puffery from the Republicans (Sen. Cronyn from Texas and Chuck Grassley who is "concerned" about her empathy). Lindsay Graham was actually statesmanlike, giving the President his due and allowing that Chief Executive has a right to pick his own justices. (Call me naive, but I think he was sincere.)
Days ago, I complained of a "Gresham's Law" of news, in which Mr. Jackson's untimely death supplanted coverage of other events. Cap and trade, anyone? Did we vote on that? Oh yes, we did,. while cameras were inside the empty Neverland farmhouse.
Did we suffer any losses of soldiers in the last couple of weeks? Yes, although you would never know it.
I am the first to say that I have been a Michael Jackson fan for 40 years, and I think he was a musical visionary. But what passed for "news" in our recent dark days is shameful. We should all be writing to our networks and some print outlets and taking them to task for this.
Not that it would do any good, unfortunately. But maybe it will make us feel better.
Now rest in peace, Michael Jackson.
Please.

Jack Welch Predicts a Brave New Workforce from this Recession

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:00:00 +0000

Jack & Suzy Welch wrote a timely commentary in the latest issue of BusinessWeek. They predict that plenty of people will work for themselves as a result of the recession, and the main reason is a lack of trust in employers -- that is, ALL employers, both present and future ones. "Plenty of talent no longer wants to work for 'the man,'" they say in their commentary. "Wooing them will require candor, innovation and the excitement of a start-up."
Having worked for seven years for GE under Mr. Welch's leadership, I can tell you that the man is sincere. He insisted on honesty. For example, he was against social promotions of long-time employees, saying that it was unfair not only to the organization but to the employees themselves. I was also the point person in several business throughout the company that were facing seismic changes, usually resulting in layoffs. It was tough to bring this news to my audiences, such as the media, the community and the employees. We would often communicate the state of the business for months in advance, preparing them for change. It was tough on everyone, but no one could say they were surprised.
My employers since then were the exact opposite in their practices. They pumped up the businesses' standings, even in the face of conflicting financial reports. Leaders would communicate when the results were good, but disappear when there was a downturn. Yo, you don't have to be Peter Drucker to figure that one out! Employees learned quickly that this meant that the business was in trouble.
I always advocated open communication to the business leaders. I argued that the employees would value knowing the condition of the company and the plan to deal with that condition so that they could rally behind it. The usual response was that honesty would cause their best employees to leave, because those were the people who had the most options. I countered that the employees had a right to know the condition of the company so they could plan accordingly. But, I repeated, if they heard the company's plan, they would rally behind it.
No employer of mine other than GE ever accepted this philosophy.
I also never worked again for a company that was as successful as GE.
I agree with the Welches that there will be payback for this from the best and the brightest. These smartest of the employees have learned that most organizations cannot be trusted. Besides, the job is a 20th Century invention that may have run its course. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most people worked for themselves on farms or at crafts. But when factories expanded, they needed people to work in them. Good wages attracted many people away from the crafts and farms they knew.
Now that covenant has changed, and we seem to be returning to the natural order of employment, opting for work that fills our hearts in addition to our wallets. People used to say, "I can't quit my job to go out on my own. I need the security." Well, how is that security thing working for you now, Bucky?
I write about this in my book, "The Six P's of Change." My very first principle, the first "P," is the Perception that change, some change, is going to happen to each one of us. For so many, that change has come to our jobs.
For those of you who still have employees, it is not too late to practice this philosophy. Be open with your people, and empower them in the process. Build your employees' loyalty to you by showing loyalty to their interests. Don't just take it from me. Take it from two masters of business.

"Public Enemies" Draws Route from Gangsters to Kardashians

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:16:00 +0000

I saw "Public Enemies" last night, drawn to it by its prinicpals: the brilliant Johnny Depp, the ravishing Marion Cotillard of "La Vie en Rose" fame, and director Michael Mann, whose handsome handiwork I have admired from his earlier days in the TV ("The Longest Mile," the seminal cop show, "Miami Vice"). While my opinion of the film itself is best left in another commentary (HINT: I found it more stylish than substantive), I found myself interested in an issue that was as timely in the 1933 time frame of the film as it is today: media personalities.Depp plays gangster John Dillinger, who enthralled the nation during The Great Depression (yes, a depression greater than the current one) with his daring bank robberies. You would think that ordinary folks down on their luck would not care about someone making a living through dishonest means, but there must have been a Robin Hoodian element to it all. The film shows ordinary folks lining the streets to get a glimpse of him, and I can attest through my own research that this really happened.

This was not the first time for unlikely public adulation. George Burns wrote in "All My Best Friends," his memoir about vaudeville:

"Not only didn't you have to be good or bad to be a headliner (on the vaudeville stage), you didn't even have to be a performer. The vaudeville stage was the only place people could, 'live and in person,' the same celebrities they were reading about in the newspapers. Famous criminal, particularly women who were involved in 'crimes of passion.' appeared in vaudeville after being acquited or after being released from prison.... After Charles Lindbergh became the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic, he turned down a $100,000 offer to play a West Coast theater for one week."

Note the phrase ''the same celebrities they were reading about in the newspapers." Now look at the fascination for people like the Ozzy Osbourne family, the Kardashians, and the necrophiliac coverage of the late, great Michael Jackson. If we look at the early history of television, the performers who were most popular and successful were those who came from vaudeville, such as Milton Berle, Ed Wynn and Jack Benny. While television has often been called "the electronic fireplace," is it possible that it is really vaudeville-in-a-box?

Furthermore, is our desire for celebrity news and worship in our genes, a natural function that can be traced back to the Greek and Roman stages? ("And here for your listening pleasure, folks, is Nero. He will entertain you with his fiddling while Rome burns.")

Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on ourselves. What do you think?

GLARE OF THE SPOTLIGHT, Part 3 - The Gosselin Effect

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:13:00 +0000

Psychologists have various laws and effects that purport to explain our behaviors. One is the Hawthorne effect , where when workers improve while they’re being observed. The theory goes that the very act of observation affects the behavior being studied. The name derives from worker research on industrial psychology, which was conducted at the Western Electric Company Hawthorne plant near Chicago. The “Pygmalion effect” says that if teachers have higher expectations of some children and show that expectation, the improvement of those children was roughly twice that of the other children in the same class. And there is the straightforward “Principle of Cause and Effect,” which says that nothing happens for no reason. There is always a distinct origin for that effect.

I’d like to promote Pat Rocchi’s Gosselin Effect:

The presence of a motion picture camera lens will
magnify the subject’s flaws to the point of destruction.

Exhibit one, counselor, is a recent cause célèbre (dethroned, of course, by Governor Marc Sanford and Michael Jackson): the disintegrated marriage of the now-infamous Jon and Kate Gosselin, parents to eight unfortunate children and stars of Jon & Kate Plus 8. For you readers who have been in a cave in recent weeks, Mr. and (nee) Mrs. Gosselin, the parents of twins and sextuplets, traded their home life for a so-called reality series on The Learning Channel. This exchange provided them with a new home, free trips, and free merchandise. However, the bill came due in the most recently season, and the cost was their marriage.

Jon was accused of having an affair. Kate was accused of shrewish behavior that seemed to merit infidelity. Jon says he never wanted to be a TV star. Kate luxuriates in her fame, which came complete with a million dollar home, a tummy tuck and, apparently, at least one friendly bodyguard.
As Hank Stuever of the Washington Post so aptly put it, “(T)his is not a documentary in any true sense, nor is it reality. In searching for a word that describes Jon & Kate Plus 8, the subtlest forms of the word abuse spring to mind, which, alas, is why the show is so alluring.”

Didn’t we learn this nearly 40 years ago with “An American Family,” the PBS documentary of the Loud family? The Louds (an appropriate name, it turned out) comprise Dad Bill and Mom Pat, their eventually uncloseted son Lance, sons Kevin and Grant, and daughters Delilah and Michelle. They were filmed relentlessly for a quotidian total of 300 hours. In that time, Lance came out famously, and the other children showed their unhappiness more subtly, less flamboyantly. In a spooky bit of foreshadowing, Bill and Pat’s marriage came apart before our very eyes.

A cliché says, “the camera doesn’t lie.” That’s not really true, for cameras shed light only on the subjects on which they are focused. But it is fair to say that cameras are good at uncovering truths. Just look at the Gosselins’ twin daughters, Madelyn and Cara, both 8 years old. You don’t need to look very hard to see their resentment not only of giving up their own childhoods for the sake of this program, but also to serve as built-in babysitters for the sextuplets. The camera also shows Jon’s urge to end this intrusion.

If you don’t believe in the power of the camera to see, try looking back at your own family movies or photos. Distanced by time, you may finally catch the disaffected gawk of that one family member who was not really interested in being there. Perhaps you’ll see the gauzy gaze of that funny uncle who, it turns out, was hiding a substance abuse problem. Or maybe much of that smiling was de rigueur and not genuine.

Perhaps it is time to ignore shows that bring people into our homes whom we would not normally invite. Are they really worth our time? What are our motives for watching them? Are they really illuminating in any higher sense of the word? Are we really interested in the mumbling, stumbling former rock star? Or are we laughing at them?

Perhaps we should turn off the cameras in our own lives, too. It is very possible that we are not capturing reality in our own lives as well. Why not look through our eyes rather than our lenses and just interact with our family and friends one on one? You may be surprised at what you learn. Pleasantly so.

GLARE OF THE SPOTLIGHT, Part 2 - Exposing the Two Faces of Mark Sanford

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:50:00 +0000

Mark Sanford is the gift that keeps on giving to us bloggers! First the South Carolina governor disappears without his staff knowing his whereabouts. Then there is conflicting information on where he is. Next, a hastily called press conference in which he admits that he had an extramarital relationship.

But wait, folks, there is more. Today there is news that he says he "crossed the line with other women" -- the newest euphemism to describe hanky-panky by politicos. Still, in the end, I'm not inclined to make much of it...

Except that Sanford already made much of it himself, and so he sets himself up for criticism. After all, as I often tell you, my dear readers, this blog is not about politics, it is about communication of all sorts. And when public figures say one thing about morality and then do another person, we have the right to examine it.

You have probably seen the evidence on umpteen other blogs. That as a member of the U.S. House, the dis-Honorable Rep. Mark Sanford voted to impeach one William Jefferson Clinton because he found his actions "reprehensible." That when fellow Republican Infidel Bob Livingston was found cheating, Sanford found him guilty of lying under "the oath to his wife." And that he was was against gay marriage because such unions would undermine the institution of marriage. (As though cheating doesn't.) As one wag on Twitter put it, apparently Sanford thinks that marriage is between one woman and one man and one Argentinian woman.

There aren't too many people in public life who can claim to be so perfect. One notable example to the contrary was Senator Joe Lieberman's public examination of Bill Clinton's behaviors with Monica Lewinsky. I say "examination" because "condemnation" seems much too harsh a word for the serious, temperate and dignified way with which Lieberman chose to handle the issue. And I dare say that, given his reputation as a religious and spiritual man, an observant Jew, Lieberman had the moral authority to make the statements that he did.

My point is that if you are going to be a public scold, you better be pretty clean of those sins yourself. Sanford tried to earn political capital on the backs and backsides of others. Now he must answer for his own transgressions, and others are about as forgiving as he was, which is to say, "not much." It serves him right, and it is a lesson for all in the public eye.

NEXT UP: The Gosselin Effect of a Ubiquitous Camera

GLARE OF THE SPOTLIGHT, Part 1 - Michael Jackson's Misguided Focus

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:53:00 +0000

Boy, it's been all tough news since my last post. I don't mean the steady stream of celebrity deaths, such as Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson. While I mourn all of these good souls, I have been taken by the parade of poseurs who were exposed in the unforgiving incandescence of media scrutiny: yes, I am thinking of Michael Jackson, but also Mark Sanford, and John and Kate Gosselin.
Michael Jackson once had it all. That was most evident in the outpouring of tributes that came when he died way past his prime. In his day, he was dazzling and truly unbelievable. I went into my basement and found a long-lost treasure: a VHS recording of NBC's 25th anniversary celebration of Motown, which aired in 1982. I fast-forwarded to Mr. Jackson first set with his scene-stealing performance with his brothers, The Jackson 5. Then, after shooing his siblings off-stage, he delivered his electrifying rendition of "Billie Jean." This was the night he introduced the moonwalk, and live musical performance was never quite the same. Adding to James Brown's legacy, Jackson showed that clothes,dancing and stagecraft could all add to a musical showcase. Singing melody and lyrics was no longer enough.

But this all started to fall apart for him after five short years. His next album, "Bad," sold a puny seven million (!) copies compared to the stratospheric "Thriller." Mr. Jackson was already drawing unfavorable comparisons to, of all people, himself. His music wasn't as strong, critics and fans said. His title video also portended a new problem. His appearance was becoming stranger, as he was morphing into either Diana Ross or sister Janet, depending on your interpretation.

Furthermore, he was developing a messianic image. In his "Beat It" video from "Thriller," Mr. Jackson amusingly sang of the wisdom of running from a fight. In "Bad," he was more the hero, simultaneously striking a prominent, godlike pose while sporting a more feminine appearance. This portrayal would grow inversely to the power and relevance of his music, as poorly selling albums sported cover art of Mr. Jackson as though he were the Colossus of Rhodes.

As time went on, he grew more sad than "bad." As his look became more bizarre, so did his behavior. Building an amusement park. Collecting odd artifacts, such as the skeleton of John Merrick, "the Elephant Man." Sporting a pet monkey. Over time, he was known more for his mannerisms and his self-mutilation than for his music.

The events of the past week show that Mr. Jackson could have maintained his career even without producing new music if he had only managed his public image more carefully. I listened to his songs on the radio over the last few days (I couldn't HELP but hear it!), and largely, I found them to be electrifying, brilliant, unique and more diversified than I had remembered. "Rock With You" was danceable, the "Thriller" single was fun, "The Way You Make Me Feel," was sexy, but "The Man in the Mirror" was passionately inspiring. There are some artists who offer such a wide range of output, but not so many. Mr. Jackson was a major artist.

If only he had emphasized that. If only he had performed his classic music more often than he presented a grotesque persona to the public. Perhaps his public image would have been more positive and kinder to this gentle soul.

As the cliche goes, perception is reality. We must remember this as we shape our public images. Companies need to be known as valued members of a community, not merely as polluters or the shedders and shredders of jobs. Products need to offer utility and value, not expense or a lack of safety. And we as individuals need to be known at least a bit more for our contributions and not our eccentricities. Michael Jackson and the people around him lost sight of that, and in that process, the public lost sight of his true value.

NEXT UP: Mark Sanford Talks the Talk, but Walks the Walk to Argentina

The Singular Mr. Ziglar -- An Appreciation

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:35:00 +0000

Zig Ziglar

I went to see Zig Ziglar yesterday in Philadelphia. I attended a "Get Motivated" seminar, which featured a number of famous speakers, including Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Collin Powell, and even home-boys Charlie Manuel and Cole Hamels of the Phillies and Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles. But even with this impressive lineup, I attended mostly to see Mr. Ziglar.
To those of us in professional speaking, Zig Ziglar is a giant. He is what Walt Disney is to animation, William Paley is to broadcasting, and Henry Ford is to autos. He almost singlehandedly made speaking and motivation an industry. At 82, the man is truly a legend.
When the emcee introduced Mr. Ziglar, you could see that he is still handsome, dapper as always in his suite and bow tie. I was surprised to see stagehands set up two chairs. I was surprised further when his daughter began speaking on his behalf. (Apparently, in deference to Mr. Ziglar, she never introduced herself, keeping the focus on him.) She went on to explain that due to a fall a few months ago, he has "positional vertigo," meaning that he was unsteady. He is also suffering from short-term memory loss, so he would not give a presentation with the energy and precision we all expect from him. But, she emphasized, he wants to be transparent about these changes as he continues to present his current message, appropriately titled "Embrace the Struggle." So she guided her father through an interview.
He opened by saying that he was the tenth of 12 children, and that he was a better student OUT of school than he was while he was IN school. He still reads three hours each day. He says that he reads the Bible and the newspaper everyday "because we need to know what both sides are up to" -- a comment received with warm and appreciative applause. He also proclaimed his love for America, "the greatest country that ever was," and noted the military people who were in the audience.

____________________________________________

Zig Ziglar remains true to his words,
and he delivered them yesterday with
an innate sincerity.
____________________________________________

Yet, an uncomfortable side to Mr. Ziglar's health surfaced, as he began to repeat himself enthusiastically. He went on to praise life in America four more times, with an enthusiasm and sincerity that emphasized his obliviousness to his redundancy. He talked about the importance of "home court advantage," and how he continues to court "that redhead of mine" (i.e., his wife of 62 years), and told that story three or four more times. He repeated that he was the tenth of 12 children. He praised the military in the audience a few more times. His daughter would firmly and respectfully remind him that, yes, he had covered that, and moved him to the next topic.
His presentation was augmented with video of past performances. In those clips, he talked about the relative importance of money. Yes, money could buy him a big house, but it couldn't buy him a home. It could buy him a companion, but not a friend. A bed, but not a good night's sleep.
Another clip covered his praise of religion, an ongoing theme over his career (he has always been, unabashedly, a Christian). In the video, he asserted, with some vague attribution, that people who "go to church regularly" have less depression, higher incomes and better sex.
While Mr. Ziglar's frailty could have been depressing, an affirmation of the man emerged from it. In his vulnerable time on the stage, he never lost his dignity. His daughter and the audience were always respectful. He was never chided nor derided in any way.
Most important, he was always on message, intuitively and reflexively. In my years in healthcare, I have learned from geriatric physicians that as you age, you become more like your true self. (For example, as Ronald Reagan descended into Alzheimer's disease, he reportedly remained pleasant and affable, even when he didn't know the people around him.) If that is true, then Zig Ziglar remains true to his words, and he delivered them yesterday with an innate sincerity: Goals are important; a purposeful life is the one worth living. You can get whatever you want when you give enough people what THEY want. That is is your attitude, more than your aptitude, that will determine you altitude. And gratitude is "the healthiest of all human emotions."
And so while I can't claim to have seen Zig Ziglar in his prime, at least that Zig is available to me through recordings of all sorts. I can say that I saw him truly, without pretense or adornment. It is apparent that he meant every word he has ever said, and he repeats them still for any audience lucky enough to hear them.
Thanks, Zig. There's never been anyone quite like you. Enjoy your time with your audiences. And as you have often said, I will see you at the top.

Kobe Shoots... and a Year Later, He Scores!

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:00 +0000

Kobe Bryant and Los Angeles Lakers were humiliated a year ago by the Boston Celtics, and he vowed to come back from that devastating loss. He came back, and he came up BIG when he led his team to a 15th NBA Championship last night in Orlando. He was a man possessed. His eyes, his mouth, said it all. He was focused, and as he drove to the basket, he was driven. And he was committed to driving out the claim that he couldn't win a championship without his former team mate Shaquille O'Neal.
And so after he was banished to also-ran status by Boston last June with a 39-point delta, he determined to return. After helping the American "Redeem Team" win an Olympic gold medal in China last summer, he declared, "My next goal is winning the NBA championship."

So the win is just part of the story. Kobe's fulfillment of his goal to reach the NBA finals again is just as significant. As I have written over the last year, Kobe succeeded in classic fashion. He prepared for this championship through proactive preparation, working with coach Phil Jackson to continually improve his individual play and his team play. He constructed the plan and executed it superbly, step by step, finally reaching his specific goal.

For those who think that their goals are too far in the future or simply unattainable, I point to Kobe Bryant as an example of picking his goal and pursuing it relentlessly. And the city of Los Angeles celebrates with him.

Kudos to Broadcasters; Let's Learn from Them!

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:11:00 +0000

Hey, did you notice that today is the FCC-dictated switch from analog TV to digital? You didn't? If not, you can't blame the major broadcasters. They bent over backwards for YEARS to make sure that viewers knew that their older sets wouldn't receive the new digital signals. (By the way, this is to open parts of the electromagnetic spectrum for emergency use -- a good thing.) Look at what they did:

Announced the coming switchover as public service announcements so that no one should have been caught unaware
Advised viewers of where to get converters
Conducted tests to help viewers determine if they would be affected by the switchover ("Hey, this is what your picture looks like now."
"Here is your picture on digital." THROW SWITCH
"If you can't see me, then you're s.o.l after June 12.")

The broadcasters' efforts are a lesson in good community relations. They stated the problems up front, showed the results, and advised on where to find the solutions. What does your organization do when you face a change that will affect your stakeholders?
Are you proactive? Or reactive?
Do you point to the solutions?
Do you show the consequences of the event in question?

Think about all this whenever you are facing such events as product changes, price increases or layoffs. We should all do as well as the broadcasters just showed us.

SHOUT! It's No Time to Be Immodest

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:36:00 +0000

Bill Lampton likes my book, “The Six P’s of Change!”

Bill, who is a Ph.D., is an internationally recognized expert on communication, a broadcaster, teacher, and academic administrator. He has been interviewed in countless publications. Bill reviewed my book on Amazon and said the following:

“I rate this book highly…”
“The author's background qualifies him to advise us… [H]e shares what he has recommended to high-level employers.”
“The writing style surpasses what you will encounter in most business books…”
“Can you remember another business book that opens with a discussion of a World Series game?”
“Rocchi is on target in describing this volume as a handbook. Each chapter ends with an ‘Intermission from Your Transition.’ These brief written exercises help the reader transform ideas into action.”
“As a leader, you will serve your company well by using this valuable handbook as a training guideline for your company's next planning session.”

I could go on forever. (Believe me, I'd LOVE to!) And why am I telling you all about this praise I received?
Because I can. And I should. And you can and you should say such things about yourself.
Times are rough. GM went bankrupt earlier today. The country is in a recession, if you haven’t already heard. Jobless claims have decreased, but unemployment is still quite high, the highest we’ve seen it in a long time. If you want to rise above this din, you must make your own noise, and social media are the way to do it.
So when Bill’s sent me word of his wonderfully positive review, I emailed it to friends. And I Twittered it to my procchi tweets with a link. And I put it on LinkedIn and Plaxo. Because I can. And I should. If not, how else would you know? After all, I am the self-proclaimed agent of change. I must live up to this image I’ve created and this philosophy I espouse.
We are the Jetsons, my friends. We are lucky to live in an era when we have the means to broadcast our messages to the world. It wasn't so long ago only broadcast TV could do that, and what were the odds of your being able to buy time there? So we must take advantage of this rare opportunity to push our names not up into the stratospheres but into the upper reaches of search engines.
So shout it from the social media.
Fire away at your targets.
That’s why you’re reading this, and it’s most likely the reason you are writing about yourself. Go ahead, do it. You can, and you should.
And remember that Bill Lampton likes my book!

A Tip to Traveling Speakers

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:29:00 +0000

Here's a cautionary tale for you traveling speakers. It starts with my upcoming engagement at the Toastmasters Region VII conference on Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, June 5 and 6. I'm speaking on how to apply your Toastmasters skills to the job. Boy, am I learning a lot about when to make arrangements for a trip! Thank God for my wife, Marie, to save my fat from the fire.
Everything was complicated by the fact that I was competing in TM's International Speech competition. Prior to learning that I was advancing in the competition, I was already booked at the conference. However, if you compete, you can't make a presentation. (It is determined to prejudice the judges if they see you present elsewhere. Makes sense.) So I had to wait to learn if I would win the District competition. If so, I could not speak at the conference.
However, if I lost the District competition, I could make my presentation and sell my book.

I lost. Boo! But the upside to that was that I became free to make my presentation in Moncton. However, I needed to know that I was on the conference agenda before I made my flight arrangements.
Then there was my back trouble.
Then the Memorial Day holiday.
Now it's two weeks before the event, and air fares are through the roof. Marie, being the organized one in the family (we're still figuring out MY contributions!) began making phone calls everywhere she could. Travel agencies! Airlines! Priceline! What flights are available? Could we save money flying out of Newark, NJ rather than Philly? If so, how do I get to Newark.
In the end, Marie figured a complicated calculus involving cashing in my US Airways Frequent Flyer miles to get me to Toronto, stay overnight, then take a puddle jumper to Mocton in the morning. Reverse route, and in the end there are only hundreds of dollars out of my pocket.So my suggestion Fan Club Members, is that when you are planning for a speaking engagement, take the chance and book the travel ahead of time. Even if you cancel, it has to be simpler than the gyrations that Marie went through on my behalf.
Thanks, Sweetheart. I don't know what I'd do without you.

Actually, I probably would stay home a lot.

Win or Lose the Contest? I PICK"WIN!"

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:18:00 +0000

Over the weekend, I participated in the International Speech competition of Toastmasters District 38, which covers parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. I had lots of moral support from fellow members throughout the District, and many people let me practice at their clubs, for which I am extremely grateful. In the end, I did not win. I'm okay with that, because the person who did win really deserved it. His speech had a good message on inspiration that he delivered with imagination and energy. He has all my best wishes as he moves to the next round.
I also did not come in second or third, either. That surprised me more than it disappointed or bothered me. My own personal feelings about those speeches were obviously different from the judges', but such is the subjective practice of judging. (Think of ice skating at the Olympics. It's easy for us to identify the fastest and strongest athletes, but judges tell us who the best skaters and gymnasts are.)
I like to compete. Part of my narcissistic side would like to be the World Champion of Public Speaking. However, my attitude about competing has softened over time. I was inspired years ago by previous Toastmaster World Champ Ed Tate, who has a special prayer before every speech: He asks that someone in his audience be affected by the speech that he gives, regardless of the outcome of the competition. I've gotten into the habit of reciting that prayer myself, and it reflects how I feel about this particular speech.
It is about how my wife, Marie, overheard me singing one day and told me that I should pursue it as a hobby. I didn't believe I could sing because I was surrounded by people who told me I couldn't sing. Still, I listened to her. As a result, I sing actively as an avocation, and I have sung at baseball games, on CDs of a cappella music, even at Carnegie Hall.
However, what Marie taught me was to listen to other people and hear their inner hopes as she heard mine. At one point of the speech, I recounted how I showed my appreciation for her by surprising the guests at our 25th anniversary party with the song "What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life?" At that point in the speech, as I sang just one stanza, a palpable sigh went through the audience. I also told them what the words taught me. One woman even nodded in recognition, and I could see her mouthing the lyrics with me
At the end of the contest, once the winners were announced (again, NOT INCLUDING ME! ;-) ), the Toastmasters filed out of the room. One woman who had been Sergeant-at-Arms came to me with mock anger, glared and said, "You almost made me cry!"
"Really," I said. "Was my singing that bad?"
"No, it was when you sang to your wife."
Then a man who had heard me at the previous level of competition and had given me advice met me outside the room. I thanked him for his input. At that point, his eyes glistened, and he said, "Even though I had heard the speech before, it got to me this time." He couldn't explain why. Apparently his advice improved my speech for him.
The district governor came to me and said, "Did you see me crying?" A trend was developing.
Another woman told me she was going to Italy, and wanted to know if I could help her with some phrases. As I jotted down my email for her, she said softly, "You really moved me when you sang for your wife." As I looked up, her eyes were wet, and she could not continue speaking. She dropped the discussion. I touched her face, and I thanked her.

As I got a drink to unwind, I saw the woman who had sung along with me. I sat next to her and thanked her for her visual feedback and support. "Oh, I think that it's important to show a speaker that you are enjoying the speech." And without provocation, she launched into her own story... how she was in an abusive marriage for 14 years... how she feared getting out of it because she wasn't sure how she could support her children... how her husband was a pastor, and no one would have believed was he was doing to her... how she covered the bruises on her face with makeup... the day a woman in her congregation said to her, "My Sister, you are smiling and happy all the time, but your smile is plastic. What's wrong?" And with that, my friend burst into tears to that woman, and on that day she began to find the strength to end the marriage and treat herself righteously.
And she shared that with me because she saw marital love in my speech.

There is an annual poetry contest in Spain that awards three prizes. The third place winner gets a silver rose. The second place winner gets a gold rose. The top prize is an actual rose. I am happy for the people who won on Saturday. My own shelves at home are already filled with trophies. But I'm very happy for what I got at Saturday's competition. My prayer was answered.

What Beauty Pageants Can Learn From Toastmasters

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:00:00 +0000

With all the brouhaha about Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, which started once she answered a judge's question about gay marriage, one point has been conspicuously overlooked: Why should she have been the only contestant to have received that question? That was patently unfair, as that question (coming from a gay judge) was loaded from the start. Nobody really knows how the other contestants would have answered it. Admittedly, I did not see the pageant (an anachronism, in my view), but it seems to be that under these circumstances, the other beauty queens may have received puffballs that offered no threat of controversy.
The fairest thing would have been to give all them the same question. Toastmasters International does this with its Table Topics contest (a contest in extemporaneous speaking). All contestants wait outside the contest area, and each is escorted back to the room singly, in succession, to receive the same question. The contestants are then judged on their abilities to assemble their thoughts and present their answers in an organized manner.
This would have been a much fairer way to judge the Miss USA contestants' poise and mental agility that to subject them all to different standards.

Postscript: As I write this, Donald Trump has just announced at a press conference that Ms. Prejean will continue as Miss California. It has been a great example of spin and self service. Trump trumpeted how "important" the pageant has become since he bought it. Then Prejean spoke of her right to speak, adding inexplicably and perfunctorily how her grandfather fought with General Patton. She also launched into a diatribe on freedom of speech, which no one except the contest judge disputed. No one at the press conference addressed the point of how Prejean has subsequently gone on to a public platform against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with her role as Miss California.

The Courteous Language of Service

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:54:00 +0000

This past Saturday night was a gumbo of fun, fright and enlightenment. But it's only now that I recognize that. For several hours, it was only terrifying.
I was at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia to see the World Champs battle their Knickerbocker Nemeses, the New York Mets. The game was back and forth, with the Mets ahead and the Phillies coming back, battling into extra innings. The up-and-down nature of the game was matched by fans, who stood and sat throughout the game. That is, most of the fans, but not me.
I had gone to the game while recuperating from a herniated disk. It didn't feel bad at the beginning, and I knew enough to get up from my seat every once in a while and stretch my legs. Still, by the seventh inning, it became difficult to rise. By the time the Mets walked Shane Victorino in the 10th inning to hand them the game, I was plastered to my seat, unable to see the winning run.
For able-bodied readers, you can only imagine the pain and the fear I was feeling. First, I was unable to get out of a chair for 10 to 15 minutes. Stadium staff politely requested that I leave so they could clean, and I advised them that I had a severe back problem. "Do you want medical assistance, sir," she asked. Not yet, I groaned.
Imagine further that once I made it out of the chair, I could not climb the stairs, as it was nearly impossible to place one foot in front of the other. When I finally made it to the top only by hanging onto two other men, I gave in. "Please get the medical transport," I requested, " and take me to the emergency room."
The transport team asked me how I wanted to be placed in their golfcart-like vehicle. They complied, and before I knew it, I was in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. (By the way, if you want to see interesting looks on people's faces, go through a crowd on some sort of emergency vehicle.)
You have to know that I am a middle-aged man for whom this would be the first time EVER as an emergency room patient. Up to now, I only visited ERs for other members of my family. This was a new experience. Once I made it to a gurney and had my blood pressure and sugar checked (I have type 2 diabetes), I spent many minutes slowly moving parts of my body into a position that would not cause me to scream. At one point, I was facing the wall while a physician was talking with me. I stopped to say, "I'm really sorry not to face you. It's only because I can't turn around. I don't mean to be rude."
He said, "I don't get upset at things like that. You are the most civil patient I've ever had from a Phillies game. (He went on to explain that most Philadelphia sports fans are in the ER as a result of a fight with an opposing fan.)
I spent five hours there getting shot up with pain-killers until my buddy, Vince, could take me home.
Since then, I have slept off the drugs and returned to as much mental acuity as I normally muster. But as I reflect on this incident, I realized how much society has changed in the way we treat strangers or others in need. My encounters with the staff at the ball park started politely rather than as a confrontation ("Get out of here, we have to clean!"). When my plight was apparent, others joined to help, and they could not have been more concerned.
The transport team asked about my comfort every step of the way. When they had to get my medical information, and it was obvious that I was lying on my wallet, the EMT was patient.
In the emergency room, every physician and nurse addressed me as "sir," asked about my condition, and treated my questions with respect, explaining what would happen to me as a result of the narcotic punchbowl that they were feeding me. They warned me of the side effects so I would understand that they needed to ration the medicine, just so they wouldn't kill me with respiratory problems. You know, little details like those.
It has since dawned on me that this was the effect of the "political correctness" that so many are willing to decry. I said that I am a middle-aged man, and I remember when things were NOT this way. I remember the disdain of inappropriately named "service" people who treated you as though you were their last barrier standing between them and a coffee break. I like this, and I thank the folks in the 1970s who changed not only the language of service but the hearts and minds of society. I'm glad many of us listened to them.

Who Wrote Your Speech?

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:02:00 +0000

To My Fellow Toastmasters and other Speechmakers:

I was annoyed some years back when the film “The Dead Poets Society” won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. I found that the film was little more than a pastiche of literary fragments from some of the greatest writers of all time, held together by a flimsy melodrama. Similarly, I have endured many speeches that were similarly unoriginal:

The main body of the speech is a published feature story that is repeated with little embellishment. At the end, the speaker feebly tries to tie it together with a phrase like, “Has this ever happened to you?” or “What could we learn from this?”
We receive commentary on a recent event that is simply a compilation of the previously published insights of other professional commentators.
The speaker takes a stand on an issue, but fails to attribute his supporting facts, which often are the unaccredited opinions of others with similar opinions.

I admit that I have my own penchant for quotations by others. (I find their words can be better than my own.) But when former Toastmaster World Champs reviewed drafts of my speech, they nail me on the second citation. “You've already quoted someone else,” they say. “We’re more interested in what YOU have to say!”
In the end, that is the main idea: Toastmasters exists so that we can build our own communication skills. That includes thinking through our points, constructing their logic, and then using language and oratorical skills to convey them. Parroting others is not only self-defeating, it is unethical, approaching plagiarism (if not actually committing that crime).
It is a unique thrill to deliver a speech that informs, entertains, moves, or inspires other to action. Give yourself the pride of rightfully claiming the work as your own.

RIP for MHO

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:33:00 +0000

Can we put to rest the texting phrase MHO -- My Humble Opinion? And let's not forget its Danny DeVito-to-Arnold Schwarzenegger twin, IN My Humble Opinion.
MHO is one of the most fatuous and annoying statements one can make.
It is not really so humble, as you claim. In fact, it is quite arrogant, because "Who asked you?"
It is usually not solicited. The phrase is designed to ameliorate that fact. ("Oh, I'll just state that it's only my humble opinion. That way, no one will notice that no one asked for it.")
And who cares that it's "your" humble opinion? Does the fact that it came from you have any added validity?
If you're going to give an opinion, just give it. Please don't patronize me with a little tag line, as though you have just given me the option to ignore. Stand up for it. Don't worry, I'll ignore it if I wish. But please state your authority for your opinion.
That's MY opinion. And believe me, it's not so humble.

The Physicality of Speaking or "Oh, My Aching Back!"

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:26:00 +0000

So did you miss me? Notice that I haven't been around for a few weeks? It's mostly because I've been hobbled as both a blogger and a speaker by some compressed disks. I spent a lot of time in the first quarter of the year preparing my book for publication, setting up my new website, and capturing new business, and I was spending 18 hours a day in an office chair. After a while, my body essentially said to me:
"Okay, you've abused me for all this time. What should I break that will slow you down and give me a rest? Hey, how about your back, idiot? See how you like paying an orthopedist!"
So my advice to you is to get up every once in a while and stretch. But I digress....

I really felt it during a competitive speech event, a local Toastmaster Division contest. There was a portion of the speech that required me to get down as though I were being suppressed. (You really have to see it to get the full effect of the drama of the piece, but trust me, it was quite moving. ;-) ) When I did it, I pulled it off well. One person in the audience who knew that I was ailing, and she said she would not have been able to tell. But it reminds me of how important it is for us speakers to take care of our bodies. We need to exercise, stay limber, and remember the athleticism of what we do if we are going to stand out from the crowd. In fact, I practiced the speech in front of other clubs for three of the five days preceding the contest, and my animation was a constant comment. So don't make the same mistake I did. Treat your body like a temple, or at least like a lectern.

FOOTNOTE: I won the contest. I guess both the drama and not writhing in pain clinched it for me. I'll tell you more about the speech and the rest of the competition later. I have to keep some secrets!

Happy Follow Up to "Small World"

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:33:00 +0000

Thanks to all my readers who reached out upon news of our family in L’Aquila after the earthquake. I am happy to say that I was able to speak with my cousin in Italy by phone. Between my limited Italian and her better English, we were able to communicate. She and her husband and children are all well, and they are temporarily settled in Rome. Their home suffered minimal damage, and the remainder of my family – my cousin’s mother, her sister, and her sister’s husband and children – were so far from the epicenter that they were unaffected by the quake. But even with her limited English, she was able to use the word “catastrophe.” The catch in her voice told me all I needed to know about the scope of this tragedy.

Again, Cousin Laura was gratified and emotional to know that so many people in America were concerned about her. She once said to me after we first met that it was wonderful to know that there are people on the other side of the world who care about you. I also extend my own gratitude to those who were concerned about my family and others who were affected by this natural disaster. As we approach the Easter season this weekend, I thank God today for all of His blessings, and I wish the same for all the others who are directly or indirectly affected by this event.

Small World

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:33:00 +0000

You may have heard the news about the massive earthquake in central Italy last night in the mid-sized town of L’Aquila (translation: the Eagle). A city of just under 70,000 people, L’Aquila is a cosmopolitan center of fashion and style. For such a small town, it was becoming a tourist attraction off the beaten path, a suitable alternative to the larger , better-known cities in Italy. But in a single evening, four-story buildings were quickly compressed to the height of a single story. Whole buildings were completely lost while, unjustly, one standing next door would survive. How sad, you must have thought, and perhaps you wondered how the citizens would make do.

Let me share my own perspective, because it was not too long ago that my wife, Marie, and I walked the streets of L’Aquila, imagining it as a place where we could retire. A place where we met family and made new friends. A place inextricably linked to my ancestry.

And tonight my heart breaks for what was lost, wiped out by the capricious shifts of the earth’s mantle, and stands in fear of what we might learn over the next few days.

My cousin Antoinette called me this morning and asked if I had heard the news. When I said no, there was a seemingly long pause. That is code in most families for, “I have bad family news to share with you,” as opposed to a national tragedy. After we both drew a suitably long breath, she said, “There was a major earthquake in L’Aquila.” And that brief statement prompted the next fearful question: “How is our family?”

After resolving with Toni to try to learn how our families are faring, I went into the kitchen, where I found a note from Marie. It was obvious that she chose not to wake me with the news; better to be depressed with a full night’s rest. “There was a MAJOR earthquake in L’Aquila,” she wrote. “We have to find out how Benedetta, Pasquina, Laura and Rosella are.”

Benedetta, Pasquina and Laura are my second cousins, whom we have come to love dearly from hospitable visits and correspondence. But Rosella… well, she was a story unto herself. She is the aunt of my friend Piero, an American marketer of marine goods. I met her only 18 months ago on a trip to Italy. She had come to the U.S. as a teenager to help care for the newborn Piero, and during that time came to love all things American. Even today, she wishes someone could open a Dunkin’ Donuts in Italy, and Piero regularly sends her Folgers coffee. When I asked her what she remembered from American television (which taught her the English language), she said, “Well, I remember that it takes too hands to handle a Whopper!”

When I knew that we were returning to Italy, I phoned her and emailed her to arrange to meet her in L’Aquila. It didn’t matter that I was a complete stranger to her. I was her Piero’s friend, and that made me family as far as she was concerned. We walked into the family shoe store with cousin Laura in tow, and when she turned to see my face, which she knew only from her computer screen, she threw her arms around me like a long-lost love. Soon she and her husband, Giancarlo, were taking us through the streets of L’Aquila, visiting bars and cafes. When I realized how much money she and Laura’s husband, Marco, were shelling out, I pulled out a large Euro myself, trying to sneak it to the barkeep. You may have thought I had pulled out a Beretta. “Your money’s no good here,” the men croaked in the best English they could muster. “You can pay when we come to Philadelphia!” Rosella explained to me later that it was a matter of honor. “We don’t want you to talk about us when you go home,” she said.” We don’t want you to say, ‘I went all the way to Italy to visit them, and they wouldn’t even give me a drink of water!’”

Soon I met Vincenzo, the local restaurateur, and of course, my money was no good there either. Nor could Laura and Marco pay. By extension, THEY were family, too.

Later, Laura and I walked together, catching up as cousins do. As we passed a local photo shop, she told me that she wanted to visit the proprietor, Mario, a man from her village of Fiugni. We went in, and Laura had a conversation with him in Italian. (It was uncharacteristic of her to exclude me through language, but for some reason, she did this time.) She explained to him in Italian that I was visiting from America, and he asked where I was from, as he had family in America.

I surprised Mario when I asked in Italian, “Where is your family?” We were both surprised when he answered, “Philadelphia.”

“Provengo da Philadelphia. Dove a Philadelphia è la vostra famiglia?” (I come from Philadelphia. Where in Philadelphia is your family,” I asked. He answered “Levick Street.”

“ I vivo una volta vicino alla via di Levick. Che è il vostro family' nome ?” (“I once lived near Levick Street. What was your family’s name?”)

And when he said it was “DiMario,” I responded in Italian, “Were they Eugenio and Marietta DiMario? Because I knew them when I was growing up. They died many years ago, but I know their family.” And based on that chance conversation, I was able to connect Mario DiMario, a photo shop owner in a L’Aquila, with his only remaining relative in America.

Today, I am haunted by these connections. As of this writing, I don’t know where Laura and Marco and my other cousins are. Are they in one of the makeshift tent cities? Another cousin in a different part of Italy informs me that they are probably okay, though they may have suffered damage to their homes. But we have no details, and we have failed to connect with them by phone or email.

I was pleased to learn from Piero that Rosella and her 86-year-old father survived the earthquake, and they are now safely sheltered by family on the Adriatic Coast. The two-hour car ride to L’Aquila was made more dangerous by the fact that the “Superstrada,” the futuristic highway that connects the Adriatic Coast with central Italy, was damaged by the quake. In a similar episode, Marie’s cousin was able to find his daughter who was studying at the University of L’Aquila and take her back home (coincidentally, also to the Adriatic Coast). But I still don’t know for sure about the conditions of Laura, her mother, Benedetta, and her sister, Pasquina.

Nor do I know how this will affect the work of the sisters’ husbands. Or the education of their children. And what must be rebuilt? What storefronts are lost forever? Which artwork will never be replaced? The cupola of the basilica that we admired in L’Aquila’s piazza has been lost. Has faith in the future been lost, too? And what spirits must be repaired as decades of aspirations and achievements have all come tumbling down?

Electrons circle the globe instantaneously, carrying images of far-away events, and we believe that we have empathy with the characters that flicker across our screens of several sorts. We also take for granted that our media will reach out and touch someone, anyone, we so choose. But tonight my faith in our media is shaken, as I can feel their inadequacies. I have walked the streets of L’Aquila myself, and I understand the many qualities that are now irretrievably lost to nature’s power — qualities that are not apparent to the casual viewers of news reports. And until I am assured by the words and the voices of my loved ones, I am unimpressed by the reach of satellites, cell phones and emails. It is the content of our media, not their capacities, that give them their power. For those of us who are communicators, that is our challenge: to bridge that gulf and not be so arrogant as to believe that our media by themselves can do the job. It is a rude lesson, but one worth remembering as we strive to tell so many stories in this era of recession and unemployment, politics and punditry, and diplomacy and war.

The Imposter at the Podium

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:21:00 +0000

My client, Ken (not his real name, of course), has an enviable pedigree. He is a successful, highly billable consultant with a PhD, and he travels the U.S. to advise his clients -- A Who's Who of American corporations -- on how to merge their behemoth companies into a single culture. And yet he has come to me for advice on how to present to large groups.
I was bewildered by Ken's request. I asked him how successfully he has spoken to large groups over the course of his career. After all, I reminded him, he has developed a sterling reputation as a consultant over four decades. He is the go-to guy for bringing the best out of corporate leaders. Surely his work speaks for itself.
Actually, Ken explains, he functions much better one-on-one or in small groups of up to four people. But when he faces more people than that, he feels unworthy of any credibility. He becomes very serious and loses his humor in these situations. Ken has even been known to faint as a result of the anxiety he feels.

My advice to Ken is that his success with small groups indicates that he is an effective communicator. It is only the scale of speaking that we need to address. My analogy is driving cars. The mechanics of driving a car are essentially the same, whether you're controlling a Mini Cooper or a Hummer. The difference tends to be in the proportions of the driving: how wide the turns needs to be, how far you can see from your seat, etc. So if you can communicate with just a few people, you should also be effective with a larger group. More importantly, I shared with Ken my mantra about teaching people to be presenters:

Anyone can be an excellent speaker,
once you have identified that person's strengths
and then play to them.

In all my years in corporate America, I have found that to be true without exception. If a leader is authoritative, use that authority to make her a more commanding speaker. If the person is accessible and down-to-earth, play up his warmth which caries with it a certain believability. If his voice is a powerful instrument with resonance and diction, use it take charge of the room. But it is folly to make the arrogant, supercilious executive into Will Rogers. Nor seldom is the self-made, shoot-from-the-hip graduate from the College of Hard Knocks going to remind anyone of Orson Welles. The audience will see through these facades in a moment. So Ken and I will go through the following exercises in the coming weeks:

We will work to determine his strengths. Based on his ability to deal with people in personal situation, as well as my own social contact with him, I believe that his personal warmth is the key.
We will develop ways to display those strengths. Ken has confidence in his writing, and I trust him in that judgment. So I want him to write his own presentations. In that way, he will feel comfortable with the words coming out of his own mouth.
Ken must be convinced that he is the authority. His education, rack record and references speak for themselves. Ken has things to say that are credible. He must believe it, too.
Practice. There is no substitute for working on delivery and becoming comfortable with diction and movement. As Edwards Deming used to say, there is no instant pudding.

How about you? Do you feel like an empty suit when it is time to speak? If so, review your methodologies and your content. Get a coach, as Ken has done, and work through the details. I can assure you that your audience will believe in you once you believe in yourself.

The Language and Symbols of Downsizing

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:40:00 +0000

So the bloodletting continues. Layoffs keep on keeping on. Today, the current culprit is IBM, the company that falsely laid claim to "lifetime employment," and their lemming-like employees fell for it. But what I am concerned about is how these things are communicated. I must admit that corporations have become smarter and more sensitive over the last 15 years. (I was spoiled by the progressive attitudes of General Electric. (So you don't think of me as an uncritical chauvinist, let me say that I was laid off by GE, so I have reason to be critical, even resentful, of the company. Still, I think highly of their internal communications and of GE overall.) But there is still plenty of room for improvement. If you are in an organizations that is downsizing, and you're responsible for a function like communication, human resources, productivity, or morale, ask yourself these questions:

What kind of language is the company using to describe the action? Layoffs are tough enough on people and their communities. To couch them in corporate-speak such as "rightsizing the workforce" is insulting. Tell the public that your revenues have decreased! Say that you missed your sales target! Describe how you f****d up the business! And then tell them how you will make things right with future actions. For God's sake, have respect for their intelligence.
Are your officers visible to the workforce at this time? Amazing how many open meetings there are when things are going swimmingly for a company, but the bosses disappear during tough times. How much will they trust you in the future if you can't trust them with bad news? The greatest leaders in history, such as Truman and Churchill, described how true leadership was based on how important it was to acknowledge the hell that their people were in, and then lay out the exit route.
Have you announced no raises this year for hoi polloi this year, yet execs received their bonuses? Yuk, bad form there. This "let them eat cake" attitude will come back to bite you eventually in the form of loyalty or quality of the people you attract.

And all of these considerations lead to a very big question...
Have you considered the true costs of layoffs? Geoff Colvin writes a terrifically succinct article in Fortune magazine that describes the hidden costs of layoffs, such as letting go future leaders of the company, the downsizing of morale, and the eventual costs of rehiring. (Many people don't think of that. Economies do turn around. When that happens, what will be your company's reputation in the marketplace for qualified employees?) Even the much-vaunted GE suffered from that. Their Financial Management Program is well-regarded in Corporate America. In many circle, having "FMP" after your name is equal to "CPA." However, during the Jack Welch era, many graduates left the program upon graduation saying, "The company has already declared I'm expendable. Why should I stay?" To GE's credit, they took their lumps and realized that this was a fair reaction.

I really believe that corporate leaders are generally better at these things. But there are still enough outliers out there to make these points worth repeating.

DELIVERY AT LAST ...My Baby Has Arrived!

patrocchi@comcast.net (Pat) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:03:00 +0000

I'm no stranger to bringing a work to completion, but it's a strange sensation for me to receive a book. It's probably because while I have produced lots of videos, events and even articles in the past, this is my first book, which required more time to come to fruition. I have spent the last year committing my thoughts and philosophies, my life experiences and those of other people, to paper, and now they sit in boxes, duplicated for mass consumption (at least I hope they are consumed by the masses).
The packaging (i.e., the cover) represents the great work of my friends, Thom Holden and Dave Bell, who really put themselves into the book. But they are not tied to the content as I am. In examining the effects of change on our lives and how to deal with it, I tapped into such disparate experiences as losing my job (oy, losing my job SEVERAL times!), the death of my father, my admiration for Tony Bennett, even when Bill Buckner bobbled a routine ground ball in the World Series. Okay, that last example is not so terribly personal, like when some people deal with cancer, dandruff or some other disease. But I'm taking the risk that I have something to say that is meaningful and applicable to others.
I already sold three copies, and that's before the book arrived. THAT's a buzz worth having! I'll let you know how it goes. If you want more information, click here.