C-O-I-N-S: Communication Opinions, Insights and New Strategies

Groups, Thinking and Groupthinking

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:54:00 +0000

We Need Time Alone and Time Together to Be Effective

Several former students from my Strategic Communication class at NYU sent me an article from The New York Times recently. (I already read it but remain so appreciative that they thought of me.) “The Rise of the New Groupthink,” written by Susan Cain, caught their eyes because we had a deep discussion about the groupthink phenomenon. Unfortunately, the article didn’t capture the real essence of groupthink nor did it mention who coined the term.

Groupthink is not just thinking in groups. Dr. Irving L. Janis, as a research psychologist at Yale in 1971, said it’s “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

While it’s important for teams to feel and be cohesive, it’s our mutual responsibility to confront bad or negative behaviors. Too often, team members try to please one another; they don’t want to “rock the boat.” What’s most important to them is to be perceived as team players and to retain their membership or standing in the group. But groups that can’t challenge themselves can seriously threaten (and in some cases destroy) the groups’ very goals and principles. (The examples are too numerous to mention but one of the most extensively studied were the groupthink decisions that led to the loss of the space shuttle Challenger and her crew.)

Janus identified eight characteristics of groupthink:

Illusion of Invulnerability: A belief that any decision reached will be successful. (How can we lose? We’re too big, too important to fail.)
Belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group: A belief in the righteousness of the decision. (God is on our side!)
Rationalization: Objections are overshadowed by perceived negative reactions. (No one will notice or care. It’ll work because it’s always worked.)
Stereotypes of Out-Groups: Falsely characterizing another group. (It’s the media that’s giving us a bad name!)
Self-Censorship: What we commit upon ourselves in the guise of group loyalty, team spirit or adherence to company policy. (I should have said something, but…)
Direct Pressure: Dissent is presumed to be disloyal or counter to the group’s interests. (If you’re not with us, you’re against us.)
Mindguards: Data, facts, opinions kept deliberately away from the group. (Oh well, you already made up your mind anyway.)
Illusion of Unanimity: As drawbacks are downplayed and the inevitability of the decision is reinforced, the group coalesces around the decision. (We have to make this happen, we have no choice – so we’re good to go, right?)

In her NYT article, Ms. Cain posits that we’re crushing creativity by teaching in classroom “pods” (where desks are arranged together) and working in open-plan offices. (Yes, it is nice to be able to close the door every now and then.) When referring to brainstorming new ideas she says, “People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure.” And quoting Steve Wozniak of Apple fame: “Work alone... Not on a committee. Not on a team.”

Of course we need time and solitude to think. That's a "no brainer." (I couldn't resist.) I’m a big advocate of carving out some amount of time every day to ponder. More connections form in our brains when we think habitually. (More on this in the previous article, "A Creative New Year's Resolution.) So, generating ideas on your own is great. I’m all for it. But ideation, like just about everything else in life, requires balance. In this case, it's balancing time alone and time together. Refining and enhancing ideas through collaboration and gaining the buy-in of the group are essential elements in any organization and in any business. Indeed, the team concept isn’t at fault; it’s the team dynamic that can lead to trouble.

Janus offers us some help here, too, with some methods to avoid the effects of groupthink:

Keep an Open Climate: Keep the discussion free of judgmental attitudes and accept divergent thinking.
Avoid the Isolation of the Group: Frame the issue/problem from different points of view; bring in outside opinion/experts.
Allow Critical Evaluation: Grant power to assail the “sacred cows” and challenge areas outside one’s expertise.
Avoid Being Too Directive: Allow the group it’s own space – leaders don’t need to be present for every meeting.

Ms. Cain concludes by acknowledging that collaboration is crucial, at least in some spheres. “The problems we face in science, economics and many other fields are more complex than ever before, and we’ll need to stand on one another’s shoulders if we can possibly hope to solve them.” My belief is that “many other fields” is more likely most, if not all of them.

In between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

A Creative New Year's Resolution

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:00 +0000

This article first appeared in the MENG (Marketing Executives Networking Group) Blend.

How many times have you heard it? “Tell me something I don’t know.” “Give me your best creative ideas.” “I want a concept that people will be talking about.”

It doesn’t matter if you’re inside an organization or sitting in an agency – there is a never-ending desire and need for differentiation. Whether it’s a company, product or person, engaging and persuading stakeholders often involves thoughtful, clever marketing. The problem, though, is that creativity is both misunderstood and dropping in supply.

Although LinkedIn reported that “creative” was the most overused term in on-line profiles¹, a survey released in 2010 by IBM of more than 1,500 CEOs from 60 countries and 33 industries emphasized that even “more than rigor, management discipline, integrity, or even vision—successfully navigating an increasing complex world will require creativity.” Creativity was cited by 60 percent of the CEOs as the most important attribute; integrity was next at 52 percent.² With such a high premium placed on creativity, the CEOs in the survey signaled some concern because less than half of them “believe their enterprises are adequately prepared to handle a highly volatile, increasingly complex business environment.”

This may not be just a staffing problem. It may also mean that there are not enough creative thinkers to go around. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that we may be heading for a creativity crisis. A review of nearly 300,000 creativity tests, also called Torrance scores, of children and adults collected over several decades showed that American creativity has been declining since 1990.³ (These tests were based on the work of the late E. Paul Torrance, an educational psychologist best known for his research on creativity.)

Yet, creativity is in the eye of the beholder. There’s more than one definition and more than one way that creativity can lead to a successful outcome. Still, we must ensure that our educational system emphasizes idea generation and problem-solving techniques in addition to the more traditional memorization and drills.

Recognizing the importance of creativity, some advertising and public relations agencies have elevated people into positions such as chief creative officer. You may have also seen the titles creative guru, creative ninja, or even head of creation (which may get an argument from, shall we say, a higher authority). That’s all fine but I have known a few who took their titles to mean that creativity was their personal domain and theirs alone. These individuals would go into seclusion so they could develop “the big idea.” Then, they presented their concepts as a fait accompli, like Athena bursting out of Zeus’s head fully armored and ready for battle. We want and need exceptional thinkers on our team, but they sometimes rail against process and fail to realize that there is, or should be, a team. Without good leadership from the “creative types,” the other human resources in the organization will be wasted and demoralized.

While meeting the business objective is the ultimate measure of success, it’s been known that the quest to be creative sometimes becomes the objective in itself. In the drive to knock the socks off of the client, or win an industry award, the true customer – the end-user – is forgotten. We need to spend more time orienting on the audience, reminding ourselves of the real prize. As King Arthur said when he rose to power, “I don’t think things ought to be done because you are able to do them. I think they should be done because you ought to do them.”⁴

As a fan of the Arthurian legends, I was taken aback by a comment made about his style of thinking toward the end of his life: “The old man had always been a dutiful thinker, never an inspired one.”⁵ What was meant by this? Was it an insult? Was there an implication that dutiful thinking was inferior to creative thinking? The truth is we need both. A dutiful thinker is a habitual thinker, one who is always observing, searching for solutions, and attempting to anticipate the future. The creative spark is precious but dutiful thinking, steady and stepwise, is a virtue of its own. Sometimes we can get to the goal line in one play. More often, though, progress is made in important, incremental steps that ultimately add up to the win. As Merlin, Arthur’s mentor, told him: “…the only thing worth doing for the race is to increase its stock of ideas.”⁶

The creativity deficit could be reversed in short order if more people adopt the concept of marrying dutiful with inspired thinking. Getting ourselves and others to think a bit more and a bit more regularly is surely a lot easier than other New Year’s resolutions we’ve proclaimed and then later abandoned. It’s interesting to note, too, that habitual thinking is a form of mental exercise that, over a lifetime of consistent contemplation, changes our neurological patterns.^{7, 8}More time thinking helps to remodel our brains so that we get better at thinking. If only weight loss and getting in better shape were this painless!

1. Ceyhan, Simla, “Buzzwords 2011: Who’s been ‘creative’ and ‘effective’ this year?,” December 13, 2011, http://blog.linkedin.com/2011/12/13/buzzwords-redux/

2. 2010 IBM Global CEO Study, http://www.ibm.com/ceostudy.

3. Attributed to Kyung-Hee Kim in P. Bronson and A. Merryman, “The Creativity Crisis,” Newsweek, July 19, 2010.

4. White, T.H., The Once and Future King, p. 246.

5. White, T.H., The Once and Future King, p. 630.

6. White, T.H., The Book of Merlyn, p. 11.

7. R. E. Jung et al., “Biochemical Support for the ‘Threshold’ Theory of Creativity: A Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study,” Journal of Neuroscience 29:16 (2009): 5319–5325.

8. R. E. Jung et al., “Neuroanatomy of Creativity, Human Brain Mapping,” Journal of Neuroscience 31:3 (2010): 398–409.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

A Game's Afoot

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:05:00 +0000

Attempting to Bolster Pharma Reputation Facebook Style

I saw an article in Medial Marketing & Media several weeks back entitled, “Boehringer's Pharma-ville could salve industry's bad reputation.” The article was about Syrum, an on-line game where the “objective is to save the world, one disease at a time.” According to their web site, “Syrum is a social game on Facebook which sees you take control of your very own pharmaceutical company. You’ll have to equip and use your laboratory to discover new drugs and bring them to market in order to increase global health.”

Great, but as we’re waiting for further updates, I’ve wondered who this was targeted to and if this was an effort to increase the industry’s reputation, a Facebook game that helps BI find a new audience, both or something else? Reading on, the article said the game could “help address the flagging reputation of the industry,” but John Pugh, BI’s head of on-line communications tried to clarify the intent and said, “The main objective is to create a kick-ass game… It's about pharma and fun."

Too bad. Is that all BI’s leadership wants to get out of this effort? I don’t have an argument with “kick-ass” (however that’s defined) but I wish the endeavor also included some real learning objectives. Engagement and goodwill are important, or course, but can something be taught? Can knowledge be used beyond the game experience? I'd love to hear more about what BI will be measuring.

It’s clear that we need better informed, more knowledgeable customers. How else can they value and trust what we do in research, development, approval and medical education? More knowledge leads to better outcomes. Better outcomes leads to better utilization. Better utilization leads to better satisfaction. Better satisfaction leads to more trust.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t be creative. I’ve said it before: we should use our talents and resources to develop a massive, sustained effort to enhance health and science literacy. When it comes to managing one’s health or the health of one’s family, most people don’t have enough knowledge to evaluate a medical product claim or even formulate the right questions to ask a healthcare provider. This deficit makes the public an easy target for anti-vaccination nonsense, and purveyors of alternative medicines and bogus devices.

If reputation building is a secondary consideration for BI, I suggest a revaluation of objectives because the industry needs all the help it can get. After inching up to 31 percent in the 2008 Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient survey, the numbers fell back to 29 percent in the latest results. In comparison, the technology industry scored 72 percent. Essentially, the scores are mirror images – as many don’t like the pharmaceutical industry as like the technology industry. Pretty sad, indeed.

Unfortunately, much of this reputational gloom is self-inflicted (price hikes, quality problems, data transparency, etc.) but other aspects are controlled by external factors (insurance coverage decisions, political agendas, alternative medicine claims, etc.). It’s complicated and it’s fluid. So, let’s control what we can control: behavior, ethics, standard operating procedures and, in this case, communication and education.

BI deserves credit for exploring the edutainment world. I signed up to receive updates on the Syrum web site and am eagerly await more news. However, I might be outside of their demographic because the cartoonish graphics and sound effects seem to trivialize the point. I hope upon its official launch that the substance, at least, is a little more realistic.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

A Few Thoughts from Orlando

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:12:00 +0000

Not Disney, the Public Relations Society of America International Conference.

This brief video was shot by the PRSA on a flipcam after I delivered my address - Arthur: King, Leader, PR Man - Modern Lessons from Camelot and the Round Table. Your feedback is welcomed.

Please click here to view

You can learn more at www.camelotinc.com.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

The Form and Substance Disconnect at HP

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:49:00 +0000

More on the CEO Merry-Go-Round

It was just a couple of weeks ago that I wrote about the ham-handed firing of Carol Bartz at Yahoo (Another Botched Corporate Transition) and now it's here-we-go-again at HP. In the earlier article, I noted that the ouster of Mark Hurd and the poor preparation of HP's Board of Directors was used as an example in chapter 13 of Camelot, Inc. (Passing the Candle: Succession Planning). It was Leo Apotheker who took over from Mr. Hurd less than a year ago and now it's Meg Whitman taking over from Mr. Apotheker.

What was at the core of Mr. Apotheker's failure? Was it a flawed turnaround strategy? After all, his plan to spin-off the $40 billion PC business (hard won by another former CEO, Carly Fiorina, through the controversial acquisition of Compaq) and the deal to buy Autonomy, a software maker, for a hefty $10.3 billion caused a gigantic gasp of concern on Wall Street and among HP's 320,000 employees. No. Ms. Whitman told The Wall Street Journal that she endorsed the strategy. "I think the strategy is right," said Ms. Whitman.*

Apparently, the substance was there but his ability to articulate and communicate the plan was not. In the WSJ article, it was reported that Mr. Apotheker informed almost no one of his business intentions; enormously important decisions were a complete surprise to key people, including the head of the PC unit, Todd Bradley. In addition, he "appeared unable to explain the moves to investors" and the board felt that he "failed to rally his troops well and staffers believed "he was not clear on the strategy, not articulating clearly what the direction was."" Board Chairman Ray Lane said, "We didn't see an executive team working on the same page or working together."

Intellect and vision are hugely important attributes but Mr. Apotheker came up short in other areas of great consequence: communication and team work. As I point out in chapter 6, How to Be the Best Knight: Marrying Method and Manner, we're a package; one dimensional leadership doesn't cut it. It's essential to understand the array of audiences that have a potential impact on success or failure, and to be able to convey information in a clear and timely fashion.

And, lone wolves have no place in leadership roles. Of course, the CEO must ultimately make a decision; it can, indeed, be a lonely job. But leading means providing a forum for sharing ideas and brainstorming others, building relationships and creating an environment of trust, and communicating in a way that inspires others to believe and to follow.

Maybe part of the problem is the lack of incentive to succeed; the CEO merry-go-round has been quite lucrative -- a reported $13 million of Mr. Apotheker and $10 million for Ms. Bartz, for example. (Dear Yahoo, I'd be willing to be fired for $5 million.) So, while the boards review their CEO vetting procedures and succession plans, they should also take a hard look at compensation schemes and success measures. Failure can be a two-way street.

* Ben Worthen, Justin Scheck, Joann Lublin, H-P Defends Hasty Whitman Hire, The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2011

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

How Google, IBM and Others Can Help Hold Feet to the Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:54:00 +0000

A Proposal to Harness Computing Power to Showcase the Truth During Political Debates

Like so many, I'm profoundly disturbed when facts are ignored or twisted. I bristle especially when it comes to junk science and false health claims. Politics aside, Michele Bachmann's repeated assertion that Merck's HPV vaccine may cause mental retardation goes beyond inaccurate; it directly undermines public health. She ignores the experience of millions (and the lives saved, the disease prevented), clinical evidence, and the findings of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics. It would be an absolute crime if Ms. Bachmann's fear-mongering statement leads to just one girl eventually getting cervical cancer because her mother decided against vaccination. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts."

Of course, health advocates, and public health and medical professionals blitzed the news media with the actual facts, which were 100 percent contrary to the presidential hopeful's claim. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. For some, the corrections will stick in their brains; for others, however, it will be in one ear and out the other. In Camelot, Inc., I addressed the challenge of undoing false or misleading statements: "It’s difficult to defeat because once in place, misinformation is terribly difficult to retract and, harder still, to erase from one’s memory. In a study of nearly 900 participants, researchers showed that “the repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.”* Once the information is published “its subsequent correction does not alter people’s beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.” And, “when people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.” The bottom line is that people may continue to rely on misinformation even when a subsequent retraction is made and remembered."

Following last night's Republican debate, Ms. Bachmann denied saying that the vaccine was "potentially dangerous." "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement," she countered. And, yet, anyone can read the transcripts or look at YouTube to see and hear for themselves that she said it again and again. Of course, there were plenty of other flagrant violations of the truth by the other candidates. In the debate follow up, PolitiFact.com and others comment on the veracity of some of their key statements. It's important and worthwhile and... maybe too late to matter. How many listen to the pundits after the main event is over or read the news articles the next day? Just some small fraction of the debate audience, I'll bet.

So, here's a proposal that will hold every candidates' feet to the fire. Let's have all the fact checking completed during the debate. Before everyone shakes hands and calls it a night, a final segment is added: the candidates are confronted with their false or misleading talking points (maybe even a report card on how accurate or truthful they've been) and are asked to address the issues right then and there. During the course of the debate, all of the statements could be crunched through the vast holdings of credible, objective knowledge. Google was a co-sponsor of last night's debate, for crying out loud. And, if IBM's Watson computer can win at Jeopardy!, there's no reason that near-real time fact checking couldn't be a reality. It could be PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter(TM) on steroids. No opinion sites or blogs would be part of the fact checking database -- only transcripts, proceedings and testimony; almanacs and atlases; laws, regulations and policy statements; credible survey data, and peer-reviewed research reports.

Google/YouTube and Twitter have expanded interest and engagement in the political debates. Here's a way for them and others to ensure that the widening audience gets the facts and not the flimflam.

* Lewandowsky, S., et. al., “Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation” (2005), Psychological Science, 16(3):190-195.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Another Botched Corporate Transition

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:33:00 +0000

When Will They Ever Learn?
The news this week that Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz was fired took me back to Mark Hurd's departure from HP last year. I used Mr. Hurd and the HP Board as an example in chapter 13, Passing the Candle: Succession Planning, in my book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table. While Yahoo stock rose and HP stock dropped in the immediate aftermath, both actions left a leadership vacuum -- the Boards acted without naming a successor. Indeed, both companies didn't appear to have a succession mechanism nor was a search firm in place. I wrote, "Succession for executives and managers must not be left to chance; evaluation of internal and external talent, along with a predetermined, orderly process for transition, is required to help guarantee the organization's ongoing success."

In the case of Ms. Bartz, though, a number of other book chapters were violated such as chapter 8, Picking Your Battles: Navigating through Your Audience and Environment. It was a less than graceful exit when she sent an e-mail to 14,000 staffers saying, "I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's Chairman of the Board." In an interview with Fortune, she expanded her remarks by saying, "These people f****ed me over."1 Will that help her to create trust in future relationships? Does that embody professionalism? And, in a blow to chapter 14, Destiny and Legacy: Making Your Personal and Professional Mark, is that how she wants to be remembered?

Of course, the Chairman, Roy Bostock, also trampled on chapter 8 as well as chapter 10, Realism and Idealism: Balancing Vision and Execution. The key take-aways are that one can't allow things to boil over and that important issues - no matter how awkward or uncomfortable - must be handled face-to-face. Ms. Bartz said she called him out on the cowardly handling of the termination by asking, "Why don't you have the balls to tell me yourself?"1

All of this begs the question of whether or not Ms. Bartz was the best choice when she was hired in 2009. In chapter 5, Creating a Round Table: Assembling the Right Team, the importance of vetting and fit - skills, personality, philosophy - are discussed. In an open letter, Yahoo investor Daniel Loeb noted that Yahoo has cycled through four CEOs in four years. He said, "This board's failures have destroyed value for all Yahoo stakeholders." Ms. Bartz was brought in to turn around a struggling Yahoo but mostly divested or shut down struggling units and shed employees. She "failed in that she could not build new growth engines for the company."2 And was her "take no prisoners" approach appropriate for Yahoo? As an outsider, I don't know but reports of poor relationships with Asian partners and a "proclivity for verbal gaffes" indicate that trouble probably started early on.3

So, Yahoo looks amateurish and ill-prepared, calls for ousting some Board members have begun, Ms. Bartz will probably continue to embarrass Yahoo and herself for a while, and no one learned any management or communication lessons. Hint: I'm available for some consulting and I'll bring copies of my book.

1. Patricia Sellers, Fortune, Sep. 8, 2011
2. Maxwell Wessel, HBR Blog Network, Sep. 7, 2011
3. Kara Swisher, All Things Digital, Sep. 6, 2011

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

The Trickle-Down of Distrust

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:55:00 +0000

How We Elect Leaders Is Pulling America Apart
Cause and effect are often difficult to prove. This is especially true when there are a lot of "moving parts." When it comes to all of the unrest in the world, we have to examine and weigh the contributions of economics, religion, culture, ego, etc. In health care, the complexities and differences in our genetics and in the way research is conducted leads frequently to conflicting reports on nutrition, drugs, supplements, diagnostic tests, etc.

There are also a lot of moving parts in the political arena and here, too, cause and effect are hard to prove. For example, take a look at the gridlock in Washington, and the expanding and deepening incivility in the capitol and across the nation. Is it worse today than in the past? In fact, there has been plenty of political hate over the centuries. We've seen greed, lies, propaganda, impeachment and attempted impeachment, duels, assassinations and attempted assassinations.

And, yet, this all feels different and not in a good way. Never before has there been such a low level of trust in Government and never before have our leaders trusted each other less. There are many factors, of course, that have conspired to whip-up this historic, stomach-turning divisiveness and cynicism. As I said, it's tough to put one's finger on a single cause and effect but here's one hypothesis: Our endless election cycle is destroying America -- our progress, our ethics, and our empathy and cohesion as a people.

Campaigns used to be episodic -- there was a campaign "season." After a few months of electioneering, the bulk of the name-calling and character assassination would be over; politicians would get back to business. There was plenty of time between election cycles for people to make-up, form relationships, and build some mutual respect and trust. Not today.

With drawn-out primaries, the influence of PACs and SuperPACs, the blurring of reporting and opinion and 24/7 media coverage, presidential contenders (not to mention House members) never stop campaigning. And, they never stop bashing their opposition. It's become more strident, more shocking, in the same way we crave more and more stimulation and outrageous behavior in reality TV shows, radio programs and computer games. The baseline of acceptability, what we're calling normal, has been shifting for some time. In my view, however, the line has been crossed.

Conventional wisdom tells us that politicians are thick-skinned; it's "just politics," no one takes it personally. Wrong. The rhetoric has become more personal and it is, indeed, being taken personally. We can see all the grudges that have formed, with little hope of repair. But the real victims of the constant criticisms are us -- the American people. We're told day in and day out by just about everyone who's out of power that the Government is incompetent. We can't trust the Government to lead. We're told by a great number of companies in highly regulated industries that we can't trust the Government to guide economic development. We're driven to take sides. We're told it's all or nothing.

Sadly, with all the repetition, we're buying-in to the message. Our trust in government has eroded to its lowest point since scientific political polling began. The self-fulfilling prophecy is for real.

Should we have blind faith in government institutions? Of course not! But the side effects of all the political positioning and posturing is that we've become meaner, less tolerant and more uncompromising. With heals dug-in, few are optimistic that our leaders will deliver any meaningful solutions to our enormous challenges. While our Founding Fathers would marvel at our technological advances, they'd be horrified to see the increasing dysfunction and distrust. Their words are quoted often but heeded rarely. The "big picture" is lost while politicians ride the endless merry-go-round of raising and spending campaign cash and undermining the very institution they claim to cherish.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Courage Has Nothing to Do with It

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 15:48:00 +0000

Clausewitz, King Arthur and Our Founding Fathers Weigh in on the Debt Crisis

I'm rereading Clausewitz (the 19th century Prussian general who, many agree, is the father of modern strategic thought) in preparation for teaching the Strategic Communication class at NYU this summer and see a link to the current debt ceiling issue.

As we approach the cliff, we hear politicians and pundits say, "We must have courage to do the right thing for the American people." The problem is that courage has nothing to do with our current situation.

Let's face it. The impasse has much too little to do with being right or about logic or about serving the broad interests of the population. It's much more about power and control. Clausewitz wrote, "Obstinacy is not a defect of the understanding. Rather, obstinacy is a defect of the emotions. The unwillingness to bend, a resistance to judgments not one's own, only have their basis in a particular type of selfishness, which places above every other pleasure that of using one's mind to exert control over oneself and others."

Our Founding Fathers and the generations of leaders who followed didn't take us on a straight line to success. Our history has been a bumpy path but one that always led forward. Yet, we stand on the brink of moving backward in a really significant way for the very first time. The health of our economy (and our society, not to mention the impact a default might have on global markets) is caught up in positioning, gratification and selfishness.

This ties back to my blog post of April 8th (How "Camelot Wisdom" Can Address Our Political and Budget Woes). We need more understanding, mutual respect, empathy and a willingness to accept incremental change -- and fast. I don't know where the much needed wake-up call will come from. Can a nation so divided come together and shake the tree of government to demand positive action? I hope so. But with so much posturing, with such heated rhetoric and message spinning, it's easy to understand that many citizens are dazed to the point of paralysis.

As Congress comes back after the Fourth of July holiday, I hope they can channel even a tenth of the character of our founders and set us back on a positive course. They were the ones with courage. They risked their lives and invented a great nation. Our leaders today must not squander that inheritance.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Redrawing the Boundaries Weakens Crisis Response

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:03:00 +0000

Why the Weiner Response is Failing

Unfortunately, we have another soon-to-be-classic example of what not to do in a crisis situation. When reports surfaced that lewd photos from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account were sent to a Seattle woman, the congressman claimed his account was hacked. High profile hacking was in the news – Sony, Citi, RSA, Lockheed-Martin – so what better way to build a credible sounding story? Thus, the first crisis boundary was built.

That dike was breached quickly when questions arose: If such a violation occurred, then why didn’t he call the Capitol Police? Why couldn’t he say with “certitude” that the pictures were not of him? And, was conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s claim that he had more pictures really true?

So, the crisis boundary was pushed back and a second wall went up. Surely an admission would be the last stand. It would all be over when Rep. Weiner confirmed that he sent the photos, and that he was sorry, stupid and scared. Right?

Wrong. There were, indeed, additional photos (some pornographic) sent to more women, and there was a three-year history of “sexting.” And, now, more questions: Was government property used to carry on these activities? Was he conducting himself this way from his Capitol Hill office? What resources and who else might have been involved in covering up his carrying on?

Now he must push the boundary out yet again trying, in his way, to encircle where the next shoe might drop. He’s been calling colleagues directly to explain himself, beg forgiveness and to build some level of support. But, as the circle grows, the wall becomes harder to maintain, the perimeter more difficult to patrol and the imprint on all of his constituents more enduring.

Is he so different from some other high power, high profile politicians, entertainers or businessmen? No, but that’s hardly an excuse. We may be getting increasingly numb to these shenanigans but, for now, our sensibilities demand some sort of appropriate closure.

The bottom lines? He said he’d answer questions, then he wouldn’t, then he would again. He changed his story. He lied. He’s been behind the news, never ahead of it. And what is he left with? A shredded reputation. A seemingly endless supply of material for comedians. Calls for an ethics investigation by the House of Representatives. Demands for his resignation. Chances for his dream job – to be mayor of the City of New York – potentially dashed. Abandonment by friends and colleagues. A wife who has kept silent. The centerpiece of a new case study for the field of crisis communication.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Why Donald Trump Would Get an F (in my class)

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:51:00 +0000

The Donald is not The Researcher

This is not about politics; it's about veracity and logic. (Yes, it's sad that these words together - politics with veracity and logic - should seem so oxymoronic.)

As you may know, one of the courses I teach at NYU is Research Process & Methodology for students in the M.S. program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication. An objective is to help them prepare a comprehensive proposal for their thesis projects. After they complete their degree, a few may go further into the research realm. But I'm quite satisfied if they leave having the tools and confidence to be good purchasers and evaluators of research.

We're nearly at the end of the semester and I like to remind students of the original objectives and discuss whether or not we reached them. That's when Mr. Trump popped into my head. With his rise in the political polls tied to his investigation into the president's birthplace, just what kind of purchaser and evaluator of research is he?

As a purchaser - he hired "people" who were deployed to Hawaii to determine if a birth certificate (the "certificate of live birth" in that state) existed or was altered. On one occasion after another he told the world that "you're not going to believe what I'm hearing" and "I'm hearing that it's missing." I wonder if his research team will get paid now that copies of the certificate from the official bound volume of documents have been released by the state at the president's request.

As an evaluator - he ignored previously released certified documents, hospital birth announcements and a mountain of facts from the government of Hawaii and investigators from the news media. As of this writing, he still has not given his blessing to the "long form" certificate of live birth that he sought so doggedly these last few weeks.

Of course, I couldn't fire Mr. Trump if he were in my class. Strictly on the basis of his research performance and expertise, however, he'd get an F.

With his F, though, he's still one clever guy. As the citizenship issue dies down (but kept alive at some level, I'm sure), Trump is ramping up the next crusade - the president's grades and whether he truly earned his way in to Columbia and Harvard. By finding new platforms to question the credibility and legitimacy of the president, he remains in the spotlight - whether it's for political gain or for TV ratings. Clearly, if there was a class on self-promotion he'd get an A.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

How "Camelot Wisdom" Can Address Our Political and Budget Woes

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 19:47:00 +0000

Politicians Should Take Some Lessons from King Arthur's Leadership and Communication Style

The failure we see in the statehouses and in Congress starts with an inability to listen and understand. It was clear to King Arthur that having the ability to comprehend other people, their circumstances, and their environments was not only nice and good, but important in other ways, too. He learned that one could achieve a huge competitive advantage. What better way to know your adversaries? And who do people want to vote for, fight for, or work for? Most often it’s the person who takes an interest in them, recognizes their motivation, and feels their pains and successes.    

Just about everyone clamors for some understanding. But this cuts both ways: we want to be understood by others, and others want us to understand them. Yet, we may be losing our collective capacity to understand on an emotional level as some recent studies have shown. Perhaps this is one reason why the “my way or the highway” method of negotiation has become so popular. The belief of many politicians that even a 50 percent-plus-one victory gives them some sort of clear and unassailable mandate is another reason why we can’t move past gridlock. We can’t take a step forward when the first position is to dig-in-your-heals.     

This was similar to how Arthur behaved initially in his mission to unite England at a time of competing kings and threats from abroad. Might for Right was his grand strategy: he invented the Round Table to channel the energy of the knights away from fighting toward the enforcement of a new order. Over time, however, it turned out to be a failed policy. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, Arthur said to Lancelot, “…when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too.” He had the sense to see the flaws and began the process of moving, “groping,” toward a newer, better foundation: Equal Justice.    

We’d all like to get things right the first time and politicians are no different. Though it’s certainly the most desirous way of operating, it’s hardly the most common. Sometimes the imperfect thing is the only thing to do. Whatever axiom you want to use—half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good”—incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.    

Like the uncertainty felt by corporations and interest groups of today, Arthur created a conundrum for the class of nobles in his attempt to change civilization. They weren’t sure if he represented a threat to their positions and wealth or an opportunity to enhance them. And like all threats and opportunities, he had to deal with the rational as well as the emotional sides of the issue. Protecting self-interest, maintaining tradition, helping your fellow man, and doing what’s best for the greatest number of people all had to be balanced. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method and he knew it. He admitted his mistake. That’s the first step in re-railing a strategy: identify the strengths and weaknesses—what should be kept, modified or jettisoned. Acting in the best tradition of the modern innovator and entrepreneur, Arthur took a risk. He went forward with a plan, though there were imperfections  and gaps in understanding all of the potential issues.    

The ability to sustain an effort is frequently underappreciated. Because incremental advances are hard to discern, we often see anxious leaders swapping out one set of strategies and tactics for a new set too soon; they don’t allow enough time for their plans to mature. With enough patience (and the appropriate resources), we know that all the baby steps can add up to become a completed marathon. Rarely do we see or accomplish all or nothing; compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. The two steps forward/one step back process frustrated and even depressed King Arthur but making progress and leaving improvements behind is what’s important.     

There are, of course, times when one can (or must) reach the finish line in one bold move. But this “Camelot wisdom” should remind our leaders that the Holy Grail they seek isn’t at the end of this day or the next week but after a long journey of give and take.  

You can read more in Camelot, Inc. Leadership and Management Lessons from King Arthur and the Round Table, www.camelotinc.com.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Endorsements for Camelot, Inc.

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:38:00 +0000

Camelot, Inc. provides a most thoughtful framework for thinking through some of today's biggest business leadership challenges. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Brian T. Gladden, Senior Vice President and CFO, Dell Computer and former President, GE Plastics

The dos and don'ts in Camelot, Inc. highlight the enduring characteristics of protecting and building personal and corporate reputation. Oestreicher has found a compelling way to teach us as much what to do as what not to do.

John Doorley, Academic Director, graduate program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication, New York University and co-author of Reputation Management

Oestreicher’s book goes well beyond the depiction of King Arthur and his court. The complicated relationships between leader and managers, the balance between personal and work lives, and the conflict between idealism and pragmatism are as much a part of today’s business world as they were in medieval England.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman

Camelot, Inc. is a remarkable ‘mining’ of lessons from the Arthurian legends. Oestreicher has found timeless prescriptions for achieving excellence in leadership.

L. Patrick Gage, Ph.D., enGage Biotech Consulting, former president, Genetics Institute and Wyeth Research

As a child, my introduction to human drama in literature was through the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable. Truly everything you need to know about human values is found in these tales. Paul Oestreicher recognizes that these tales hold timeless lessons for leaders as he brings the reader inside the Roundtable.

Greg Simon, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Policy, Pfizer and former chief domestic policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Camelot, Inc. gets to the heart of the mentoring role in growing and sustaining enterprises—both large and small. In our increasingly “virtual” business and social environment, Paul Oestreicher shows how critical mentoring is to passing along core values to the next generation of leaders.

Victor R. Budnick, Managing Director, Ironwood Capital and Lead Venture Mentor, Yale Enterprise Institute

You can see more information about the book at www.camelotinc.com.

Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Roundtable

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:27:00 +0000

An Excerpt from the Introduction

What lessons about management and leadership can an ancient king and court bring to us in the 21st century? Can the trials and tribulations of people so removed from us in time and custom truly be relevant in modern corporations, organizations, or governments?

If one thinks of texts and stories even more ancient than those of King Arthur, the answer is obvious. People continue to draw important meaning from the stone tablets, scrolls, and books of the past. Indeed, there are many for whom ancient ways and teachings enhance their well-being and guide their daily lives. The Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote (before the time of Arthur, in the second century), “If you have seen the present then you have seen everything—as it has been since the beginning, as it will be forever.”

So it is with the stories of King Arthur. Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings—personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. Those enduring qualities and complexities of human nature, told and retold in story, song, and scripture, have given us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

In Camelot, Inc. we glean management and leadership insights from Arthur’s evolution from the awkward and out-of-place squire derisively called the Wart to impatient student to compassionate king to tired ruler. We’ll start at a time when Arthur found a mentor (rather, when the mentor found him) and observe how he learned, how he developed his leadership philosophy and his vehicle for communications, what it took to excel, how he created a vision and mission, and then how a failure to confront issues led to his decline.

It’s not just that these royal life-cycle transitions so closely track the rise and fall of modern managers and leaders. Arthur will help us to deal with some of today’s most pressing leadership issues: knowledge retention, developing coherent plans and proposals, building internal and external advocacy, communicating and negotiating, team building, maintaining ethical standards, innovating, ensuring flexibility, moving from vision to execution, and succession planning.

Much of what we hear and what we come to accept as fact or truth has been termed “conventional wisdom.” Here, we have Camelot Wisdom. Camelot, Inc. will not be a history lesson, but I will use history to illustrate the dos and don’ts critical to our success as learners and leaders.

Camelot, Inc., Praeger Publishers. Available February 15, 2011. Please visit www.camelotinc.com for more information.

Cats and Dogs - It's Raining Opinion

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:05:00 +0000

A Bad Survey Results in Bad Reporting

Today, The New York Times published "Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming," a story based on a new survey from George Mason University that concludes there are "tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue [climate change]: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters."

In brief, only about half of the 571 TV weathercasters surveyed believed global warming has occurred, fewer than a third thought it was "caused mostly by human activity" and more than a quarter agree with the statement that "global warming is a scam." Here are some important under-appreciated facts:

Climate scientists and meteorologists are like cats and dogs, apples and oranges. College degrees versus graduate training and research. Predicting the weather tomorrow versus studying decades of data.

Not all TV meteorologists are created equally. Half don't have degrees in meteorology -- they simply report the weather. Sadly they are often the de facto local science expert because 94 percent of TV stations don't have a full time science reporter. Thus, misinformation and junk science can be easily perpetuated.

Politics forms the backdrop, not the science. I hate this but, as I've said before, the facts sometimes don't matter (Do the Facts Matter? Of Course They Do, Of Course They Don't). There's 130 years worth of information to conclude that CO2, driven up by human activity, is linked to climate change. Unfortunately, those now famous emails from a British group that allegedly tried to suppress some climate data have given climate change deniers a new reason to cast suspicion and doubt on the collective work of the field. It is also notable (and not reported in the NYT story) that 37.9 percent of the survey respondents identified themselves as somewhat or very conservative, 35.1 as moderate, and 27.3 as somewhat or very liberal (1.6 didn't know).

I really don't care where one stands on the political question -- my friends stretch across the spectrum -- as long as there is an open mind and a respect for the facts. But it would interesting to see how the survey might have changed if 1) political leanings were neutralized and 2) sorted by true expertise in the field/years of education. The bottom line is that The New York Times may be making a mountain out of a mole hill by elevating the visibility of a flawed survey.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Gaining Higher Ground by First Finding the Low

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:59:00 +0000

Treating the Cause, Not the Symptoms, of Pharmaceutical Industry Reputation

When confronted with a problem or an issue, we look for the root cause, the scene of the crime, Patient Zero. In the case of healthcare industry reputation, however, it seems that executives and consultants have a hard time finding that lowest common denominator. Though the pharmaceutical industry has suffered from behavioral, communication and performance missteps that have lowered reputation, it is low health literacy among consumers and the decline of science journalism that are fundamental to this problem.

Many millions have been spent on advertising campaigns to communicate the value of medicines and the cost of product R&D. Attempts have been made to showcase the role of industry research in modern medical breakthroughs. Disease awareness campaigns have been launched to help people better respond to symptomatic cues and get help. A conciliatory face has been unmasked as concessions on discounts and rebates were recently made during negotiations on healthcare reform.

It does not appear, however, that the “kitchen sink” approach to corporate reputation management is working. According to the yearly Harris poll of public attitudes toward different industry sectors, pharmaceutical companies have roughly the same score as cable companies and automobile manufacturers. The “good job minus bad job” number was nine (with supermarkets leading at 86 and tobacco trailing at -32).¹ Last year the number was 15 (with supermarkets at 84 and tobacco companies at -43).²

In the annual Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient survey of the 60 most visible companies, however, the pharmaceutical sector posted its highest reputation scores in five years – up to 31 percent in 2008 from 26 percent in 2007.³ The optimist might say that the upswing in public sentiment is proof that the varied messages and good works of the industry are finally penetrating the gloom. Yet, the cynic might say that it’s all relative; the self-inflicted wounds of other industries make pharmaceuticals look good by comparison. For example, the financial services fell into the reputation cellar with the tobacco industry, both at 11 percent. The auto industry suffered the largest decline (22 percent) in the survey's history. And, remember, 31 percent good for pharma means 69 percent not good.

Wherever the numbers are, they need to be higher. Bolstering industry reputation means generating more trust among the stakeholders. We can go a long way in enhancing the relationship with key stakeholders by delivering on healthcare promises. That is, better outcomes for patients. Generating better outcomes is heavily dependent on appropriate utilization which, in turn, relies on better health judgment.

Better health judgment starts with consumers and the need for them to be more knowledgeable about healthcare. Dropping information – even crucial or compelling data – onto the heads of an unprepared public, or expecting a response to another “call to action,” is unproductive and unrealistic.

In response to these issues and obstacles, the healthcare industry should get behind a massive, sustained effort to enhance health and science literacy.

Of course, having a more knowledgeable public will not guarantee an enhanced corporate reputation. It must be earned. The self-inflicted wounds – the reputation-killing missteps and misdeeds – need to stop.

But, putting that critical issue aside, without an ability to evaluate the facts and evidence, the important health and science issues of the day – stem cells, healthcare reform, research funding, vaccine programs – will continue to be misconstrued and remain political footballs.

When it comes to managing one’s health or the health of one’s family, most people don’t have enough knowledge to evaluate a medical product claim or even formulate the right questions to ask a healthcare provider. This all makes the public an easy target for purveyors of alternative medicines and bogus devices.

This growing problem drew widespread attention when Newsweek put Oprah Winfrey on its cover with the title, “Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures & You”.⁴To be sure, Oprah has made tremendous contributions to her viewers and to noble causes across the world. But when she give a platform to physicians like Christiane Northrup who has used Tarot cards to diagnose illness, or celebrities like Suzanne Somers who apply, ingest and inject unapproved products in an attempt to stay young, viewers see an endorsement of potentially dangerous treatments and interventions.

Jenny McCarthy, another guest of the show, has used the very unfortunate story of her son to create fear and confusion around vaccines. Indeed, compared to parents of vaccinated children in the U.S., significantly more parents of unvaccinated children believe that vaccine efficacy and safety are low (58% vs. 17%, 60% vs. 15%). Also, significantly more parents of unvaccinated children believe their kids have a low susceptibility to diseases (58% vs. 15%).⁵

Following the Newsweek article and sharp condemnation by the mainstream medical community, Oprah released a statement saying “I trust viewers, and know that they are smart and discerning enough to seek out medical opinions to determine what may be best…” Trust isn’t the issue, however. It’s whether or not viewers have the ability to differentiate real science from junk science, medical myths from medical facts.

This inability to filter information holds true for the fastest growing sector of media – new or social media. Some commentators have heralded the arrival of “citizen journalists” to fill the void left by the dwindling professional corps. Sorry. Although bloggers help to generate much needed discussion, citizen journalism does not equal journalism. And, with the “viral” nature of the web, every anecdote, half-truth or falsehood has the potential to be perceived as fact, as real news.

Indeed, we need more pros to sift a growing mass of information. Professional health and science journalists must help to communicate the progress and the failures, and to differentiate the facts and evidence from the frauds and junk science. Unfortunately, we’ve seen surveys confirm what we already know about the state of health and science journalism over the past few months. It’s a shrinking, wounded profession. We know the symptoms – they’ve been well documented. Like the global economy, journalism needs a recovery plan.

A recent editorial in the journal Nature recognized that “scientists can do little to stop this bloodletting” though they can at least “help ensure that reporting about science continues to be both informed and accurate.”⁶ In addition, it was suggested that “the scientific community should work with journalism schools and professional societies to ensure that journalism programmes include some grounding on what science is and how the process of experiment, review and publication actually works.”

In another piece in the same issue, Toby Murcott wrote that science journalists must be more engaged – more a part of the action. They can’t simply massage a press release for their particular readership. He compares science journalism to the clergy, “taking information from a source of authority” and translating it for the congregation.⁷ He contrasts this with political journalists who, with a knowledge base on par with those who they monitor and interview, engage in an active exchange.

Physicians have a role in this, too. With inaccurate details or story angles developed for shock value, patients can be spooked out of taking their medications or seeking medical attention. Indeed, “communicating” was the first word on the first page in the first article of the first issue (of 2009) of the New England Journal of Medicine.⁸ Susan Dentzer wrote that “Whether they realize it or not, journalists reporting on health care developments deliver public health messages that can influence the behavior of clinicians and patients.” Unfortunately, many journalists “consider themselves poorly trained to understand medical studies and statistics.”

Yes, the quality of reporting and the training of journalists must be bolstered. A survey released this year by the Association of Health Care Journalists and the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 43 percent of respondents said training opportunities had declined.⁹

But addressing this one facet is not enough. Journalism is a business and, thus, a business case needs to be made in order to save (and expand) health and science journalism. The bottom line is that demand is low. Certainly, there’s no dearth of interesting material. It’s just a simple truth that a dreadfully large portion of the audience lacks the background and understanding to feel engaged in the subject areas. In a survey of more than 19,000 U.S. adults, only 11 percent where found to be "proficient" in their health literacy.¹⁰ This is where the recovery must begin.

The stakes are high and not just for the employment of journalists. Remember the first trial involving the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx® in 2005? The jury awarded $253 million to the plaintiff. Why? The science went right over the heads of the jury. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal a juror said, “We didn’t know what the heck they were talking about.”¹¹ Jon D. Miller, director, Center for Biomedical Communications, Northwestern University Medical School told The New York Times that “People’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.”¹²

Industry support for a long-term effort targeted at raising health and science literacy could lead to an increased public understanding and appetite for health and science information, news outlets being repopulated with professional journalists to help carry information forward, and a higher and wider industry reputation. Let’s spread intellectual curiosity, and use the marketing and partnering expertise of the industry to achieve these essential goals.

The Harris Poll^®, August 18, 2009.
The Harris Poll^®, August 7, 2008.
Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient^TM (RQ) survey, June 23, 2008.
Kosova, Weston and Wingert, Pat. Newsweek, June 8, 2009, pp. 54-62.
Omer, Saad B. et al. Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, New England Journal of Medicine 2009, vol. 360, no.19, pp. 1981-1988.
Nature, vol. 459, no. 7250, p. 1033.
Murcott, Toby. Science Journalism: Toppling the Priesthood, Nature, vol. 459, no. 7250, pp. 1054, 1055.
Dentzer, Susan. Communicating Medical News – Pitfalls of Health Care Journalism, New England Journal of Medicine, 2009, vol. 360 no. 15, pp.1477-1479.
Kaiser Family Foundation, The State of Health Journalism in the U.S., publication #7869, March 2009.
National Center for Education Statistics, The Health Literacy of America’s Adults, publication #2006483, September 2006.
The Wall Street Journal, p. A1, August 22, 2005.
The New York Times, p. F3, August 30, 2005.

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

End of Year News and Announcements

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:07:00 +0000

A New Book in the Works
This is my 50th entry and it’s the first one with something about me. I thoroughly enjoy commenting on news and trends, and offering up a new idea here and there. And, it’s gratifying to track how and where this is all being viewed. People from over 50 countries have visited

C-O-I-N-S.

However, some of you have noticed that the blog articles and published pieces in the trades have appeared less frequently in the last month. I have an explanation.

A part of it is the time devoted to reading papers and grading final exams for the Research Process & Methodology course I teach at NYU’s M.S. program in Public Relations and Corporate Communications. I had another great group of students who left, I hope, as more aware users, evaluators and purchasers of research. They will help to further elevate the field, and bring a more rigorous approach to communications planning and measurement.

The other reason, I am very pleased to announce, is that most of my writing energies will be placed toward completing a book on leadership and management. Camelot, Inc. will be published by Praeger and has a planned release in late 2010/early 2011.

I will still comment occasionally here and on Twitter, be involved with NYU and be available to take on consulting assignments in corporate and marketing communications, and issues and crisis preparedness.

I wish you a happy and healthy holiday, and a wonderful year ahead. I’ll look forward to staying in touch.

Paul

Afghanistan Speech Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:46:00 +0000

Notes for the President
Tomorrow evening, President Obama will address the nation from the US Military Academy at West Point. After three months of deliberating with his “war cabinet,” the President will outline his decision, which is presumed to include sending 30 – 35 thousand additional troops to Afghanistan. Word has been leaking for weeks (from sources including the military) about the proposed strategy, and the sides for and against it are already well developed.

We know that President Obama can deliver a great speech, but I thought I would offer up a few ideas on how to make communicate this crucial communication with maximal effectiveness. Here is what his address should contain:

The Background. It’s laudable that the President has adopted a stance of (at least attempting to) not dwell on the past. The answers are ahead of us, not behind. Yet, it’s important to explain why we are where we are. Not to be condescending, but the President should even consider using a map. Show the region, show the threats, show the opportunities. I know he’s been dinged for being “professorial,” but my view is that it’s a good thing. We have a President, a Commander-in-Chief, smart enough to give these important lessons to the public.

The Goal. Some have challenged the President to accept the military’s recommendations and move on. It’s a simplistic plea. A military strategy must support public policy goals. The question of why we are there and what we must accomplish in the name of national security must be answered first, clearly and plainly. Only after the planned outcomes have been stated can we decide on which strategies (military, diplomatic or both) are appropriate.

The Decision Process. As a corollary to the points above, it’s worth mentioning how this decision was reached. There has been criticism of the three months it has taken to debate the request for more troops. In the previous administration, many decisions came quickly, from the gut. Now, we have a more analytical, deliberative and inclusive decision making process. It needs to be explained. Moreover, the role of the military must be clarified – our civilian government should never be just a rubber stamp.

The Options. After hearing about how the information was gathered and analyzed, we should receive an overview (not the details) of the options the President had to grapple with before settling on his final decision. What were the pluses and minuses, and the potential consequences?

The Path Forward and Back. After laying out the options, make the case for the decision. What does it mean of us, for the people of Afghanistan, for the balance of power in the region? What are the consequences of increased involvement, when will we know when we’ve achieved our goals and how do we leave without causing more harm than good? And, what responsibilities will the world community shoulder? Can we count on a fairer distribution of the burden?

Acknowledge Other Worries. We all know of the disastrous experience the Russians had in Afghanistan. We know the parallels to Viet Nam are many. The President must address the concerns over another potentially bloody quagmire and how his strategy has the best chance of success. In addition, he should acknowledge the costs (human and financial), and the possible impact on the economy and on our security. He should also make the case that the seriousness of other issues – financial reform, jobs, healthcare, energy, climate change – means we must tackle our problems simultaneously, not sequentially.

Conclude with a Rallying Point. At the end, the President needs to seal the deal. That is, obtain the support of the majority of the American public. He needs to convince us that it’s time to get behind his decision and, most important, the brave men and women tasked with carrying it out. And, following the speech, surrogates from all sectors of society should be mobilized to reinforce the President’s message.

The content of the President’s speech must be spot-on but so must the tone. He must be perceived as truthful, authentic, realistic and reassuring. I’ll be tuning in at 8 o’clock tomorrow night to watch some history.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

The Pharma Pricing Dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:00 +0000

How to Rebalance the Picture
There’s front page outrage in today’s The New York Times. The pharmaceutical industry is roasted again in “Drug Makers Raise Prices in Face of Health Care Reform.” How much of the criticism is deserved, and how much is a result of poor communications or inadequate reporting?

The article cited several studies that link big increases in drug costs to legislative efforts – like bumping up carpet prices just before the big sale, or the rush to raise interest rates and fees before credit card reforms become law. The most recent study was conducted for the AARP by Stephen Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. It concluded that drug prices increased approximately nine percent in the face of an overall decline in the Consumer Price Index of 1.3 percent. He told the Times, “When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases.”

Not so, said Merck spokesman Ron Rogers. “Price adjustments for our products have no connection to health care reform.” But Joseph Newhouse, a Harvard health economist, said he found a similar pattern of stiff increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare in 2006. He said, “They [the industry] try to maximize their profits.”

No kidding. Of course the industry, any industry, wants to maximize their profits. Indeed, there’s an obligation to employees and shareholders. The problem is one of perception. What is smart business that helps to guarantee the long term success of the enterprise, what is abuse or greed, and what is corporate desperation?

The other side of this story is not told particularly well, and it’s hard to determine if it’s the lack of space accorded the pharmaceutical industry by the Times, the lack of a compelling message by the industry or both. The article states that “Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases” but then fails to explore it further.

Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), does manage to get a shot in by criticizing the study methodology and its sponsor. “In AARP’s skewed view of the world, medicines are always looked at as a cost and never seen as a savings – even though medicines often reduce unnecessary hospitalization, help avoid costly medical procedures and increase productivity through better prevention and management of chronic diseases,” he said.

Yes, good points, but readers are still left with questions and concerns. And, what about the cost of failure – the part of the price increases that are necessitated by the sheer difficulty of bringing new, differentiated medicines to the market? The reality is that, without the ability to replace innovative products lost to generic competition, outsized price increases will continue to play an outsized role in pharmaceutical profitability.

So, what needs to be done in order to achieve some balance, some greater understanding of the complexities in healthcare costs?

Provide proof. The industry must deliver concise, compelling and understandable information. Any spokesperson should be able to recite at least three pieces of evidence to support their position. And, if you believe the methodology of the offending study is flawed, develop your own bullet proof information.

Utilize credible supporters. The extreme pricing contention was delivered by two academics, a consumer group and an industry analyst. The industry’s position was staked out by the pharmaceutical trade association. It’s clear where most readers will place their trust.

Strike the right tone. Lashing out may be tempting but it could have the effect of creating sympathy for your adversary. And, in this case, the object of PhRMA’s annoyance – the AARP – represents millions of the industry’s customers.

Think about the timing. It may be that, as Catherine Arnold of Credit Suisse said, “If you’re going to take price increases, here and now might be the place to do that, because the next year and the year after that might be tough.” But, if these price increases cancel out some of the savings promised by the industry during negotiations over health insurance reform, don’t be surprised if some legislators attempt to exact new concessions with renewed determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

The Twitter Tail Wagging the Corporate Dog

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:05:00 +0000

Social Media Are the Means, Not the Ends
While scanning through a long list of Twitter posts the other day, I saw a link to TechCrunch, a blog “dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies.” An entry by MG Siegler, “Comcast: Twitter Has Changed The Culture Of Our Company,” caught my attention.

Sure, technology can help drive cultural change. Think of the tools of war over the centuries or what the automobile has meant to society. The examples are endless. But the culture of a company?

Yes, according to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts. In response to a question about the role Twitter was playing with the cable communications giant at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, he said “It has changed the culture of our company.” He backed that up by saying that Comcast uses Twitter to scan for complaints and engage with customers.

OK, maybe Mr. Roberts got caught up in the moment. After all, he was at a social media conference. And, it’s great that Comcast is using new tools (Facebook and other networks were mentioned) to address issues around customer service. However, this does not a culture make.

Tools support the strategy (and, thus, the objective), not the other way around. The tools of war support the policies of government. The automobile supports our mobility. You get the idea. Comcast delivers communications products and services. Its culture should be wrapped up in service delivery and excellence whether Twitter exists or not.

So, if Twitter really did change the culture at Comcast – all of a sudden becoming a company focused on customers and what they want – I wouldn’t be crowing about it. I’m guessing, but what may have happened was that seeing thousands of Twitter-fueled complaints was Comcast’s wake-up call. Twitter makes it easy to sound-off – much easier than having to find a telephone number to call, listen to the prompts, press 1, listen to some more prompts, press 4, and so on. Seeing this groundswell may have acted like a cyber-mirror and forced them to look at themselves, and reflect on who their customers are and how they conduct their business.

Web 2.0 offers us wonderful tools. We’re nowhere near realizing their potential or knowing how they will evolve. What should be known (and written in stone), though, is what our companies, institutions or organizations stand for. The decision to adopt a particular technology should only be made if it helps us achieve that end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

American Cancer Society vs. The New York Times

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:00 +0000

Feud Adds to Public Confusion Over Cancer Screening
As if there isn’t already enough conflicting information about cancer screening, a tiff between The New York Times and the American Cancer Society – two trusted sources of information – have the public scratching its collective head. It’s another example of how the current state-of-the-art in diagnostics, conflicting medical points of view, and the way in which healthcare news is communicated can cause people to either run to or away from their physician.

Veteran healthcare reporter Gina Kolata reported that the ACS “is quietly working on a message, to put on its Web site early next year, to emphasize that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.” Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the ACS, writing in his blog, counters that it’s not true. He wrote, “The American Cancer Society is not working on any stealth project to change commentary on our website to emphasize the shortcomings and risks of screening.”

With a tone of exasperation, Dr. Lichtenfeld went on to write, “And here is another news bulletin for the press and the rest of the media: developing and accurately promoting guidelines are complex processes that don’t lend themselves to sound bite messaging.” So true. Cancer is incredibly complex and the screening tools are far from perfect. Yet, it was Dr. Lichtenfeld’s boss, Dr. Otis Brawley, who was quoted in the Times article. He said, “We don’t want people to panic, but I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages of screening have been exaggerated.”

What’s really going on here?

1. We have a gender gap. Much of the controversy boils down to the fact that prostate screening is less effective than breast cancer screening. It’s a message not very many men want to hear.

2. Cancer diagnostics are not created equally. In addition to some screening tests having greater predictive powers than others, they do not differentiate between tumor types that may be more or less aggressive. This has a big impact on which cancers to treat or just to observe.

3. The ACS needs to harmonize its message. A third ACS executive, CEO Dr. John Seffrin, has now weighed in on this story. He said, “we have long acknowledged that cancer screening isn’t perfect. Sometimes cancers get overlooked. Sometimes cancers get misdiagnosed. Sometimes aggressive cancers can appear even after a clear screening test. It is important to acknowledge these limitations, understand them, discuss them with your doctor, and decide what is right for you.”

4. Physicians need to find the right language. The pros and cons, the risks and benefits, if and when to treat – they all must be discussed. It takes time, and it takes some skill to understand their patient and their ability to understand and deal with the facts.

5. The public needs improved health literacy. A corollary to number 4 above is that the public simply does not have a good enough grasp of the scientific concepts or the ability to assess the risks or benefits. If The New York Times and the American Cancer Society can’t agree or somehow misunderstand each other, then what hope should the average citizen have of making heads or tails of all the possible screening and treatment options?

Let’s hope we can get back on the same page and deliver timely, accurate and understandable information on what is literally life and death information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

A Healthcare Answer For Some But Not All

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:42:00 +0000

The Internet Is Another Health Disparity That Must Be Addressed
If you ask your friends, relatives and colleagues if they’ve used the Internet to find healthcare information, I’d be willing to bet the answer would be yes. There’s no question that the Internet is an ever more important healthcare tool. The ability to capture and consolidate information into electronic medical records; search and share health and wellness resources, and enhance communications between professionals and patients are among the many benefits of the web. It’s OK to cheer but just not too loudly.

The problem is that our friends, relatives and colleagues aren’t everyone – not by a long shot. According to Neilsen Online, there’s a whopping 277,636,000 Internet users in the U.S. The flip side of this seemingly good news is that it leaves about 30 million Americans disconnected from the world wide web and, thus, unable to access important healthcare tools and information.

The web is no panacea, of course. You may have read some of my previous articles where I pointed out the problems of web-based healthcare information. Because there’s so much junk science reported and repeated in cyberspace, it can be a case of information doing more harm than good. Still, there’s a growing list of important applications that will not be available to all who could benefit from them.

Take Keas, for example, the new company that boasts Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault as partners. Keas seeks to marry personal data and health information to produce personalized health plans for individuals. Delivered right to your desktop or smart phone might be diet and exercise advice, an explanation of lab results, different treatment options or reminders to take a medication.

During the healthcare reform debates, we heard repeatedly that a key to lowering costs is to have a healthier nation and that this goal will only be possible if individuals take more responsibility for their health. While we could achieve a lot if plain old common sense was applied more often, tools like those being developed by Keas could play an important role in both learning about and managing one’s health.

If experts are telling us that things like electronic medical records, on-line health information and personalized health plans are important to healthcare reform efforts and our own personal well being then we need to be thinking about two kinds of health disparities: insurance coverage and Internet access. Creative, cost-effective ways to distribute computers and expand broadband access must take on new urgency. The benefits would be manifold.

And, access should include more than the ability to go on-line. Access is meaningless if one can’t interpret what one has found. Even for those with Internet connections, there’s an enormous deficit in health literacy that threatens the public health, such as sensationalized claims that lead people to take potentially dangerous alternative medicines or parents to refuse vaccinations for their children other than for legitimate medical reasons. If there’s any hope in increasing coverage and quality while containing (or even lowering) costs, more attention must be placed on expanding access to and understanding of healthcare information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

Informed Dissent

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:10:00 +0000

H1N1 Vaccine is Here With Too Few Takers

Parents want the best for their children – happiness, success and good health. But nearly two-thirds plan on delaying or denying vaccinations against the H1N1 flu to their kids. It’s more than ironic to me, especially when so many complain about the lack of access to preventative care in this country.

Two similar polls just came out – one from the Associated Press-GfK and the other from Consumer Reports – that demonstrate that only about half of the U.S. population will be vaccinated. It’s not big news, though. This sort of result has been the unfortunate norm.

Why haven’t the numbers improved? Why are people so wary? Why are there so many who actively oppose vaccination? Is this just a case of people not being adequately informed? And, is this the government’s fault? The report published by the AP said that “The survey raises questions about government efforts to stem illnesses already spreading widely across the country.” I’m not quite sure what this statement is based on but my view is that the public-private partnership that has made millions of doses available is an impressive achievement.

So, allow me to briefly address some of the suspicions and concerns:

Flu isn’t all that serious. Influenza and pneumonia are the eighth leading cause of death in the U.S. (over 56 thousand annually).

It may be safe but I worry about side effects. Everything we do carries a risk. One must weigh the risk of injection site swelling and pain against contracting the flu with its potentially serious sequelae.

The vaccine hasn’t been adequately tested. Again, nothing is fool-proof, nothing is risk-free. FDA’s requirements for safety and effectiveness, however, are demanding. Moreover, the methodology for manufacturing the H1N1 vaccine is no different from other flu vaccines – vaccines that have an excellent safety record.

Vaccines can cause autism and other diseases. We may never know with 100 percent certainty but every credible study and review thus far (the most recent having been conducted by the Institute of Medicine) has concluded that there is no causative link.

I don’t think I/my children will get the flu. Sure, you might get lucky but why count on this wishful thinking? It has already been reported in 37 states – a much more rapid spread than in previous years.

I don’t trust it if the government is behind it. Fine, have a healthy skepticism but please don’t take it too far. Don’t undermine your health or the health of your family by listening to the fringe opinions of people like Rush Limbaugh who recently said that “All of this is designed to get people to respond to government orders, not to do things or to do things. It is designed to expand the role and power of governments and schools, and the media, of course, just falls right in line here with amplifying the nature of the crisis.” It's too bad there's no vaccine for paranoia.

If there are such good responses to these concerns, why aren’t people listening? Why aren’t people better informed?

My sense is that people are listening. They listen to and are informed by people that make sense to them. The CDC and NIAID have been all over the news with compelling information. About half of the country will act on what they heard. The other half will not be convinced. The message from anyone employed by or connected to these sources will not be trusted.

This is a barrier that will probably take a long time to breach. The ongoing outreach and education must continue while new efforts must be established to address the reasons why health messages bounce off of so many. Politics and conspiracy theories aside, elevating the public’s health and science literacy may give everyone a common ground from which to make their healthcare choices.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

1776 Déjà Vu?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:58:00 +0000

So Much Hinges On So Few

One of my children was just watching the movie version of 1776, the musical show about the events leading up to and including the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In the Broadway account, the fate of the document, the fate of the world, came down to James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was, indeed, torn between reconciliation and war with England. In a last gasp appeal, John Adams spoke out. "It would be a pity for a man who has handed down hundreds of wise decisions from the bench to be remembered only for the one unwise decision he made in Congress." Wilson (who, in reality, spoke forcefully for independence) relented. He didn't want the attention or the responsibility. "Mr. Adams is correct about one thing," he said. "If I vote with you [John Dickinson], I'll be the one who prevented American independence."

Healthcare reform and the signing of the Declaration of Independence may not be in the same league of American milestones, but the parallel struck me. Of course, there have been many, many instances where critical decisions came down to one unsuspecting or unprepared (or manipulative) person. But here we are. With the so-called public option going down to defeat in the Senate Finance Committee, it is now highly unlikely that any subsequent amendments with such a provision will survive.

And what does that mean? The table is set for Senator Olympia Snowe to play James Wilson. Sixty votes will be needed for passage and it's looking more and more like achieving meaningful (though highly compromised and far from perfect) healthcare reform any time in the foreseeable future will rest with the capable centrist from Maine.

The optics aren't pretty -- the old saying about laws being like sausages comes to mind. And what got us to this point hasn't been any more attractive. The raucous Town Hall meetings over the summer -- the shouting down of elected officials and the perpetuation of false claims -- did not instill confidence in the process of creating legislation. Politicians need to pay more attention to this point. The substance is important but, when it comes to building trust and unity, the visuals and the tone mean a great deal, too.

While one voice may decide the fate of healthcare reform, it's interesting to note which voices went largely unheard. The most vocal weren't those with the most to gain -- the roughly 46 million without insurance. The squeakiest wheels were found on those who believed that reform will diminish their care or cost them more money. They had the best access to the media, the best messaging consultants. So much for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for the rest.

Yet, some major groups that were lined up against previous reform efforts -- most notably the pharmaceutical industry and organized medicine -- are now advertising their support. Despite the bad press over the haranguing and arguing, there has been much more engagement, much more deal making and number crunching. Making a business case, not just an emotional one, may be the winning formula this time around.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

Chill Pills All Around, Please

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Oestreicher) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:04:00 +0000

Outbursts and Meltdowns Punctuate the Week
Civility was in particularly short supply this past week. Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shattered precedent and decorum by yelling “You Lie!” at President Obama during a joint session of Congress. Tennis star Serena Williams threatened a line judge at the U.S. Open with bodily harm following a blown call. Rapper Kanye West grabbed the microphone away from Taylor Swift, trampling what was to be her acceptance speech at the Video Music Awards, to disagree loudly with the judges’ choice. Conservative “Tea Party” events protesting big government saw slogans that included "Unarmed, this time," "Impeach the Muslim Marxist" and "Obama is trying to kill my mama."

It seems that these types of breakdowns in behavior (and good sense) are becoming more strident and are occurring more often. Why?

There is often little, if any, consequence. One reason that we have so much boorish behavior and repeat offenders is that people get away with it. Most people and organizations aren’t willing to set limits. There are too few that will object when “the line” has been crossed.

You can chalk it up to emotion. We’ve heard them all this week: “I’m a very passionate person,” “It was just a spontaneous outburst,” “My emotions took over.” Sorry folks. These are tired and wholly inadequate excuses.

People can blame the “fringe.” Another convenient excuse is to say that the particular incident wasn’t sanctioned. “We can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals” goes the refrain. Fine. But did anyone speak out? Did anyone say you’re at our event and you’re out of line?

There are some important bottom line considerations in all of this:

Behavior still counts, at least for some. Unless you want to be known as a beast, you are harming your personal brand – or the brand of your organization – by engaging in uncivilized behavior. We all know that part of successful reputation management is setting the proper tone for communication.

Examples are being set. Like it or not, these high profile offenders have fans, they have constituents. They’re role models. Without any impediments, these behaviors are bound to be emulated and propagated.

Bad behavior can incite worse. With each unchecked incident, the line separating good behavior from bad gets shifted. A new, potentially dangerous norm is set. In the most extreme case, it seems that the threshold from outburst to threat or from threat to violence is getting unsettlingly easy to breach.

Manners can trump message. At the core, though, it’s the message – the actual facts of the matter – that get lost. Are we talking about the tennis play between Williams and Clijsters? Swift’s music video? In the case of politics, we’re pulled away from an actual, healthy debate and forced to discuss the spectacle. Moreover, the public is often asked to take a side. The “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality still runs deep in enough of the population to threaten compromise or legitimate disagreement. This helps to crush the middle ground and polarize opinion further.

I hope the shrillness and the intolerance can be mitigated. It’s not like this is a new problem, either. It’s been discussed for millennia. Remember “Love thy neighbor as yourself” (the ethic of reciprocity)? It’s time to deliver.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.