Rick Chambers & Associates, LLC
Strategic Communications
  • Home
  • What We Offer
  • Guiding Values
  • Blog
  • Books
  • Contact Us

Quick! What's Your Mission Statement?

4/24/2015

 
Picture
For all the work that organizations put into crafting mission statements, it’s rather amusing—or should I say tragic?—that their stakeholders can’t repeat them.

This reality struck me today as I listened to a speaker give an overview of her nonprofit employer. Plowing through her requisite Powerpoint deck, she reached the inevitable slide titled “Mission Statement.” Therein followed 47 words covering four distinct themes.

To get through it, she had to read the slide.

My own memory tends to be liquid, so I don’t blame the speaker for not knowing the words by heart. Still, if an organization’s mission can’t be easily internalized and clearly articulated, how can its employees understand and embrace it?

To clarify, I’m not picking on length. Long statements can guide and inspire just as short ones can make no sense. What matters is whether the mission statement accomplishes its task: defining what an organization is, what it does and why it matters. When done plainly and simply, it provides a clear direction and sense of purpose. Done poorly—too wordy or jargon-filled, too detailed (or too vague), too focused on marketing instead of guidance—and it’s a meaningless mishmash.

(Need proof? Check out this website, Mission Statement Generator, which assembles randomly selected jargon into empty, flaccid prose that read, rather disturbingly, like real-world mission statements. If you’re a masochist, keep hitting the “Generate” button.)

The work of a mission statement doesn’t stop with its crafting. I’ve seen organizations invest time and energy into creating mission statements only to leave them languishing on posters and the backs of business cards.  Management assumes the employees “get” it and move on, with little insight offered on how to internalize and apply its tenets. Often, managers themselves don’t bother to use it.

When I began RC&A, I developed a mission statement—called guiding values, since the term “mission statement” brings certain baggage—that could be summarized in six words: Act justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. The entirety of RC&A’s guiding values are crucial to our work; those six words simplify the values so they serve as a constant guiding star.

A mission statement should simply and clearly describe what an organization stands for. It should be as brief as possible and easy to remember—or at least lend itself to shorthand that people easily retain. It should both guide and inspire. And it should be rigorously applied to every facet of the organization’s work.

Or, you can simply state: “We will work in sync to professionally leverage others' high-payoff services while endeavoring to globally pursue multimedia based infrastructures.”

(Dang, that Mission Statement Generator is too much fun!)

No More Slings and Arrows from the Shadows

4/13/2015

 
PictureImage: David Castillo Dominici/freedigitalphotos.net
It’s time for news media to put a stop to anonymous posts and require online commenters to identify themselves truthfully, without pseudonyms.

I’ve come to this conclusion after a lot of thought and many conversations with advocates on both sides. Like most arguments, this one isn’t black and white; there are compelling pros as well as cons. But the increasing lack of civil discourse (or civility) in the comment sections of news stories, and the impact of trolling on real people, has led me to believe transparency must be part of the mix.

The catalyst for my decision was a deep dive into Jon Ronson’s new book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. (I referenced Ronson and his research in this earlier blog.) In the book, Ronson interviews people who were shamed, mostly online, for infractions great and small, silly and stupid. Along the way, Ronson paints a portrait of the masses that, the reader realizes with growing dismay, is all of us—whether we dive into the mud with the trolls or give tacit approval to their antics.

“The powerful, crazy, cruel people I usually write about tend to be in far-off places,” he writes. “The powerful, crazy, cruel people were now us. It felt like we were soldiers making war on other people’s flaws, and there had suddenly been an escalation in hostilities.”

Those hostilities—rarely waged face-to-face, but rather launched from behind the lines of anonymity—often destroy people’s lives and livelihoods. Yes, many of the examples in Ronson’s book are reprehensible, ranging from deliberate acts of deceit to moments of exceptionally bad judgment. But do they justify job losses that impact innocent family members? Do they make death threats and rape threats somehow okay? Do they validate the never-ending fear of a poorly considered joke outliving every apology, every effort to make amends? Are they so worth protecting that the occasional suicide can be dismissed as collateral damage?

Ronson admits to having been part of the problem and has since limited his online criticism. “I miss the fun a little. But it feels like when I became a vegetarian. I missed the steak, although not as much as I’d anticipated, but I could no longer ignore the slaughterhouse.”

My hardworking friends in the news media worry that eliminating pseudonyms and anonymity will greatly diminish online interaction. They argue that they haven’t the resources to check the identity of posters—after all, just because someone signs his comment “John Smith” doesn’t mean that’s who he really is, and confirming it requires staff and time today’s woefully understaffed media don’t have. They point to comment sections as a platform for dialogue, a way to engage readers in the discussion.

All of that is true. Like I said, this isn’t a black-and-white argument. And let’s be clear, eliminating anonymous posts on mainstream news media sites won’t come close to stopping the online shaming that Ronson writes about. (Nor does Ronson take this position in his book.)

Yet it’s worth noting that a number of prominent websites have nixed comments in recent months, including CNN, Popular Science, Gawker Media and others. (Most still allow discussion—good, bad or ugly—on their social media sites.) “You've given us a stunning example of just how unfathomably ugly the internet can be," wrote the editors of Jezebel when it yanked the plug on comments.

“But … freedom of speech!” some cry. Yes indeed, and it’s one of our most cherished. Definitely worth protecting. That’s why I’m not suggesting it be taken away; I’m saying it’s time for people to own it.

The Perils of 'Any Publicity...'

4/4/2015

 
PictureImage: Boians Cho Joo Young/freedigitalphoto.net
I’m tempted to think Indiana Gov. Mike Pence achieved precisely the communication goals he had in mind last week.

Pence, a social conservative and rumored GOP long shot for president, sure isn’t suffering from lack of name recognition after the firestorm over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. What’s surprising, or perhaps suspicious, is how he and his staff seemed completely unprepared for it.

[A note before we move on: I am not going to comment on nor offer an opinion on the law itself. There’s plenty of that happening elsewhere.]

The new law, passed by the Indiana state Legislature and signed by Pence in late March, immediately sparked controversy, with supporters claiming it protects against government interfering with one’s religious practices and detractors insisting it opens the door to discrimination, particularly against gays.

Pence took point in commenting on the law. Almost no one thinks he did it well. A particularly awkward example was an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Not only did Pence arrive with inadequate talking points—he seemed interested only in blaming the Internet for the backlash—he seemed completely unprepared for a simple yes-or-no question. Let’s go to the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And so yes or no, if a florist in Indiana refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that legal now in Indiana?

PENCE: George, this is, this is where this debate has gone, with, with misinformation and frankly--

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s just a question, sir. Question, sir. Yes or no?

PENCE: Well, well, this, there’s been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. People are trying to make it about one particular issue. And now you’re doing that, as well.

There’s more, several minutes worth, and it’s painful to watch regardless where you stand on the issue. Pence simply couldn’t, or wouldn’t, answer what should have been the first rehearsal query any media trainer would have posed.

As the melee unfolded, Pence waffled on questions about whether the law should be changed. One moment, he insisted it would remain as-is. The next, he agreed there was a need to “clarify” it. Then he’d switch back. And switch again. (Eventually, the Legislature passed a revision that would added some protections based on sexual orientation, and Pence signed it before the ink was dry.)

Incredibly, when asked by a reporter whether he anticipated the public backlash, Pence said, “Heavens, no.” Which means Pence is either stunningly naïve, deliberately disingenuous, has the worst PR advisors ever, or he’s a disciple of that misguided notion, “Any publicity is good publicity.”

It’s hard to believe anyone can reach the governorship without good communication instincts and a solid PR team. Could it be, then, that Pence thought a brief episode of turmoil might be worth it to raise his name recognition among voters outside Indiana?

That’s entirely speculative on my part. If that was indeed Pence’s motivation, he wouldn’t be the first to play that hand. But it’s a dangerous hand, one that flies in the face of open, honest communication, and one that rarely, if ever, serves the player or the public well in the end.

    Picture

    Rick Chambers

    Rick is the owner and president of Rick Chambers & Associates, LLC.

    Archives

    March 2024
    April 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    December 2021
    September 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accuracy
    Code Of Ethics
    Communication Ammo
    Communications
    Digital News
    Fairness
    Firefly
    Integrity
    Internal Communication
    Lie
    Loyalty
    Matt Friedman
    Media Relations
    Pr
    Print News
    Prsa
    Public Relations
    Radiance
    Recognition
    Sean Williams
    Serenity
    Spin
    Star Trek
    Star Trek Phase Ii
    Tanner Friedman
    Truth

    RSS Feed

About Us

Rick Chambers & Associates, LLC, brings a solid track record of strategic, diverse, objective-based communications and public relations services. RC&A works closely with clients to understand their business, develop stakeholder relationships, build meaningful dialogue and help share their stories effectively.

Picture
Rick Chambers & Associates, LLC
1514 Kingsbury Drive
Portage, MI 49002-1664
USA
269.873.5820
[email protected]