You’re right; there’s lots of information about what leaders in other countries are doing. And I DO read the Economist so I can get not only the news but also the perspective from outside the United States.

But I must confess it is hard to get the impact of a leader’s communication by reading about it. I have more direct experience with the communication of leaders–or would be leaders–in the U.S.

That’s why I would welcome the comments from our members outside the United States who are hearing the messages from business, government and community leaders.

Or if someone wants to alert me to a communicator who is particularly effective, I would be happy to do more research on him or her. I recognize that good examples come from all over the world.

Thanks for your comments.

Julie

Granted, we can’t expect all IABC leaders to speak multiple other languages (although at least one would be lovely), but there are a lot of countries that are accessible to and English-speaker (the entire Commonwealth, for example, which includes a lot of African and Asia countries). Even that fine British establishment The Economist gives a different perspective from what you’d find in most American press (my very politically Right father thinks that The Economist is Communist propaganda, whereas in Europe, it is considered as politically Right as you can be in the mainstream!). And, if I can be forgiven for self-promotion, the PR Conversations blog cited in my signature strives to provide views from PR professionals around the globe.

In the age of the Internet, there’s a wealth of resources to help see the world from the perspective of IABC’s increasingly global membership.

Whatever our feelings about it in the International community, the US remains the hegemonic force in world affairs and consequently, the race for the presidency affects us all to a greater or lesser degree.

What the candidates have to say and how they choose to say it (and, for that matter, what response they receive from their audiences) is of interest and should be open to discussion. So I’m all for keeping this debate bubbling.

I’m with you . . . Go Obama in 2008!!!!!!!

Ha ha . . . just kidding. I know you weren’t endorsing him . . . and that’s my point. I don’t know that I’ve ever disagreed with Les before, and it gives me a funny feeling in my belly to do so, because he’s my idol and mentor and brother . . . but Les, if we can’t talk about U.S.-based speeches and speechgivers as examples of good/bad communications, we’re taking an awful lot of things off the table.

Is the Gettysburg Address off limits, because someone in Somalia might not get the reference? What about the Cross of Gold speech? Or King’s I Have A Dream, or Kennedy’s Ask Not What Your Country Can Do . . .

While I agree that we should seek out and showcase examples of great communication from around the world . . . I don’t think that means we have to shy away from highlighting great and/or bad examples from the U.S., just because not everybody will get them as much as we do.

Maybe Julie’s comments would get someone from Somalia or New Zealand to check out an Obama speech on youtube, and learn something.

Steve Crescenzo

Opposition Leader Stephane Dion and former Prime Minister Jean Chretien are both reasonably fluent in English, but speak it with such a strong French accent that people think they are not fluent. Have they been able to communicate effectively anyway? You decide. Does this have parallels with the CEO of a multinational, who might for example speak German with a bad accent at his Berlin factory?

Many politicians have mastered the art of the lie, or the promises they have no intention of fulfilling. They don’t pay for it because everyone knows the others are doing it too (with some exceptions!). You’d think this wouldn’t work in business, but can you think of some prominent business people who have used barefaced lying as both strategy and tactic? Or perhaps prominent sports figures accused of using drugs?

IABC should steer clear of endorsing individual candidates. That does not preclude talking about them.

I would love to hear more–from any country and any type of organization. We all have a lot to learn from other communications, no matter where they are located.

Julie

I actually think you are 100 percent spot-on on this one.

Not only may Barack Obama be one of the most powerful and resonant communicators in recent American history (and not just recent American political history), whatever success he has had and will have in the weeks and months to come will come down to his success as a communicator–and ultimately–as a communication strategist.

There are other key political figures in the world who have much to teach practitioners. Nicholas Sarkozy has used effective messaging and strategy to lay many of France’s sacred cows on the grill. David Cameron and Gordon Brown are engaged in a long-term conversation offering differing visions of Britain’s future and the role of government therein. Filip DeWinter in Belgium is offering a controversial vision of the future that has provoked an unprecedented response from the political mainstream. And the ‘nerdy’ Kevin Rudd rehabilitated a tired leftish political party and led it to triumph over a stout-hearted and entrenched incumbent in John Howard in Australia.

And let’s lot limit our range of positive role models to the politicians. Let’s be even bolder and look to religion. Two perfect examples are Rick Warren and Joel Osteen of the Megachurch movement. I don’t share their theology, but the creation and nurturing of the megachurch communities offers a phenomenal insight into the successful combination of hierarchical messaging with advanced and relentless social networking. A good case study of Warren or Osteen’s churches could probably yield more useful knowledge than yet another cursory glance at ‘employee engagement’.

I hear the concern that the lions of our industry have when we look outside of the realm of business communication and into areas that are more controversial. But I’d argue that what business communications needs is some controversy and controversial thinking. And I give you much credit for throwing your hat into the ring on this one.

Mike Klein
Delft, NL

My dilemma is that political candidates are using communication vehicles in a variety of interesting ways. Not do candidates give speeches, both good and bad, they are also now using blogs, web sites and profiles on Facebook to promote their candidacy.

Of course, I would welcome examples of how politicians in other countries use any communication vehicle well or poorly. The goal of bringing up these examples would not be to support a candiate; instead, it would be to evaluate how their use of communication changes minds and behavior. And although analyzing FDR’s use of fireside chats would be a safe choice, I would prefer to discuss some current examples.

Thanks for raising these issues.

I see your points, although I think your logic is a little fuzzy. You both seem to say it is sort of okay from time to time to talk U.S. politics from the highest podiums of an international association’s leadership. That’s fine. It’s all in how you spin it, I guess. My comment was merely a caution, not meant as a scathing critique. As I am sure is true of you, I care about the “I” in our name.

Therefore, I am sensitive to the interjection of uniquely American politics into our conversations:

I remember former Clinton aide now ABC Sunday morning talk show host George Stayontopofthis as a speaker at IABC Intl Conf. Flop.

I remember Carville and Mailtin as speakers at IABC Intl Conf. Flop.

Julie’s post was well-written (as usual), and she makes good points about speech construction and delivery. I am merely trying to point out that we must be careful of being thought of as America-centric by non-USA members.

I think it is okay talking about issues, and even political speeches. But as we are in the midst of an election, some might think your comments appear to support a candidate. If you wrote an article about FDR, or a Richard Nixon speech I don’t think you would have received a comment from Les. Though that’s for Les to say I am sure.

And Les, what if your organization has members who are politician’s, surely the association should discuss communication issues related to politics. The biggest story in 2008, is probably the election and iraq. I know of another communications society that is going to be holding a conference that will include a track on communications in politics. Not only do I think that is a legitimate topic of conversation, but because of the influence of election cycles on the innovation of communication within business and the wider society I think its the responsibility of communications associations like the IABC to report on developments.

You said: “I recognize that is not [advocating the election of a specific U.S. presidential candidate] an appropriate role for the IABC President.”

I agree. And I am concerned whenever an IABC leader speaks about U.S. politics. Here’s why:

Some years ago, an IABC member who was/is an ardent feminist, held up IABC’s annual meeting insisting that the association not hold any international conferences in U.S. states that had not adopted the Equal Rights amendment.

The great sin against IABC of this exercise in futility was that the Equal Rights debate was uniquely American. What would a member from Slovenia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc. care about an American political issue? I believe it was totally inappropriate for an international communication professional association.

I understand your point about good communication in the form of speeches. You stated your points quite well. But a caution: please stay away from U.S. politics. You were correct in the quote I lifted. Given that we are an international organization, I believe that it is not an appropriate role for leaders to discuss by name U.S politicians, issues, or actions.

Respectfully Submitted,
Les Potter