I attended the Arthur W. Page Society West Coast Social Media Summit at eBay a couple weeks ago and left energized; not so much in terms of the details of where we are today, but in terms of the vision of where we are headed in the future. This phenomenon of social media and how it impacts the enterprise on every level is not something companies can opt out of. It is here. It is powerful. It’s a moving target. And we still don’t have our arms around it.

As a communication professional that focuses most of my energy on the realm of employee communication, the content and stream of thought around the authentic social enterprise was exciting.  We are on the cusp of this social revolution, particularly in how it pertains to employees. As Jeremiah Owyang pointed out in his talk, the latest Edelman trust research shows that our trust in authority and institutions is declining while our trust in our fellows, including employees, is rising.

Employees have more power and influence than ever. Whether employees know it, and whether a company wants them to, employees are out there representing their companies with every tweet, post and iPhone video. And, as we have all seen, a company’s reputation can be dramatically impacted, both for the good and the bad, in a moment.

As professionals, we can have a tangible and dramatic impact externally, through how we manage, acculturate and prepare our employees internally. This has always been true, but never as true and powerful as it is today. Companies are becoming more transparent, again, no option here. The game will be helping our organization to be authentic and to look good without their clothes on. Companies that figure this out, and truly embrace an open communication culture, will reach the level of “enlightenment” that Jeremiah mentioned in his talk and in the report he handed out.

The bottom line message I got from the session is there is more need and opportunity with employees than ever before; and more thought, strategy and planning needs to go into how we manage communications in relation to employees. Well worth the time. In addition to this broad takeaway, the session also provided great tidbits on how other companies are managing (particularly eBay) and how we can improve our own use of social media (LinkedIn session).

Follow Barbara on Twitter: @bfagansmith

(To view videos and photos from the event, click here.)

Can consultants to leaders, including chief communication officers engaging with CEOs, keep bosses from creating crises?

Sometimes, sure.  Corporate communicators with earned respect for protecting the chief’s plans, programs and reputation can steer him or her away from decisions that won’t hold up under the backfire of stakeholders.

Talking truth to power and proving it with evidence is part of the CCO’s job.

Providing proof points—stakeholder perceptions, prevailing contexts including moods and emotions and especially timing—enables reception and influence.

You don’t hear much about crises averted, of course.  Nor do you hear much about respected counselors whose insights are rebutted by other insiders, resulting in decisions and leadership communication that fail to drive followership and advocacy.

So it’s interesting to learn what happened behind the Oval Office curtain when trusted counselors talked truth and trotted out proof points for President Obama as he got ready for his public announcement on the health-care law mandate to provide contraceptives.

Bloomberg reported that Chief of Staff Bill Daley, with agreement from Vice President Biden, told the President that HHS’s mandate on contraceptives could be political trouble.

The protective counselors “warned that the mandate would be seen as a government intrusion on religious institutions” alienating even moderate Catholic voters in battleground states.

Bloomberg’s journalists said Obama ended “months of internal White House debate by siding with a group of mostly female advisers who urged him not to limit a health-care law mandate to provide contraceptives…”

You know the story.

After a blow-back of public, political and religious opinion, White House counselors (no longer including Daley, who had departed for other interests) understood that the decision communicated wasn’t sustainable. Crisis damage control was necessary. The President’s walk-back, his follow-up communication on an “accommodation” came soon.

Point for CCOs?  Confirmation of what they know:

Communication pros who consistently plug into stakeholder perceptions, who are able to define contexts, content and tones that make or break communicated positions can and on occasion certainly need to persuasively “prebut” executive rebuttal in pre-critical time frames.

Story-telling is a good way to make a point. You may want to put in your file the story of POTUS and Daley.

In a blog how business leadership for a world of complexity and change was discussed at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, INSEAD business school professor Herminia Ibarra says it is no longer about reinvention but about adding elements to the old model.

Her Harvard Business Review article said a study of prized leadership attributes at Bloomberg had identified what the news empire calls an “and” factor.

“Peter Grauer, the Chairman of Bloomberg, talked about the results of a study to identify what leadership competencies were most valued in his company. The top performers had contradictory attributes, what he called the ‘and’ factor:

“They had future vision but were tactically strong; they provided strong guidance but were open to challenge; they relied on extensive networks but were also capable of moving fast (i.e., unilaterally); they were hands-on but also empowering.”

Ibarra said that since the 2008 economic crisis, two versions about leadership have coexisted.

“One, the traditional rhetoric, says that our perpetually shifting environment calls for leadership that is more decisive and crisis-oriented than the slow and consensual style that we might prefer in more munificent times.

“The second, more ‘politically correct’ rhetoric says that the old, command and control model is responsible for many of the problems of the recent years and that only with a more collaborative and inclusive leadership will we get the flexibility, innovation, and new thinking that we need to prosper in a fast-changing and hyper-connected world.

“Now it seems that we have settled on a solution — not ‘either/or,’ but ‘yes/and.’ Like Janus, the Greek god depicted as a man with two heads, each facing in opposite directions, our new leader can and must have it both ways: command and collaborate.”

The theme at Davos this year was “The Great Transformation: Shaping New Models.” But on business leadership, command and collaborate merges the two dominant models into one.

That seems right. Too often, we reinvent how to handle an almost hard-wired dynamic. Any group wants to be lead. Therefore, we need leaders. Leaders must be visible, willing to step out in front and point out the direction.

At the same time, today’s flatter hierarchies – a hard-won democratization of business –  mean we need better listening abilities in order to encourage employees – a group of empowered individuals – to perform better and to handle change.

I believe that the visible traits of a leader – her or his behavior consistent with their espoused values, business goals and “a command and collaborate style” – will determine whether they are effective.

As I have said before, I believe leaders need three forms of intelligence – business smarts and a good IQ, a superior EQ (emotional intelligence) and an acutely developed SQ (societal intelligence) that lets them see and act properly on their company’s purpose and role in society.

The command and collaborate leadership model would clearly fit the IQ, EQ and SQ mould.

For how leaders should live their leadership, my money is still on the 10 rules that Juergen Dormann, then CEO of ABB, shared with employees in the last of his 112 once-a-week letters to all staff that helped steer the company through a deep crisis.

They have both command and collaborate writ large. Along with care.

1. Operate with complete integrity. Keep your word, and do the right thing – even if you are the only one who knows you are doing it.

2. Become an expert in your field. “Expert power” provides one of the major sources of authority because people follow those who “know their stuff.”

3. Tell people what you expect. Use clear language to describe goals, values and expected behaviors. Develop a plan, and act on it. Listen for feedback that may signal the need for a change in tactics, or even in strategy.

4. Mean it when you commit. You’ll inspire people if you show them you accept the risks that commitment brings. You do that by sticking to your path in adversity and solving problems that seem impossible to others.

5. Expect the best. Maintain a self-confident vision of what you want – success – not a negative view of what you don’t want – possible failure. Positive thinking has power, but only if you fuel it with enthusiasm.

6. Care for those you lead. Put their needs at the top of your priority list. If things go wrong, “take” two things – charge and responsibility. And when things go right, share two things – the recognition and the rewards.

7. Put others first. Think of those you lead before yourself. Celebrate their success by giving them as much credit as possible. And share their pain even if it is inconvenient, difficult or costly in time, money or other resources.

8. Do what the word “lead” implies – get out in front. If you’re not willing to do what you ask your people to do, don’t ask them to do it.

9. Play to your own strengths. Learn how to compensate your weaknesses. Let your team members understand how you rely on them, and why. Don’t assume you know everything, or that you are always right.

10. Keep a sense of perspective. Strive for broad-based solutions. Take the time to resolve differences. No one gains if you leave only wreckage in your path.

I have found counseling CEOs in this intimate space on how they best can manifest their right to lead, humbly but with great clarity, to be the most satisfying part of my job as a CCO. What’s your experience?

Adam Lashinsky’s new book, “Inside Apple: How America’s Most Admired — and Secretive — Company Really Works,” describes how Apple’s obsession with secrecy is central to its success.  In the introduction to the Fortune magazine book excerpt, Lashinsky notes the irony of the disconnect between Apple’s secrecy and its status as the most admired company in the world.

In a video posted on Fortune’s web site, Lashinsky goes a bit further: “I don’t fault Apple for its culture of secrecy and I think that one of the fascinating debates that corporations should be having is, ‘Do we need to do a better job of shutting up?’”  This is a remarkable comment given the news media’s normal obsession with transparency.

When I lecture on public trust in business and mention the importance of transparency, I often ask classes how Apple can be so admired while being so secretive. The answer, invariably, is “great products.”  I think that’s right, and Lashinsky demonstrates the link between Apple’s secretive practices and its successful product hype.

If we were talking only about Apple’s right to protect its product development information from competitors, you would get no argument from me.  But I am left wondering how Apple manages to get away with secrecy on the kinds of things that corporate governance experts say should be disclosed, or that corporate culture experts say are not consistent with a trusting work environment.

It’s not accurate, of course, to suggest that Apple hasn’t been criticized for its opacity on issues like the late Steve Jobs’ health.  But I think it is fair to say that those criticisms really haven’t hurt Apple’s reputation in a way that impacts its business.

It will be interesting to see if Apple evolves to a more conventional view of the importance of transparency on governance and business practice issues or, if not, if customers, employees and civil society will be willing, over the long term, to continue to give Apple a pass.

Innovation is one of those concepts that can be hard to define, but easy to recognize. We typically think about innovation in the context of design or R&D – the latest consumer electronics breakthrough or the newest medical marvel with the potential to save lives, for example.  What may be less obviously apparent is the increasingly intertwined connection between innovation and communications.

Innovation within companies is largely driven by business needs, and with communications proving, more than ever before, to be a key component of strategic business decisions, we are seeing the function both drive innovation and heighten its impact. At PepsiCo, we have seen numerous examples of communications serving as the guiding force behind some of our most innovative initiatives.

One of the core attributes of our Mountain Dew brand, for example, is the highly participatory relationship it has with its devoted fans. In 2009, the brand launched its second DEWmocracy campaign and invited consumers to take part in the product development process. Three teams of consumers banded together to make  decisions on flavor, color, name, package design and advertising, and created three new limited-time flavors, one of which, Mtn Dew White Out, is now a permanent part of the product line following a public vote. In this case, an initiative that had consumer communications at its core not only achieved its goal of more intimately connecting with its audience, but it also resulted in a refresh of the brand’s product line.

Digital technology and social media represent a clear business opportunity for any company, but for a large global corporation like PepsiCo, it is especially critical. Understanding the potential that digital technology has to help grow our business, in 2010, we developed the PepsiCo10 program, which selected 10 U.S. start-ups to participate in an incubator program, working with our brands. The program, which has since been replicated in the U.K., allows PepsiCo to be on the ground floor of technologies that have the capacity to change the way we communicate with consumers. Again, this digital R&D pipeline has its foundation in communications.

 Of course, an innovation is only as impactful in the marketplace as its potential users perceive it to be. That is where communications plays an important role in illuminating the transformative qualities of a product or concept. Apple has been one of the great success stories of the last decade in large part because it has positioned its products as reinventions of staples that everyone already uses. The iPhone as the reinvention of the phone; the iPad as the reinvention of the computer. That way, their products appeal to all, not just the early adapter/enthusiast set. Communications has taken Apple’s products from technologically advanced to truly innovative.

All companies strive to produce innovative ideas, products and practices. To really change one’s industry though, communications needs to be involved at every stage of the process – from ideation to development to execution. The companies that take this principle to heart become the leaders that others turn to for inspiration.

Looking at the 2011 reputation meltdowns listed by Kellogg School of Management professor Daniel Diermeier in his trenchant blog, I’m reminded of rule no. 1 of crisis  psychology: pressure makes you stupid, and sustained public pressure makes you even more stupid.

There is more to it than shrinking your mental systems down to flight-fight mode, of course. A badly handled reputational crisis, to be sure, usually reflects institutional failings.

First, a crisis will surface shortcomings in the organizational culture. And more often than not, these cultural failings tend to be compounded by structural weaknesses that prevent effective and strategic deployment of the organization’s IQ and EQ.

Decision trees are unwieldy, so decisions get made too slowly. The PR function isn’t brought fully inside the strategic tent, so stakeholder concerns are not treated as valuable input but dismissed as hostile.

Or, the CCO’s counsel is simply outweighed by risk-averse advice from Legal or IR, and as a result,  the company often will act and sound out of touch, bureaucratic, calculating and uncaring.

At the root of a reputation meltdown nearly always you’ll find a real or perceived broken promise – the organization is not behaving in accordance with what its stakeholders expect from it.

Laws or regulations might also be infringed, but aren’t reputation crises at their core most often driven by deep public disappointment caused by an organization’s failure to live up to its espoused – or expected – values?

Compare the lived values of the mobile phone hacking reporters and editors of the News of the World with the fair competition and freedom of expression rhetoric used by Rupert Murdoch when he seeks new broadcast licenses or sets out plans to buy up newspapers. Governance, any one?

Failure in culture, structure – or both? Certainly, the scandal revealed a deep values problem, also among the police, and caused a UK political crisis. The public revulsion will not go away anytime soon.

TEPCO, the operators of the Fukushima nuclear plant, was the 2011 prime example of how a crisis causes paralysis. Frankly, though – would any organization be sufficiently culturally robust to deal with a run-away nuclear plant meltdown?

TEPCO’s unpardonable failings lay elsewhere. It missed every opportunity to derive public sympathy from its plight. It could have won goodwill by mixing technical level-headedness with transparency,  a touch of real regret and humility over the Herculean challenge facing the company, Japan and a worried world.

ERGO and Netflix, also on the top 10 reputational crises of 2011 list, seem straightforward enough compared to a fateful natural disaster of a tsunami opening the nuclear nightmare box. Two cases of hubris and a lack of common sense – understanding customers and stakeholders, and the boundaries of decency.

As Diermeier says: “Brands are now largely about trust, but trust is fragile. When trust is violated (or perceived to be violated), trust quickly turns to betrayal, and passionate support to rage. Add to that the difficulty of operating in a (social) media environment with less and less control over the message customers receive, and this new brand fragility is not an exception, but a common risk that needs to be managed”.

To me, the Penn State scandal is a total values breakdown, as well as a glimpse into an ugly workplace culture. Lack of integrity seemed to have marked key players.  On integrity, FIFA, the world soccer association, also has been found deeply wanting. Again.

HP seems in recent years to have got itself mired in a governance crisis – again culture and structure. In 2011, the HP Board must be up for a dysfunctionality award. HP needs a values and strategy reboot.

Political reputation damage came in several guises in 2011. They ranged from a crisis over the German defense minister’s doctoral thesis, which had liberally borrowed page after page of other people’s thoughts without citing them as authors, over the deadlock in Congress to the most entertaining way that the Republican candidates kept shooting themselves in the foot.

Values again, at the core, potentiated here by a seeming epidemic of failing self-awareness in the political class. As Diermeier says, the deadlock on the Hill is cemented by the structure there.

He says that in a bargaining situation each chamber, seeking the best deal for its members and their constituents, creates what he calls “internal veto players, such as powerful party leaders and committee chairs that need to sign off on any deal”.

Diermeier suggests a change, so that the president would need only the backing of one chamber to sign off initiatives such as the budget deal.

Not likely to happen, but an interesting illustration of how a practical outcome of structure and culture – in this case decision-making procedures – could fix the root cause of a recurring political crisis.

Diermeier makes many good points in his blog, and in the contributions it is linked to. Perhaps the most relevant for CCOs, whose work is at the cutting edge of reputation management, and who, when crisis strikes, must manage reputation recovery, is this:

“Whenever disaster strikes, companies and governments are not only criticized for their immediate handling of the crisis, but also their ability to reassure the public.”

It reminds me of my first lesson in crisis management, long ago, from a PR agency veteran:

1.      Admit there is a problem

2.      Take responsibility for solving the problem

3.      Offer solutions

Not much to add. Except, make sure your culture is solid; that it is accurately reflected in your values, and that you have the right structure to be able to live those values if crisis should ever test them.

 
.

“Issue: An important topic for debate or discussion.” ─Webster’s Dictionary

 “Think of an issue as a gap between your actions and stakeholder expectations. Issues management is the process used to close that gap” 

─Teresa Yancey Crane, Issues Management Council

I like both the definition and the explanation above. The dictionary definition shows an issue as solid.  The explanation shows it as fluid. An issue is both. It is a real tangible item with which you must deal. It can linger and mold like untreated trash or move at the speed of light from Boston to Bangkok. An issue can be the downfall of your candidate or your business…or, it can be the platform that sets you ahead of the competition.

An issue represents a kernel of a truth so central to the DNA of your enterprise that it can either tear down your reputation or be built into a sustained leadership platform. An issue can only threaten the core of your organization if it is derived from what you are ─ in this sense, the issue points to areas of required strength.  Recalls in the automotive industry, for example, are issues because they deal with a basic requirement for a car – reliability.  Seen as an example of shoddy workmanship, they tear down the manufacturer’s reputation.  Positioned as a process of continuous improvement and customer satisfaction, they can build a reputation for quality.

Issues flow from two sources: the enterprise itself and the society that surrounds it. Internally, they are related to the governance, structure, and mission of the enterprise. Externally, they develop at the intersection of the organization’s plans and societal forces (e.g., a country’s industrial growth and the need to protect the environment, snack foods and concerns about childhood obesity.) The key is understanding an organization’s vision, mission, and goals, while continuously tracking developments in society.

Unfortunately, most issues and crisis management work seeks to solve a specific issue, problem or action.  This approach may develop a successful response to the specific incident, but it will not remove the core concern.  It is      only by recognizing issues management as a platform for change and long-term leadership that enterprises of all kinds — business, governmental, political, academic and civil — can turn items from issues of concern into platforms that enhance their reputations and enable them to meet their goals.

To address and turn an issue, you must first understand the kernel that gives it power and then engage all stakeholders in an enterprise — employees, members, customers, consumers, shareholders, constituents, management, citizens, activists, NGOs, IGOs, regulators – in the solution.  Instead of attacking issues when and where they pop up – leading to a continuous game of  “Whack A Mole” – we must lead the organization in the discovery of its core DNA, understand how the issue attacks that core DNA and then “flip” the issue into a platform for enhanced reputation, leadership and growth.

All critical issues draw their strength from an organization’s DNA.  The kernel of the attack goes straight to the heart of the organization’s raison d’etre.  The kernel draws its strength from the organization’s strength.  That is why the attack hurts so much.  It also is the reason the issue can be turned in the organization’s favor.

Our jobs as public affairs, communications and public relations leaders is work across our enterprises to identify issues early, develop plans to move from concern to leadership and tell the story along the way.  The Coca-Cola Company of 2005 is a far cry from the Coca-Cola Company of today in part because it recognized it could not address a variety of water concerns around the world as individual issues, but had to take a holistic view of global water stewardship.  Individual issues in India, China and Africa were addressed as part of a continuous plan of improvement that was designed, implemented and communicated clearly.

Water is at the heart of Coca-Cola’s business.  Giving people moments of refreshment is part of its core DNA.  An attack on poor water management was an attack on the soul of the company.  Establishing its position as a leading corporate steward of water has been central to its resurgence – and given it the credibility to engage concerned parties on other environmental and societal issues.

Given rapid developments in social media, the idea of building a platform is all the more important.  In the “new normal” where tweets and posts can move information, disinformation, conjecture and outright lies around the world instantly, responding is already too late.  The answer must be your earned reputation. The challenge must be met from the high ground, from a position of strength.

Here’s why The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is loved, remembered and celebrated:  He was tremendously successful in transforming our society in a positive way, and he did it with grace and love.

Make no mistake:  Dr. King held fast to principles, refused to back down, persevered, and all the rest.  But he never called for violence, never even called names.  He treated oppressors with respect, and urged friends to practice good values.

In this modern age of uncivil behavior, let us take a moment to remember what it’s like when someone fights for a noble cause with dignity and decency.  My wish for this Martin Luther King Day is for all Americans, actually all citizens of the world, to learn from Dr. King’s example.  For our political debates to reintroduce respect for the other side.  For our media to look for constructive debate, not adolescent posturing.  For our reality TV shows to honor goodness and mercy, not petty bickering.  For our daily interactions to be marked by deference and understanding, not indignant demands.  For our religious differences to recede in the face of common values.

Special thanks to Facebook friends Mark Bain, Mike Paul, Jim Keller, Judith Czelusniak and Michelle Hinson for inspirational MLK posts.  You got me thinking.

Protesters were still occupying Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan when I was writing a guest column for PR Week that was published recently.  Just a few weeks later, following their eviction by Mayor Bloomberg, the Occupy protests in New York seem to have lost much of their steam.

Perhaps the short attention span of the media would have moved on by now anyway, but I think the vitality of the protests depended in part on the daily human interaction of the protesters with each other.  Having been denied a campsite and a natural meeting place, the disparate group of activists may be having trouble keeping their focus.

I’m not at all saying that the Occupy movement is dead; there are still active campers in some places, including Washington, where the health and safety of the gathering in McPherson Square has led Mayor Gray to call for the park to be cleared, and there are plans to Occupy Congress next week.

Further, I think the core ideas behind Occupy are a major factor in the presidential campaign and I don’t doubt the power of organizers find ways to use social media to revive their energy.  Also, the barricades at Zuccotti came down this week and a few protesters have begun to filter back in, albeit without camping privileges.

But I am intrigued by this idea that the in-person human contact is still important in this time of social media.  There’s no doubt that social media is transforming the way we live, work and play.  People with no previous affinity find each other online, coalesce around mutual interests, and become a recognizable force that impacts existing institutions, including businesses.  But much of the value of social media is in making it easier for people who already share a personal human connection to stay connected virtually.

I was struck by this idea when reading David Brooks’ recent column, “Going Home Again,” which tells the story of a wandering blogger named Rod Dreher who feels called to return to the home of his youth in the wake of his sister’s death.  I’m sure Dreher is not abandoning his online existence, but he was drawn to live closer to people who knew him and cared about him and his family.

I doubt that most of us will make Dreher’s choice to return to our small town roots, if indeed we have any in the wake of the previous generation’s wanderlust.  (I grew up several states away from my grandparents and spent my teenage years in Europe, where my father was an expatriate executive with Procter & Gamble.)  But I am convinced that the need for community remains a driving force in our lives.

What about the communities that we join through social media where we don’t actually know each other personally?  Are these as important and vibrant to us as more personal connections?  Certainly, an online presence is important to presidential campaigns, but Rick Santorum has shown the value of actually spending face-to-face time with real people.

In the face of globalization, the social media revolution is providing connectivity.  I think digital connections are not a full substitute for personal ones, but they can enhance personal connections and provide a feeling of belonging, even when the connection is to total strangers or even to enterprises.

As businesses think about how to build deep, meaningful and lasting relationships with key stakeholders, there’s no doubt that social media should play a central role.  But I believe those efforts will be more successful if they build upon and reinforce actual face-to-face interaction.  And that has to be built the old fashioned way, with people meeting, talking and listening face-to-face with other people.

This is personal.  One of those new-year-reflection things.  It was teed up by a journalist, writing his piece–and maybe later a book–about greening. His hook is the half-century anniversary of the big-bang greening book, Silent Spring.

His question to me:  “You’ve been called the father of (corporate) environmental communication. What do you consider your most important accomplishment?”

I put on my reflective eyeglasses and wrote back:

Let me respond to your question and then say something about the “father of” comment.

My most important accomplishment?  Associating with winners–thinkers and doers who influenced greening–starting in 1962 at MCA (Manufacturing Chemists Association, the trade group of chemical companies targeted by Silent Spring) when Rachel Carson’s first installment of the book came out in the New Yorker.

Carson started the green age, and I was engaged with corporate leaders, especially public relations executives, the best, most
principled communicators I could have imagined. They led me, educated and challenged me to get into what would become
the substantial, far-reaching, complex and productive social and business issue of the 20th century and it continues.

I recall the work, the awe, the learning…being at Rotterdam with CEOs and PR executives when the business charter on sustainable development was started, and then in Rio de Janeiro for the earth summit in 1962–which was coincidentally, the 30th anniversary of  Carson’s book–and having a hand in the business leaders’ communication–the speech of a chemical industry executive (the “don’t trust us, track us” idea) and my own little speech where I introduced my idea of “sustainable communication.”

By then I had formed a firm with environmental communication–shortened to Envirocomm, which we took to Europe and set up some affiliate firms–and because of work with clients and environmentalists and people in government.  It led to a lot. I had such highs as being in the room in the White House, sitting with fellow clean-air advocates, when President George H. W. Bush
signed the very vigorous Clean Air Act Amendments law, which our clients had supported.

Communicators on the business front smile when things work out, when crisis subsides and transformation goes in a good direction.  It’s a smile to look back because you see where good began—like the Responsible Care program, now a sustainability
standard, that was started by chemical industry people in the Carson crisis aftermath.

As a communicator on the business side, it’s heartening to see how strategic, principled leadership communication enables
values to be compared, dissected, debated, updated , shared, and, even if sometimes contentiously, ultimately embraced  as a reasonable, negotiated outcome, and good grows.

The part I  have had in that—my God, is it really 50 years?—is satisfying, and  that’s the “accomplishment” that you’ve kicked off in my head with your question..

As to your “father of environmental communication” comment?  Well, I know that’s a mixed message.  While I certainly can’t object to being thought in the sense that “success has a thousand fathers”—and our progeny has a philosophy and sustainability practice that works and returns a lot of good–I know as a for-real father that fatherhood carries with it the humbling lesson that learning is never done, it’s a lifetime, two-way, looking for answers proposition.

So I hold fast. I’ve learned and I’m still learning. There is increasing accountability, sustainable accountability in the business community, working with government and NGOs, for the progress that started with the wake-up call of Silent Spring.

On this momentous anniversary of the book, the learning opportunity is evergreen, and I expect to be telling that to my
students at Georgetown, who don’t know that Rachel Carson created a crisis that kick-started careers like mine and helped us to understand how leaders communicate effectively and how a communicator can learn to lead.

Happy new years are, in my experience, those that start with lessons learned and wind up with promises kept.