I hate strategic communication

– May 25, 2010Posted in: U.S. Army

Hate is always a strong word, but it sure sends a message, doesn’t it? In an interview with the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement last week I relished in a bit of a self help moment. When asked about the role of strategic communication in social media strategy I admitted the reality I’ve lived with since working for the Army – I kind of hate the term strategic communication. I love communication – it’s my business, after all. And I love strategy – I work for the military, after all. But somehow, when we combine these phrases the fog of war seems to descend and everything gets a bit murky.

The term strategic communication has been around for awhile, and gained traction around 2002. And it’s almost always been tied to the military and State Department in our roles of communicating issues related to national defense and public diplomacy. Then National Security Advisor Condelezza Rice even established a Strategic Communication Policy Coordinating Commitee in 2002 (word is they’re still out there somewhere, debating the definition of the term strategic communication).

As a social media maven, I feel the pain of the strategic communication community. A well intentioned military community too easily latches on terms or initiatives as easy fixes for more complex problems. Both terms are means to an end, rather than the end themselves.

I think in the social media community, we definitely need to stop and take the time to learn from the past to set the stage for evolved, developed social media implementation and engagement. When the social media train first knocked us in the military and government community off of our feet several years ago, most folks were simply scrambling for a presence – everyone felt a burning need to be on Facebook, Twitter and You Tube – simply because everyone else was. Hopefully our social media efforts have evolved and we’re stepping back to really think through the value of all of our online engagements and interactions. And taking the time to see how social media can truly fit into our larger organizational goals (perhaps a meeting with our strategic communication team is in order .

So, what’s that military word or phrase that gets your goat? Any acronyms or lingo you’re dying to delete from the Army dictionary? Let us know in the comments section.

Tags: IDGA, Social Media, social media planning, strategic communication

Pingback: Tweets that mention Army Live » I hate strategic communication -- Topsy.com
JR Mass

My son is currently a recruit at Ft. Leonard Wood MO. I was just introduced to the term “Battle Buddies”. Come on now. These people are in training to go in harms way, to shoot at and or be shot at by bad guys of all sorts. Battle buddies sounds more like they have been watching Barney the purple dinosaur. How about “Combat Partners” or maybe Strike Teams or Mutual Support Teams (MSP) anything else but Battle Buddies. I feel that any notion of softening the image of a grunt can lead to a softened self image which is the opposite of what basic training’s goal should be. America’s enemies are hardened, ruthless and experienced fighters. Our soldiers must be no less or their just cannon fodder. And yes, it is possible to be ruthless towards our enemies and compassionate towards the non-combatant general population of a war zone.
Jen

My roommate LOATHES “hooah.”

Personally, I’d like to smack the next person who uses “pax.”
Alexander VanArsdall

“That’s the way it’s always been done.”

Nothing will get my blood boiling faster than those seven words when I’m trying to understand the Big Picture. I know as well as anyone that your basic Ground-Pounder isn’t meant to fully comprehend The Meaning of Life when it comes to the military, but at the same time I feel that as a mid-level Noncommissioned Officer it is my duty to at least know the details of any task I am expected to perform, or direct my subordinates to perform, in order to evaluate said task and recommend any possible improvements.

More often than not, however, I’ve discovered that most people don’t know why certain things are done certain ways, it was just how they were trained to it and therefore their responsibility to train the rest of us. Why they do what they do might have made sense to The Powers That Be twenty or thirty years ago, but the reasoning no longer applies and the rest of the force is left doing something that most mid-to-senior level leaders consider to be a waste of time, effort and resource.

Consider the following analogy.

You take three monkeys and stick them in a cage. Tie a banana to the top of the cage so it’s out of their reach, but put a step-ladder in the cage with them. One of these monkeys is going to figure out that to get to the banana he is going to have to climb up the ladder. As soon as he gets on the ladder, however, you blast him with a fire hose, and then turn the hose on the other two monkeys that were just minding their own business. You do this each time one of the monkeys tries to climb the ladder. Eventually, no monkey is going anywhere near that ladder.

Take one of the monkeys out and stick a brand new monkey in his place. You can put the fire hose away at this point; you won’t be needing it anymore. The new monkey is going to figure out fairly quickly that he can get the banana by climbing up the ladder. As soon as he touches the ladder, however, the other two monkeys are going to yank him off themselves and beat the Holy Crap out of him, because they don’t want to get hit with the hose. Soon, they’ll have him convinced that staying away from that ladder will dramatically increase his life expectancy, and he won’t go near it.

At this point you remove another of the original monkeys and replace him with another brand-new monkey. You repeat this process until you are on your third generation of monkeys. What you end up with is a cage full of monkeys that can easily get to a banana, yet none of them will go near it. If they do, the other monkeys will beat them senseless until they give up and sulk away to a corner.

Nobody knows why they do it, but “that’s the way it’s always been done.”
Drew Reeves

Lindy,

The biggest one that really gets under my skin is COMMUNICATIONS with an “s.” It’s tossed around with reckless abandon… especially in the Military. Even many in academia frequently mess it up. I’ve always been told that (and read in Webster’s Dictionary) that communication and its plural form are completely different. The former being the correct usage in most cases; while the latter refers to telephones, satellites, and troop movements.

However, it’s important to point out that communication practitioners have always had a difficult time with definitions. In fact, Public Affairs has always been a bit of a misnomer in the DoD. In the government, outside the Department of Defense, Public Affairs refers to public policy; policy studies or public administration. However, the military has always taken the term to mean journalism, internal communication and external communication (i.e. command information, community relations, and media relations). The disparity between the two, within the Federal Government, truly illustrates the need for a revision of some sort.

These problems also extend into the civilian world. Formally educated practitioners typically fall into either Public Relations or Marketing. People (to include the American Marketing Association) seem to think that PR & Marketing are the same thing, and others (i.e. the general public) think that it’s all just advertising and promotion. In actuality Public Relations and Marketing each have their own professional associations, code of ethics, and for the most part their own Bachelor’s programs (and in the near future… professional certifications).

However, the fields do share some communication strategies and tactics, which can become pretty confusing when trying to sort out the differences. To further complicate the issue, no formal gate-keeping system is in place to ensure that communicators have been properly trained. Anyone can weasel their way into a PR position or perhaps a Marketing position by strategically placing key terms in a resume. “Marketed company X’s job openings to…” or “Used good public relations in call center” and the like can often sound great qualifications to the lay person, but are actually terrible misrepresentations of true practitioners’ capabilities and responsibilities.

Now throw in the Military’s buzz word of the week that attempts to wrap Public Affairs, Command Information, Journalism, Community Relations, Media Relations, Marketing, Graphic Design, and Public Relations up in one pretty package and you’re left with STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION(S). The problem doesn’t necessarily lie within the term itself, but in the attempt to circumvent various professions under the assumption that they are all the same thing, or that anyone can do them.

I agree with you that the name is terribly misused and its objectives are epidemically misunderstood, but all who receive dollars in exchange for conveying a message need to realize that there are differences in these careers and that not any Joe or Jane off the street is qualified to be a practitioner of communication(s).

Admiral Mullen had the following to say:

“It is time for us to take a harder look at “strategic communication.”
Frankly, I don’t care for the term. We get too hung up on that word, strategic.”

I know strategic communication as a term of reference is probably here to stay. Regrettably, it’s grown too much a part of our lexicon. But I do hope we take this opportunity under the coming Quadrennial Defense Review to reexamine what we mean by it. Strategic communication should be an enabling function that guides and informs our decisions and not an organization unto itself. Rather than trying to capture all communication activity underneath it, we should use it to describe the process by which we integrate and coordinate.

To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate. I also hope we learn to be more humble, to listen more. Because what we are after in the end—or should be after—are actions that speak for themselves, that speak for us. What we need more than anything is credibility. And we can’t get that in a talking point.”

There are many in the DoD that share Admiral Mullen’s sentiments. It just might a while to get to a place that truly embraces what the DoD is trying to accomplish with STRATCOM. Perhaps, a well-defined code of ethics that clearly defines Army Public Affairs/Strategic Communication/PR/Marketing and lays down best practices in dealing with its internal and external publics, including rules of engagement in media interactions (e.g. do not review media stories, maximum information with minimum delay, transparency is the law).

Until then, keep up the good work!
http://mysexsite.org Sex Site

Oh…no…please don’t read that second site anyone. It’s Friday. I really do know the difference between “their” and “they’re”. I want to punch myself right now.

U.S Army Social Media
- Official Homepage of the U.S. Army

I hate strategic communication

U.S Army Social Media

U.S. Army Blog Roll