Delivering the Bold Message to Power
The headline in Salon and on MSN.com was eye-grabbing. The message from the communicators mentioned in the story was direct, in vivid language and pointed:
100+ ultra-rich people warn fellow elites in open letter: "It's taxes or pitchforks"
Jake Johnson, writer
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Johnson reported, “A group of more than 100 millionaires and billionaires on Wednesday presented fellow members of the global economic elite with a stark choice.” The letter, from “The Signers,” posed the question: “… how do we work together and restore trust?”
It went on in sobering fashion, “You’re not going to find the answer in a private forum, surrounded by other millionaires and billionaires and the world’s most powerful people. If you’re paying attention, you’ll find that you’re part of the problem.”
The letter talked about for all the good the uber-wealthy do, sufficient tax paying isn’t one of them, and that’s no longer tolerable. It’s also dangerous.
Not a palatable message. It was one that took courage to communicate to the ‘in-crowd.’ How does one deliver that type of unwanted communication, yet one that you feel is urgently important?
Sarah Finch
“There are three components to consider in any communication, especially a difficult message, says Sarah Finch, a leadership development facilitator, speaker and coach. “The audience. The purpose. The delivery.”
To gain higher probability for receptiveness to a message, whether it’s spoken or to be read, it’s imperative, Finch feels, to know your audience well.
“What will they want to hear? What do they need to know? When I work with executives who have to share tough news to their organizations, I have them think about what each stakeholder might need to know so they can craft their message with words, or content in mind versus thinking about what they, the communicator, wants to say and why,” she says.
There’s a reason for thinking well on these questions.
“Some stakeholders might need certain details, others might need to understand,” Finch has found, adding more critically important and helpful questions for communicators, “What will keep them paying attention, and what will cause them to tune out?”
Developing clarity around the outcomes is a necessary next step.
“The purpose: Why are you communicating this message? Is it to create a feeling, promote an action, or simply share information? Your purpose will also drive how you want to communicate,” Finch says.
In regards to the cold water-type message at Davos, she says it, “might be intended to provoke a big emotional response as a wake-up call for an audience who is used to people telling them what they think they want to hear, versus what they might need to know.”
How a message is delivered is often overlooked, to great detriment to the goal and the communicator. The better — and best communicators — realize the power that comes with skilled delivery, and the costs associated with poor delivery.
“If the message is shared in person, things like vocal tone, facial expressions, etc. can shift how a difficult message is received. If the message is in writing only, then tone still plays a part but it becomes more about word order,” Finch says, posing additional questions to think about.
“What will keep the reader engaged and what word might turn them away too soon? Those are the communication choices to consider.”
The Davos letter did have a higher chance of being received well, Finch says, because of ‘relationship’ between the communicator and the audience.
“The final thing to think about is who is delivering the message. In this case, it is peer to peer. That can shift how a tough message is received,” she says. “For example, if this same letter was written by the housekeepers of these wealthy families, it might be received — or more likely dismissed — as based in jealousy or an effort to hurt them; it could create defensiveness and anger.”
She elaborates, mentioning the practice of more thoughtful word choices.
“Perspective matters and I do a lot of coaching around the difference using ‘I or we’ versus ‘you’ when delivering hard feedback or tough messages,” Finch says, detailing why that’s smarter. “It becomes much harder to argue or defend when someone is speaking from their own, or a shared experience, and feels less like an attack. So choosing the person or people to deliver a difficult message might make the difference in how it is heard by the audience. I wonder if this same letter had been written by the housekeepers, would anyone have even paid attention?”
I had a couple of questions for Finch, more specifically about the Davos letter and how influential or persuasive it had a chance of being opposed to the possibility it might be tasted as bitter, creating anger and defensiveness, leading to rejection of the message and the communicator.
Will that message in the letter prove effective and create meaningful action?
For some, I would think yes. The ones who already feel a sense that they have more than they perhaps need or deserve and are already considering or actively finding ways to spread their wealth in ways that serve others.
For others who perhaps see the issue as someone telling them what to do with their money, this letter will likely not move them to any action at all and possibly make them dig in further. The impact will be proportional to to how many see themselves in the former versus latter category.
What could have been better communicated or ideally expressed in this letter?
From a communication stance, the letter has two major communication misses:
First the targeted mention, though not by name, of specific ways some wealthy individuals are using their wealth, such as the not-so-veiled reference to Jeff Bezos and space. Going back to the audience, if you are trying to invoke a call to action and get buy-in on a controversial position, criticizing or attacking a portion of your audience is often going to be counter productive.
That portion of the audience won't like it, and others who might find it to be unwarranted… (it) will turn them off from the rest of the message.
Second, the author's avoiding any mention of their own individual accountability. If the authors really feel strongly about changing the wealth inequity, increased taxes is one solution but there are others. The communication might be stronger if in addition to insisting on being taxed more, which is not a decision they actually have control over, they also propose ways outside of the tax system to address wealth inequity.
They could have cited examples of what they themselves are doing with their wealth that addresses their concerns. The communication reads a bit like they are helpless and victims to a system, when in fact by the nature of their wealth they have many choices at their disposal that would also create an impact.
From a communication standpoint they chose the voice of those unable to influence, in a communication designed to influence. That weakens their call to action in my mind.
