Is it Marketing or is it Nagging?

Communication is a central part of managing companies, of persuading markets or of leading governments. However, when people talk about communication, they often seem to be missing out on what the word actually means.

Inside organizations, when an individual or small group comes up with an idea, innovation, or plan of action, they hone it, make sure that they have worked out how best to make it work, how best to implement. Then, when the plans are all in place, they decide to "communicate" it to whomever has to live with the new idea.

Most professionals have spent time with change management and six sigma consultants. Well-trained employees talk about gaining "buy-in" for an idea - of communicating with key people and getting them to support the idea. In marketing departments, a value proposition is carefully constructed and then a series of communication strategies are used to communicate that value proposition to the target market. In politics, the message masters hone their talking points, then repeat them until the voters can recite them verbatim. Professionals are using a communications formula.

But the formula rarely works as well as it should. People hear the messages, but they don't always believe it. Audiences lose interest. Markets enjoy the commercials but don't buy the products. Voters focus more on a sigh than on a platform position. Why is that?

Perhaps there's more to communication than the current formula? Perhaps our assumptions about communication are flawed?

A central assumption is that communication is a one-way activity. The communicator talks and the audience receives the message. But look at the word "communication" itself. The first half of the word is "commun" - a root for "community" and "commune". Does this suggest that communicating is a group activity? And if it is, why do our formulas for communicating tend to only work in one direction: I talk and you listen?

As a test of that assumption, imagine your own family communications. Can a wife effectively persuade a husband telling him to put away his shoes over and over again? Can a father persuade a teen-age son to avoid smoking with a series of bullet points? Perhaps...but family counselors and other experts seem to suggest that a more effective (and more enjoyable) approach maybe to enter into a real conversation with family members, find out why they are doing what they are doing, make clear that you understand and value their point of view, discuss together how it might be possible to change - and maybe even come to a decision together that neither one thought of before.

Another way to look at it is - when you commune, you are learning. Communicating requires that you learn from the people you communicate to - what they need, what they want, what they know, how they might help solve a problem, how they can help you to do better. Too often, the assumption is that the speaker knows something and therfore needs to place that knowledge with the listener.

And why then, even though nagging family members doesn't work so well, do we insist on nagging our customers, colleagues and constituents? Why do we hire advertising and PR firms to nag the markets with greater skill and polish than we could manage? Why are we nagging?Instead of working on becoming more and more accomplished nags, perhaps we should change our assumptions and stop nagging altogether.

What would a company look like if it changed the communication assumption in order to listen and learn from the people?

A few months ago in the New York Times, I saw a company that has begun to find out. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01nocera.html?pagewanted=1) Mickey Drexler, the current CEO of the retailer J.Crew, has managed quite a turnaround for the company. As described by the NYT, key to his process is a constant and in-depth conversation with his customers and his employees.
"Visiting stores, quizzing the staff, critiquing everything in sight — and most of all, meeting customers — is at the core of how Mr. Drexler runs J. Crew. It’s also what makes him happiest. "
Mr. Drexler is known throughout the J.Crew chain for showing up in a store and talking with customers and salespeople and finding out what they like, what they don't like, what works and what doesn't. He delights in trying to persuade someone to put on a new outfit and tell him what they think of it. Instead of telling customers what they should buy, he asks customers what he should offer.

Mr. Drexler has found a way to market to his customers by constantly learning from them. He communicates the company's mission, values and strategy by listening to associates and customers - by "communing" with them.

How can other companies stop nagging their customers and commune like Mr. Drexler?