One of the IABC 2006 conference papers grabbed my attention immediately. From James E. Lukaszewski, a seasoned communicator from North America, the fantastic notes from his web-based session include a reprint of an article in PR Reporter: Strategy (June 10, 2000) on the strategic power of positive language.

In this paper, Mr Lukaszewski frames the benefits of declarative, positive language as a tool for driving engagement. He describes the effect of what he calls ‘toxic retorts’, the negative language that shuts down ideas and innovation.

Of particular value are the examples of words with negative emotional connotations, and a list of defensive statements to avoid.

While one may argue with the comment that ‘negative language is non-communication’, this piece provides communicators with plenty of examples in the war against weasel words.

Links
Mr Lukaszewski’s Article: http://www.iabc.com/education/pdf/JimLukaszewski_AS.8.pdf
Mr Lukaszewski’s VERY informative site: http://www.e911.com/frame2.html
Weasel Words: http://www.weaselwords.com.au/

The best bits of the annual IABC conference held in Vancouver have been released on the IABC website. There is a wealth of information from a range of the sessions. In an extreme act of knowledge-sharing, these handouts are not limited to members (…and they are a great example of the level of information available to members.*)

Links
IABC 2006 Conference Site: http://www.iabc.com/ic/vanHandouts.htm

* I am a current member of IABC NSW Chapter, and past Board Member.

Media lecturer Catherine Lumby writes in today’s Herald of the content-management ‘crisis’ afflicting the free-to-air TV stations. Lumby cites the extreme criticism directed at one of the two breakfast programs as examples of micro-management of programming that fails to address the greater problem: a lack of respect for viewers.

She states that the success of programs driven by consumer participation indicates that increasingly “consumers will want to see the diversity of their tastes, values and aspirations directly represented.”

While television networks battle for audience share, organizational communicators increasingly have to struggle for share of mind. Understanding the the tastes, values and aspirations of the workforce is a key step in developing strategies that engage the whole employee.

Link
Catherine Lumby, University of Sydney
SMH Opinion Piece

Corporate social responsibility reporting is to remain voluntary, but continues to provide a source of competitive advantage through building reputation.

ABC radio today reports that the Federal government committee examining corporate social responsibility has not recommended regulatory approaches to increase the level of reporting from companies. This presents an opportunity for businesses to take a position of self-leadership. There are an increasing number of examples of Australian companies that have increased their voluntary reporting. However, the ABC quotes Latrobe University Professor Carol Adams’ claim that less than a third of companies report on impacts such as pollution.

Participation in voluntary review and rating can provide a significant boost to the reputation of organisations. As with all aspects of reputation, the benefit comes when the commitment and rhetoric from the organization is matched by consistent actions that support the public position.

At the other end of the reputation spectrum, blogger and leadership consultant AJ Schuler writes of the impact of corporate culture as a source of sustainable reutational advantage. He uses the spectacular failure of Enron as an extreme example in this article on his blog.

Links
ABC Report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1668827.htm
AJ Schuler Article: http://whatsupdoc-aj.blogspot.com/2006/06/enron-and-corporate-culture.html