Category: public relations

Gen Z and other new employees need to position between Imposter Syndrome and Dunning-Kruger Effect

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

I have been a professor at my university for more than 20 years. My career is older than the very life of my current students. 

In that time I have seen a lot of changes in everything from student attitudes to terminology. While I always favor looking at individuals verses a group identity, there are some common threads in the Gen Z student and young professional. Among them are two ways of thinking: “Imposter Syndrome” and the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They are the extremes on a scale of one’s self-perception of ability in the workplace. 

I would advise Gen Z to adopt Aristotle’s ‘Golden Mean’ and position themselves between these two extremes. 

Imposter Syndrome is the phenomenon where one feels like a phony, that they are in a workplace but really don’t deserve to be there, that they lack skills and knowledge of those around them. 

To this I say to students they need to bolster their own sense of self-efficacy. Also, it is important to remind them that college does not teach them everything. A bachelor’s degree gives students a lot, but it is a baseline. College teaches students how to learn. They must continue this in the specific workplace and industry where they land. I speak regularly to chief communication officers (CCOs) who are describing the next thing they need to learn even after decades of experience. On certain topics I continue to read and listen and learn. So no recent graduate of young professional should feel like an imposter. College graduation is called a “commencement” because it is a beginning, not a final conclusion.

Last semester a good student finished presenting a project to a client and left the room and shouted in the hallway “I’m done with college!” It was a joyous and funny moment. No doubt the excitement and jubilation were well worth it after all the work done. But I said to her, congratulations. Now the learning begins. 

The other extreme is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, in which someone without a lot of knowledge or ability overestimates their competence and proficiency. This is the person who thinks they are too cool for school. It’s the person who thinks a three-month internship grants more knowledge and experience than a 30-year career. It’s the recent graduate who assumes a bachelor’s degree imparts more wisdom and understanding than a PhD. It’s the young person who listens to a seasoned veteran explaining past experience and says derisively “OK, Boomer.” 

As a former colleague of mine used to say about some—not all—students, “they don’t know what they don’t know.”

As I get older, it has been humorous to hear from millennials who used to walk around like they rent the place complain about their new Gen Z employees who seem resistant to feedback, instruction and mentorship. They are getting as little of their own attitude. In one case a mid-career professional told me about a new hire explaining with passion a concept they had just heard about but which was fundamental and already second nature to others in the room.

Perhaps they should have said “OK, Genzie.”

But I also note that the phenomena of Imposter Syndrome or the Dunning-Kruger Effect are not about age, they are simply about change. Individuals at any career stage can change jobs, industries or move to a new city or state. This was expressed in a recent AdAge article about entry level professionals finding a tough job market and seeing their mentors laid off. 

No matter the age or experience, the job market and change makes one “new” in the new context and can generate feelings and manifest behaviors ranging from self-doubt to overconfidence.

In either case, time can “heal” these maladies at either extreme end of a self-perception scale. The one with Imposter Syndrome will soon gain confidence if given good instruction, feedback and support from an employer. Success defeats perception. The individual with the Dunning-Kruger Effect may soon find out they are “not all that” in a performance review, a creative team meeting that doesn’t not rubber stamp an idea, or from some negative client feedback. 

The best attitude for a recent grad and young professional is one of humble confidence, between the extremes. Absolutely they should be willing to speak up and contribute what they know and offer the skills they have. But they also should be open-minded to continual learning and feedback, be respectful of the people who went before them, take advantage of opportunity to try and fail, and expect to be corrected. 

PR at the intersection of corporate and environmental communications

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Consumers Energy is the public utility that provides electricity to my home. But rather than merely monitor my kilowatt hours and send me a bill, Consumers goes above and beyond in its communication.

They have shown this in two power outages in as many months in my small neighborhood in west Michigan. They have prompt text alerts and an up-to-date app confirming they know about the outage, showing the extent of the outage with numbers and maps, updating when crews are on site and have determined the cause, and giving an estimate of time for power restoration, and confirming when power is restored. It gives new meaning to consumer “empowerment.”

Consumers is also a unique organization. It is in a sense a corporation, but it is one that is regulated, in the case of Michigan by the Public Service Commission. So Consumers does what could be seen as typical corporate communication, another name for public relations, to maintain communications with all of its stakeholders. This can often seem weighted toward customer relations and sales.

But a recent communication I received from them included an example of the intersection between traditional communication and environmental communication. Environmental communication is broadly defined as formal communication that has the environment as a primary subject. There is even an academic journal named Environmental Communication. 

What Consumers sent me was a link to an entire section on their website about electronic vehicles (EVs). This makes intuitive sense, since anyone like myself who buys an EV is going to be wondering about how to charge the vehicle, whether at home or out on the road. Installing EV chargesr at homes is one of the products and services Consumers offers. The Consumers web page explains this at length. 

It would make sense they do this in business terms. It is a new market opportunity, a product extension, a B-B integration and more. But that is all corporate communication. Consumers gets into environmental communication as well with a tab called “myths and FAQs” that addresses the hesitance a typical consumer may have about buying and charging an EV. They first have to answer questions about the environmental need for EVs, the environmental benefit of EVs, and address concerns about negative environmental impact of EVs, before they can start serving consumers individually and society at large—via power grid supply—when the purchase of EVs hits critical mass.

As an academic, this brings to mind a bunch of theories that are so practical here. Consumers is applying concepts from these theories, whether they do so consciously or not:

  • Diffusion of Innovation—which means communication needs to address a series of cognitive and experiential stages the public goes through collectively and individually before adopting new ideas. Consumers is addressing the “relative advantage” and “compatibility” stages of this theory directly;
  • Attribution Theory—in which people consider not just what a company says but why they think they are saying it when deciding whether to attend to or believe a message. Consumers goes beyond simply offering product or service information to sell something to show they are considering the total social benefit to the environment;
  • Cognitive Dissonance—in which people avoid ‘cognitive pain’ by simply discounting information or claims that contradict their predisposition or current beliefs; Consumers is clearly addressing current beliefs and concerns of people and trying to move them to a new mindset without discounting their current onel.

I think Consumers did a good job overall. But there are still realities that people experience that negate the arguments Consumers makes. This is especially true in Michigan. 

For example, one argument could be that an EV may not be a household’s only vehicle. If I want to go from where I live in western Michigan up to Mackinac City, I would not be confident I have the range and can find a charging station in northern Michigan. Encouraging one EV on a household of more than one car would be a transition and easier to persuade than a complete change to all EV vehicles. 

I also have read legitimate reports about power reduction in colder climates, as well as batteries exploding. There are concerns about raw materials coming from third-world countries where workers are exploited, and that these raw materials can not be safely disposed of. Here is where the Elaboration Likelihood Model applies—Consumers can’t just make claims to the contrary, it needs to offer some detailed, factual, respectable studies to back up the claims. When people are “highly involved” according to ELM, they are paying significant attention and need more than a reliable source, they need the facts. This is especially true because EVs are really a subset of the much larger climate change social issue.

Most importantly, if we are charged more in the summer for air conditioning in peak hours, what will our rates and even capacity be when everyone is in an EV and charging at night? Consumers makes assurances, but people have heard and experienced differently about the electric grid capacity. 

Maybe some of these additional arguments and facts will come. But for now overall Consumers Energy offers a good example of how corporate and environmental communication co-exist.

Public relations must take an ethical stand against a ‘culture of assertion’

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

An online seminar a few months ago gathered CCOs together to talk about advising corporate boards on issues of ESG (environment, social, governance) messaging, corporate purpose and related topics. I was interested because I am doing research on the PR capacity on corporate boards, because so many of the issues in PR—CSR, ESG, DEI etc—are being discussed by PR academics and professionals.

Photo by Karolina Grabowska: https://www.pexels.com/photo/red-stop-word-coming-out-of-a-typewriter-5993648/

The outtake from this meeting was that ESG may need a new name because of the pushback being felt from consumers, investors and others in corporate America. An interesting concept was that any time something has three letters and becomes an acronym it is ripe for pejorative connotations. Using two words such as ‘corporate purpose’ is harder to misunderstand or misrepresent, and that is what one participant advocated. In other words, change the nomenclature but consider the practice.

The bottom line for these CCOs advising large corporate boards, beyond ensuring they had and could articulate a corporate purpose, was to consider two things. 

  1. Employee Expectations: How does the board address any disconnects between corporate priorities, or values, and the employee experience? 
  2. CEO Voice: Are protocols in place to ensure that the CEO can speak with authenticity, credibility, and conviction, in real-time, on topics that are germane to the interests of the business and its employees?

I agree with that. Proclaiming a purpose and expecting compliance from all employees is authoritarian, not genuine. CEOs speaking out can backfire or offend or be seen as shameless piggybacking on what is perceived to be the popular sentiment on cultural issues.

I’ve written about this before in a post advocating for neutrality in most cases, and also noting that the emphasis on social branding has led to an anti-woke corporate response to woke corporate messaging. 

 So I was intrigued recently to see an academic journal article addressing the unethical practice of asserting vs dialogue by organizations on social issues. The article was a case study on Larry Fink of Blackrock, an investment services and financial management firm, and his annual letter to CEOs, which leaves everyone trembling to obey because Blackrock owns ⅓ of all outstanding shares of major companies.

I had thought about the appropriateness of the annual Fink letter when I first heard about it at a different conference of CCOs a few years ago. Should so many organizations respond in sync to the opinions asserted by one powerful man or company?

The journal article addressed this directly. “Public relations, activism, and the culture of assertion: The case study of Blackrock’s Larry Fink and the Letter to the CEOs”, written by Joshua Foust and Burton St. John III of the University of Colorado-Boulder, was published in late December in theJournal of Public Relations Inquiry. 

Fundamental PR is about two-way symmetrical relationships, mutual benefit for all publics or stakeholders, dialogue and listening. But in this article the authors note an increase in raw assertion and a disdain for dialogic speech. They conclude that “Fink uses his letter to shape shareholder views and actions, using the power of his position rather than facts either as a result of dialogue or to spark dialogue.”

So an academic article comes to the same conclusion I did when I first heard about the annual letter from Blackrock. 

I then got to thinking that this “culture of assertion” is at the root of a problem I have both as a citizen and a public relations academic. We see an increase in assertive statements in our culture recently. Consider several assertions:

  • “The vaccine is safe and effective.”
  • “Whites need to acknowledge their privilege.”
  • “It was the most fair election in history.”

The above statements, relative to the Covid pandemic, the spread of a specific DEI ideology, and questions about irregularities in the 2020 election are ubiquitous and assertive. But what’s worse is that responses to the contrary have been de-platformed or labeled as “disinformation.” 

But in recent months the problem of assertion has been exposed. Now data is coming out and even Anthony Fauci, who once proclaimed “I am science,” has acknowledged they got things wrong about the origin of covid, the nature of its spread, and the efficacy of the vaccine. A growing chorus of Black intellectuals are opposing the “oppressor-victim” binary in explaining the scope, causes and solutions to racism and equality. Independent journalism and court cases have been showing that there were numerous incidents of fraud and suspicious activity in the last presidential election.

Journalists like Michael Shellenbarger, Matt Taibi, Bari Weiss and others through their work with the Twitter files, FOIA requests and other investigative journalism have been exposing the deception behind this culture of assertion. They have another name for it in their writing and in Congressional testimony: “the censorship industrial complex.”

Being assertive can be seen as laudatory, associated with positive adjectives like strong, confident, certain, competent. But assertion can also violate fundamental ethics of public relations practice and principles of democracy.

Ethicists talk about what makes an occupation a “profession.” The answer is that it has a valuable service to society at large. What is the “role morality” of publics relations? It is simply enabling informed decision-making in a democratic society. And people can not make informed decisions without all the information. 

Asserting one’s own perspective and silencing opposing views is clearly toxic and should be confronted. 

I’ll confront the culture of assertion by re-asserting some long-standing and valuable principles vital to democracy and consonant with ethical public relations practice: pluralism, marketplace of ideas, mutual understanding, discourse ethics, dialogic communications, engagement, empowerment, and listening. 

There is a lot of talk in this election year about “threats to democracy.” Let us not let the public relations profession be one of them. 

How to Handle PR for Multi-Brand Companies

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

When the Wall Street Journal had an article about the proliferation of hotel brands, I took note. I have a client in the hotel space. The family business has a small portfolio of hotels, but even they have a mix of brands and sub-brands.

Photo by Francesco Ungaro: https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-hotel-signage-96444/

The same concept of a “family of brands” can be seen in other industries, ranging from soft drinks to automobiles. 

This could be called market expansion, horizontal integration or a number of economic and marketing terms.

For public relations professionals it could be called a headache. As with any relationship, brand loyalty in a brand family can be “complicated.” 

For example, what exactly is in the mind of the consumer when they engage a brand? Is it the particular obvious interaction only or are they conscious of the bigger brand picture. A guest at a Holiday Inn Express may be mindful of the fact that this is an IHG hotel. Are they aware that IHG has 19 brands, and do they know all of them? Do they know the varied amenities, price points and brand promises of each brand? 

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. IHG integrates all its brands into one reservation platform and loyalty program, so that helps. Some people may like the fact that breakfast is included, or that rooms have microwaves and mini bars. Others guests may be indifferent to a brand and just do a map search for something close to where they want to stay that is inexpensive.

Then there’s the related issue of the actual family in addition to the family of brands. My client builds, owns and operates their hotels, and they have a unique and high quality management philosophy that I’m happy to say often wins them awards for being the best in the brand in various categories. Owner-operators have to stay within franchise rules, but they also have some latitude for operations. This can help set themself apart in hotel markets where there are numerous choices. But guests may not be aware of the family company name as they book and stay at a nationally branded hotel.

Here’s the brand secret for family brands—relationships. I know that sounds like PR fundamentals, but it is true. The relationships are not necessarily with the guests, who normally go on an app or website to book a room. The relationship with them is during the stay. But the more important relationships are the business clients, event planners, and referral sources in the local community who recommend hotels to their own employees, vendors, suppliers and other business partners. 

If a local company enhances its relationships by ensuring their publics have a good experience when they stay, it’s a win-win-win. Word spreads not about a Holiday Inn Express or IHG, but a particular hotel on a particular street for its unique quality. Repeat business happens. In other words, brand loyalty to a local and national brand. 

Turns out it’s not so complicated. 

A #GivingTuesday PR gift–The three Ls of non-profit fundraising

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

I know Giving Tuesday campaigns are already underway. But being on the receiving end of so many before noon today, I want to respond by giving some public relations advice. 

My thoughts are also influenced both by having worked for a good length of time in nonprofit public relations and as a professor doing research on public relations and nonprofit management and fundraising. 

My first thought is that there is a pro and con to even having a day called Giving Tuesday. The pro is isolating the nonprofit sector and providing a high visibility day to encourage charitable giving. The con is that any single nonprofit’s Giving Tuesday push is lost among all the others. 

So here are some thoughts about how to manage the public relations behind Giving Tuesday (maybe next year at this point) as well as all other fundraising efforts throughout the year. I used a simple alliterative 3-part list you can call the three Ls of giving appeals.

List. Before even sending and posting Giving Tuesday message appeals, it is vital to think about the recipient. General messages may work to a point, but segmenting the list is better. Manage your database of donors and use it strategically. 

Consider that some have given already this year, maybe more than once. What compels them to give again on Giving Tuesday, especially if their last gift was very recent? Consider that maybe donors gave for a variety of specific aspect of your mission. You could offer the option to designate a gift for something specific, or promote not just a gift to the organization but a specific effort that may be new or underfunded. 

Also think about the varied capacities to give, in varied amounts. You would not ask a college student to give $1,000 or more, and you wouldn’t want to ask a millionaire to give $10. Make a specific ask in an appropriate amount. 

Factoring in the above could lead to a strategy of multiple Giving Tuesday messages and hashtags. Ask for gifts to fund specific capital campaigns or program efforts. Ask specifically in terms of challenging a specific dollar amount.

Leverage.  Don’t enter the Giving Tuesday fray all alone. Leverage testimonials from regular donors or partners. A nonprofit partnering with a corporation and leveraging that company’s network can be powerful. It can even be a causer-related marketing campaign that benefits the company with a demonstrated Corporate Social Responsibility or community relations effort. 

A challenge—for ever dollar given a company or individual will match—is another way to leverage support in a way that makes Giving Tuesday a unique opportunity for donors and not just a hype day.  

Lore. Don’t just ask, tell stories. Demonstrate the impact of past funding, even how last year’s total specific amount from Giving Tuesday had an impact in accomplishing whatever is the mission of the nonprofit—provided a certain number of meals, gave a specific number of scholarships, build a specified number of homes. 

Tell these stories in the voices of those affected, let the message be from them and not just about them. Don’t just communicate need for money but show accountability in how it has been used in the past. Donors are no longer motivated by guilt but by opportunity for impact. Make accountability and mission paramount, not a fundraising goal. Let it be about those who benefit directly from the organization’s mission, not the organization’s need for funding. 

I love to see nonprofits succeed. I believe that being more strategic and specific in Giving Tuesday appeals will lead to more persuasive messaging and positive result. If that’s the case for your nonprofit, be sure to report those results with a thank you to all who gave. 

Home