As a believer in the democratic process I can’t help but to be impressed with the intensity of the healthcare debate. On a topic so important to so many Americans it’s encouraging to see the level of involvement and participation in the debate. However, as a communicator I’m mortified about the quality of that debate. With no clear message on the objectives of reform and meeting formats that reward contention and combativeness the dialog on healthcare is not healthy.
From a messaging perspective the only words that seems to be resonating are the largely negative (can anyone say Death Panel?). This is not surprising because our two party system does reward and encourage demonization of opposing points of view. What is surprising is that the Obama administration seems to be at a loss for the right words to rally Americans around. Mark Penn, CEO of Burson-Marsteller CEO recently wrote on Politico http://tinyurl.com/nr7n65
“For a president whose communication skills are so justifiably well-regarded, the biggest obstacle comes as a surprise: the need for a clear and simple message of how his team’s version of health care reform will benefit ordinary Americans.”
Penn goes on the suggest three approaches to improving the message: (1) Create a simple message of what healthcare reform is trying to achieve in human terms, (2) Clearly define what they supports and what they oppose and (3) Combine the best ideas into one voice for change. Regardless of your politics, that’s great advice to follow when putting together any sort of messaging to promote significant change.
The other aspect of the healthcare debate that frustrates my inner-communicator is the format used to facilitate the dialog. You Tube and the evening news has been full of examples of vitriolic Town Hall meetings. Again, not a surprise here. When you combine contentious points of view with a microphone and a large crowd with rolling news cameras is there any wonder that people will take the opportunity to cast out some juicy (yet entirely unproductive) sound bites? Considering what gets aired on the evening news we’re again encouraging contentious communications and not a productive dialog. Here’s a recent example of what I’m talking about: http://tinyurl.com/nmjc3c
A far better format for reviewing and considering opposing points of view would be facilitated small group discussions. Take away the microphones and the crowd mentality and let people discuss where they agree and/or disagree around the table. Then have these groups report out and roll-up the points of consensus.
Businesses can learn a thing or two from the healthcare debate about what NOT to do when promoting a significant change in their organization. First get your message right and do it in a way that establishes common ground. Second, harness the collective wisdom of the group in a format that promotes a productive dialog and tunes out the angry voices seeking an audience.
Healthier communications may not fix healthcare but it would certainly advance the effort more productively.
