△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

We get letters

I just got a copy of the Sept. 12 issue of the Ragan Report, which includes some letters to the editor from readers who read my analysis of Dr. TJ Larkin’s talk at the IABC Research Foundation luncheon and Dr. Larkin’s response. A couple snippets and a couple responses follow.

From Jeffrey Brooke, ABC, director, Employee Communications Office, United States Government Printing Office:

Larkin gave a lecture that was not only compelling and backed up with exhaustive research, but one that was gracious. Holtz???s slanderous and rude statements were entirely out of bounds??? especially for an IABC Fellow.

I’ve reread my original item (which was a post on this blog that Ragan reproduced in an email newsletter I write for them), and while I was abrupt, I couldn’t find a single piece of slander. Jeffrey, if you read this blog, could you let me know where you believe I slandered Dr. Larkin? In fact, I thought some of Dr. Larkin’s comments in his reply were far more egregious (e.g., “To some degree, Mr. Holtz denies that generalizations can be made about employee communication.  We think Mr. Holtz believes sources and channels are basically equal.  Mr. Holtz thinks that what accounts for differences in effect is simply the quality of the execution.” This is so far from the truth that I feel my long-held and well-documented beliefs on communication have been assailed.

Late Addition: I forgot to note before I clicked the “post” button that slander is spoken; libel is written. Of course.

As for Dr. Larkin’s “exhaustive research,” I would point Jeffrey to Tudor Williams, ABC’s (another IABC fellow, by the way), note (also from this blog):

(Dr. Larkin had) almost total dependence upon studies that are not referenced in terms of who did what and in what context. I guess they are in an appendix but I would like to see whose findings support the specific assertions he makes. I can find 256 studies from which I can extract what I want to support the proposition I am pushing. At no point does he cite any expert in our business let alone an IABC study or expert opinion. The problem with many of these studies is that they study a very small variable, test it to exhaustion and then draw hypotheses as to cause and effect. The problem with many academics is that they bounce off the trees in the forest and rarely ask what forest are they in. I find Larkin???s views are examples of academic arrogance and isolation without the professional practitioner???s skills and experience.

Angela Sinickas, ABC, who (along with Tudor) is one of the most renouned communication measurement experts in the business, has also sent some references my way, which I’ll be adding to this thread shortly. (I’ve already mentioned it on The Hobson & Holtz Report.) Jeffrey also questions whether he and I were at the same presentation. Yes, Jeffrey, we were, as were several other communicators with whom I spoke who shared my reaction. Jeffrey may also want to read some of the comments I got when I first posted the item to my blog.

One more thing: I have nothing against Dr. Larkin personally. His presentation was compelling, and entertaining to boot. I’d love to have a beer with the guy. We just disagree strongly on this issue, which is entirely the focus of my comments.

Next, Angela Diamond, director of Diamond Communication Services, Sydney, Australia:

The most annoying thing about this argument is that it???s happening at all. Surely we???ve gone way beyond arguing about channels. I think this is most disturbing. I feel embarrassed even having to point out the most basic approach to any communication issue ??? change or otherwise ??? diagnosis. What happened to strategy?

Hmm. As I recall, that was my point exactly. While Dr. Larkin wants us to begin with the tactic of isolating change communication to the sole channel of the immediate supervisor, I would start with identifying goals, assessing the situation with the audience, and making communication choices that will achieve objectives in the specific circumstances.

Finally, this comment from Marc Wright, publisher, simply-communication.com, UK:

Larkin can argue that that human interaction in small groups is the most effective way for people to communicate, and I would agree, providing that the person who is leading that group is a competent communicator and therein lies the rub. A sizeable slice of supervisors hate the communication side of their job; they just are uncomfortable in that role, and no amount of training is going to substantially change that. By putting all your resources in this channel you risk at best boring a third of your staff and at worst alienating them completely. At least senior management have to engage with their own communication skills and do something about it; in today???s environment they won???t get to be senior executives otherwise.

Spot on, Marc.

Of course, these are excerpts of the complete letters. To read the entire items, you’ll need to get your hands on the Ragan Report.

09/17/05 | 0 Comments | We get letters

Comment Form

« Back