The Persuasion Business: Actions speak louder than words

If public relations is fundamentally about relationships, there are two words that are crucial to any relationship: reputation and credibility.

The two are linked, but let's take a look at reputation.

Reputation is an attitude held by an individual about another individual or an organization. An attitudes is set of beliefs, a sets of feelings. It will have positive and negative qualities: good versus bad, for example.

Attitudes are important because at some point they will drive or influence behaviour.

Behaviour is important because, at some point, the behaviour contained in our definitions of public relations is support.

If that sounds like your last undergraduate course in psychology or in political science, then don't be surprised. We are talking about human interactions - relationships between and among human groups.

While we all can have and likely have had short-term relationships, for most of us relationships tend to last over a long time. Some are constantly important, like say a relationship within a family. Others are intermittent, becoming important at some points in life while being in the background during other times. Inherently though, relationships tend to last in one form or another over a long time.

Relationships - like attitudes - are therefore likely to be dynamic. That is, they are likely to change over time based on any of a number of factors.

In another post, we'll discuss attitudes and behaviour in greater depth, but at this point let's stick with the catch-all term reputation and the connection to behaviour.

Attitudes are linked to behaviour in competitive situations, like the choice between one bottle of soft drink or another. Most of us are so familiar with these ideas that they seem obvious. But what about in a monopoly, like health care?

In the example used in the first post, we discussed at some length a current problem facing a health authority involving problems with important medical testing and public disclosure of information. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the health authority is a monopoly or part of a larger monopoly. If someone gets sick in eastern Newfoundland, and, like most of us, lacks the money to jet off to some other part of North America for care, it's not exactly like he or she can go to another health care provider to show displeasure in the way the testing issue was handled.

Absolutely correct.

But...

This is a democracy and health care is provided from public funds controlled by politicians who periodically have to go to the polls. Those politicians need votes and those votes are held by people who will need health care at some point. If you doubt the connection, consider the 1997 federal election results in Newfoundland and Labrador. As much as anything else they were driven by public concerns over access to health care.

Now health care is entirely a provincial responsibility in Canada, but that didn't stop voters from making health care a major issue. The election results, translated into provincial votes by the nervous political operatives sent a disconcerting message to the provincial government. A provincial health minister was replaced. New funding turned up. Government organized a forum to discuss the issue and propose solutions. It was all very public and very obvious.

The problem didn't go away, although there was a decline in the very vocal criticisms of the health care system. Flip ahead to January 1999. Brian Tobin went to the polls looking for a second majority and his campaign launched on the heady promise of economic prosperity from offshore oil and the Lower Churchill. Everyone else was talking health care. Major shift in campaign communications including the hasty production of new television commercials highlighting social programs, especially health care.

Fast forward to 2007, another election year. Questions about breast cancer screening led to the appointment of a public inquiry headed by no less an authority than the most senior justice of the Court of Appeal (in terms of years on the bench) , the highest court in the province. In an unrelated matter that cropped up at the same time, health officials were given a mere two weeks to re-evaluate almost 6,000 radiology reports when concerns were raised about the competence of a radiologist at a rural hospital.

To forestall unwelcome voter behaviour - i.e. voting for the Other Guys - the governing party took swift action.

Action.

Implicitly, the politicians involved knew that attitudes wouldn't be adjusted merely by words. It wasn't good enough to say that things were fixed. Well, they tried that initially, along with some actions that likely dealt with the entire matter as far as the health care authority was concerned.

The problem was that the important attitudes aren't those of the senior managers of the authority. They like themselves anyway. Ask any of them how they do their jobs and they will tell you what a marvellous job they do, working long hours for little pay.

The problem lay in the simple fact that the attitudes that were important were patient attitudes. Those attitudes shifted, as we noted before, once it appeared that the health authorities had held back important information. More action - very obvious action - was needed.

Actions speak louder than mere words, especially when it comes to influencing behaviour.

Next time we'll look at credibility and what happens in the gap between what you say and what you do.

- srbp -

The Top 10 SRBP Posts of 2014 #nlpoli

People love to read posts that contain nothing more than lists. 

You know this is true because every self-appointed guru of the Internet will give you a list of simple things to do online that will make you an instant success and somewhere on the list is the advice to always produce lists.

Who are we to argue with such collective wisdom?

In any event, and in keeping with a long tradition of lists around these parts,  here is the list of the top 10 SRBP posts for 2014.

Alarums and Excursions #nlpoli

Dwight Ball is hiding details of his involvement in the decision to give an enormous and unwarranted severance package paid to Ed Martin despite the fact Martin had quit as Nalcor's chief executive.

That became plain in Ball's responses to repeated questions from both opposition politicians and reporters on Wednesday.  They all asked Ball repeatedly if he discussed severance with Martin in either of two meetings the Premier had with Martin in mid-April. Ball's answer was deliberately evasive.  He had clearly rehearsed the wording precisely because he repeated it over and over and over again. The question required a mere yes or no in reply. Instead,  Ball said again and again that the matter of severance was one for the board.  Every word Ball said more than either yes or no confirmed that what he was saying was not true.

Ball also said repeatedly that he only became aware of the details of the severance on May 5. He stressed the word "details" because it is an important word for him.  Ball repeatedly stressed the word as if knowing the details of the severance were more important than knowing about and approving of the fact that Martin had received severance in the first place.

That's the sort of distinction that only comes to a certain breed of lawyers or people who would describe *themselves* political strategists.  They think this sort of thing is clever.  It isn't.  It is merely too cute by half.  Everyone knows the ploy for what it is.  It's as transparent as saying someone has quit an important job to spend more time with his family.  No one believes that one because we have heard the same lie so many times. Had we all played a drinking game with Dwight Ball on Wednesday, we'd be in hospital with acute alcohol poisoning for taking a shot every time he dodged.

Does this sound like Andy Wells to you, Norm?

For those who may not be familiar with the issues involved in Danny Williams' attempt to foist Andy Wells on the offshore board, just take a look at the qualifications description Danny Williams approved for the ad Robertson Surette placed for the offshore board job.

It's really important to notice too that what Danny Williams called a mainland company is actually the local office of an internationally respected head-hunting firm.

It's the firm he approved.

Here's the list of qualifications:

"Candidates will have an in-depth knowledge of Newfoundland and LabradorÂ’s offshore oil and gas activities, along with a demonstrated ability to manage an organization with diverse technical and regulatory responsibilities, and to work effectively with senior industry and government officials. Qualified individuals will also have a good understanding of the structure and operation of the Canadian and international petroleum industry. Applicants will have extensive experience in the operational aspects of offshore petroleum activities, including full knowledge of related business, financial, safety and environmental matters, and of federal and provincial government legislation and operations. In addition, candidates will have experience in dealing with industry associations and a wide range of non-government organizations. This position requires exceptional communication skills."


Ok. Leave Andy Wells out of this for a second.

nowheree does the description say the person should have extensive experience in negotiating benefits for the province. It doesn't even hint at that. That's because the chairman and chief executive officer doesn't do that job. Danny Williams does.

As for Williams' comments about the existing list being "too close to the industry", I'd like to know how anyone would acquire the skills to run a regulatory body as described above and not actually know some people in the oil business. Again, the Prem's claim about "too close" is bogus: it isn't the real issue.

Now think of Andy Wells and see if you can see which of the above qualities Mr. Wells possesses.

Personally, I can think of a few other jobs related to the offshore where he might be better suited than asCEOo of the offshore board.

If Danny is so amazed by Andy Wells abilities, maybe Danny would appoint him minister of energy and let Andy actually handle the negotiations on Hebron.

What this all comes down to is credibility and while local media have been avoiding asking the Premier any tough questions on the Wells issue, I think this is another matter where a little caution is merited before we climb back on any bandwagons.

Go back and see what the Prem wanted from the offshore in January 2004 and see what he accepted in 2005 while proclaiming it "100%". The Prem will be quite happy to retell the war story again and again, but here's the kicker:

Compare the claim against the facts.

Notice the huge gap.

Now ponder the Premier's most recent offshore foray.

Ponder that until tomorrow's megapost which will wrap the whole thing up in a neat package.

The Parable of the Trees

"Two trees stood on a cliff, both buffeted by fierce winds. One remained rigid and cracked under the strain. The other moved as the winds grew strong or ebbed.
This tree grew to great height."

Don't be too surprised if you start hearing rumours that Stephen Harper is about to retire from politics.

After all, those rumours started originally back in March, not coincidentally just before the Conservatives decided to reject the budget, disrupt the House and ultimately force a confidence show-down in the House of Commons. Bear in mind that this whole thing came about despite polling that showed the Conservatives well behind the Liberals everywhere except Alberta and that Paul Martin remained the overwhelming choice of Canadians to be prime minister.

Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist once advised that where one is weak, one should appear strong. The Conservative push toward an election can be seen as little more than offensive action designed primarily to avoid dealing with a number of internal party problems including divisions over substantial policy matters and the lingering doubts about Harper's ability or willingness to leader the party into the next election.

Questions of leadership were evident in the way Harper treated Belinda Stronach. His own account of the dressing down he gave her is littered with signs of an internal struggle for control of the party. Faced too with the weaknesses that still exist within his party, Harper's solution was to attack the Liberals and thereby force his supporters to rally around the Conservative flag.

Closer to home, Premier Danny Williams used the same approach last October. His polling numbers were strong on the surface but underneath lurked some weaknesses, as revealed by Corporate Research Associates polling obtained by The Telegram under the new Access to Information Act. The premier also had alienated a number of provincial premiers immediately before a major national conference that would discuss, among other things, federal-provincial financing arrangements. Their resentment of the offshore proposal - what appeared to them as a major dodge around the current equitable but imperfect Equalization program - would have led to a nasty confrontation behind closed doors.

Williams' solution was to storm out of the meeting, claiming that the federal government's offshore offer was an insult. His polling numbers shot through the roof and any doubts about him and his leadership disappeared both in public or in the privacy of the pollsters' telephone calls.

Sometimes the approach works, as with Danny Williams. Sometimes it fails, as with Stephen Harper.

The Labrador by-election and two recent polls give clues as to why the Conservative Party's - really Stephen Harper's - push for the writ didn't work.

Successful national Canadian political parties are coalitions. Both the Liberal Party for most of its history and the Mulroney Conservatives did not have an immovable ideological core. They could embrace diverse views of social, economic and constitutional policy. Political parties learn to manage the disputes that erupt between members, between factions or among members from different regions. The bargaining and horse-trading that people decry are actually the mechanisms by which people can advance their particular causes without resorting to violence.

It may not be pretty but it is democracy.

Unsuccessful national parties, like the New Democrats and the Reform parties either represent a particular region or, most typically, reflect some ideological yardstick used to measure the purity of their members. There is no small irony, therefore that the initials of two Canadian ideological parties are the same, even if they represent polar opposite political views. The Communist Party of Canada, the Moscow-oriented clan and the Conservatives both go by the initials CPC.

The Unite the Right movement held at its core a belief that Canada needed a political party which represented what are called right of centre views, but which was essentially able to embrace both the substantial differences between the red Tories - the Progressive Conservatives - and the Reform cum Alliance Party. This was an effort to create another coalition party which, truthfully, is the only type of political party that could hope to win an election in a country as diverse as Canada.

On the surface, the recent CPC losses in the House and in Labrador can be seen as communications failures; the party used messages about corruption which were not heard by anyone outside their own ranks. This is revealed in the Leger poll. In Labrador, the CPC hammered on issues that did not address the views of the constituents they were trying to court. They talked about defence spending, that would benefit one portion of the riding, even though that was by no means a core issue for the majority of voters. At the same time, the CPC
talked about defeating the government's budget that included money for community infrastructure.

By the same token, Stephen Harper pledged not to force an election if the public didn't want it. When poll after poll revealed no one wanted an election, the CPC merely shifted gears. Peter MacKay likened elections to root canal - painful but necessary.

Make no mistake: these were monstrous communications failures. They represent massive political failures.

Look closer to home, in eastern Newfoundland and you can easily see the effects of the charge of the political light brigade that go beyond the national polling numbers like the ones from Leger or these from Ekos.

Two stalwart Conservatives, one of them an architect of the new party have destroyed their political base in what ought to be safe Conservative territory. Loyola Hearn is now openly talking of quitting politics. His reputation is battered. He is alienated from the local Conservatives both by the actions of his party and by the workings of his own jawbone.

This poses a problem, however. The CPC is supposedly a coalition party. Its leader is reputedly a master political strategist. Some of its key people - like Hearn and MacKay have fought successful campaigns provincially and federally or at least have the political savvy to know how to run a coalition team.

How is it possible for this combination to make such glaring errors?

The answer is that the CPC is dominated by ideologues that come not from only the old Reform Party. This is not to give into the temptation to dismiss the views held by Reformers; rather it acknowledges them for what they are - a group with strong views that is more likely to look for purity of belief, to exclude those seen as impure, to look inward rather than outward.

Consider the language used to describe Liberals. The enemy - even that word suggest the depth of their feeling - is corrupt and immoral. They and their supporters are criminal - mafia and whores. They lack principle. Voters are cowered by the dastardly villains. One need only listen to Stephen Harper's language or browse the blogs of CPC supporters to find this singularity of perspective. The use of moral judgments is striking.

How does one legitimately compromise with - even live with - untermenschen?

Added to that ideological singularity is a leader who is also apparently unyielding. His dressing down of Stronach suggests a man with little tolerance for opposition. This is hardly the stuff of a coalition builder. Harper's detractors all point to his unshakeable belief in his own correctness. Comments by Preston Manning ring in one's ears. According to Manning, Harper saw no value in holding town hall meetings to discuss fiscal policy with people lacking the education to comprehend the sophisticated concepts involved.

One of the finest examples of Harper's inflexibility came at the end of the last federal election. His national headquarters issued a news release that accused Paul Martin of supporting child molesters. When he faced reporters, Harper refused to disown the release. Leading a party that spoke of integrity, Harper refused to admit that someone had made an error and by doing so made the focus of the story the obvious gap between words and deeds. Credibility suffered and with it went Harper's hopes for a majority government.

Stephen Harper appears to have surrounded himself with old friends who share his outlook. Some have brought their game theory approaches, and with it, the unshakeable belief that their numbers not merely model reality - they are reality. Game theorists in Vietnam fiddled with individual variables and got lost in the tactical movements at the expense of the strategic. Stephen Harper opposed C-43, then supported it, then opposed it and then supported it - all tactical manoeuvering. The CPC voted for one part of the budget and against another - more transparent manoeuvering. One suspects that the game theory scenarios suggested that these were the optimum tactical approaches at each point.

Genuine strategy would see that each step is part of a longer journey and that the optimum step at each discrete moment on the road may lead ultimately to the wrong destination. Strategy understands the need to give with the wind sometimes.

On the surface, the Conservatives have committed some readily apparent political blunders.

The question that must be asked is why this is so.

The answer lies in the leader and in the party itself.

For the future, the Conservative Party faces the challenge of having a leader who is a four- or five-time failure. Many may feel the need to find a new leader.

But consider the timelines.

The prime minister has committed to an election in January.

By the time the House closes next month, and even if Stephen Harper resigned immediately, the party could not hold a leadership convention and begin the process of internal revitalization that it would need to win.

The only way the Conservative Party could win in January is for the Liberal Party to collapse.

Consider that the tree which grew strong did not depend on the other tree for its success.

The Why Incision

Over the past few months, readers of The Sir Robert Bond Papers have been treated to jabs aimed at Conservative members of parliament (MP) Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn.

They have heard about cases of pinocchiosis inflicting one or the other and of both of them scoring zero on the Cred-o-Meter (r) on several occasions.

All fine, humourous and undoubtedly as annoying as those comments were to Hearn and Doyle supporters, they are rooted not so much in partisanship as in an acknowledgement of the fundamental gap between what these gentlemen have said in the past and what they have done in the present.

The entire Fair Deal for Newfoundland campaign to pressure Hearn and Doyle, the calls to call-in radio shows, all have their origins in the vocal chords of the two MP.

Here are some samples of what they said on the issue of the offshore revenue deal and how a member of parliament should vote:

"I'’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’'t be there."

- – Loyola Hearn, July 4, 2004

"We're sent to do a job; we'll stand up for Newfoundland regardless of who's for us or who's against us."

- – Loyola Hearn, November 13, 2004

"Never again do I expect to see the members from our province in such a position of clout. It would be a terrible shame if that clout were squandered by not using it at all."

–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004

"Why can we not, just once, stand united for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can we not, just once, stand on guard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?"

–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004

These two gentlemen never hesitated for one second to conjure the spirits of nationalism and populism when they could be directed against their target: John Efford. They reveled in the damage the demons inflicted inflicted, making a very difficult issue intensely personal.

Mr. Hearn, in particular, proved that perceptions of him as a kind and decent fellow were utterly false. His deeply personal remarks, at times, were nothing short of scurrilous. They were hardly becoming of a former provincial cabinet minister, let alone a member of our national parliament and a potential federal cabinet minister in waiting.

It should be no surprise therefore that some people took delight in his predicament over bills C-43 and C-48. No surprise, therefore that the populist was hoist with his own petard.

The problem for Hearn and Doyle, however, is not a partisan one.

The tragedy of Doyle and Hearn is that they represent an old-fashioned approach to politics which has past. These men learned their politics in the 1960s and 1970s, practiced it through the Peckford insanity and then stumbled into Opposition in the 1990s. They slipped back behind the scenes only to re-emerge in the federal legislature where they sat largely unnoticed until recently.

Events of the past six months have shown both Doyle and Hearn to be mere relics of a style of politics that took voters for granted, that treated them as ignorant, that saw no problem with saying one thing and doing another.

Consider Hearn's recent post office nonsense.

Consider Hearn issuing a constituency flyer before the last election saying that Equalization clawbacks were contrary to the Atlantic Accord, while the clawbacks that existed were exactly the ones he voted to support in 1985.

Consider Hearn's attack on a fisheries matter in another jurisdiction that did not affect this province at all, yet was whipped into an Open Line Crisis. The ship in question, leased from a foreign owner was subsequently bought by the Canadian company thus giving the lie to Hearn's accusation that a Liberal government in Ottawa was letting foreigners take our fish.

Consider Hearn lately explaining how one bill must go through six stages before cash could flow (there are actually seven) taking upwards of a year while another bill could seemingly float magically through the same process in mere weeks.

Consider just within the past week, Hearn and Doyle flanking their Leader as he explained that they had developed a confidence two-step which, as Stephen Harper admitted, was merely a device to prevent Hearn and Doyle from being accused of voting against their province. This sham did not last to see the light of the next day.

Did they really think people were so gullible, so completely stupid?

To be fair, parliamentarians serve many masters with different interests. It is unreasonable to expect that they always side with their constituents, their party or their leader. Our democratic system is built on the expectation that parliamentarians will learn to balance the competing interests and ultimately exercise their best judgment on our behalf.

But here is where the modern democracy differs from the version that Hearn and Doyle practice. Modern democracy is a dialogue. Voters expect that politicians will speak frankly and reasonably. They expect to have discussion and disagreement. They expect that a politician will tell them what he or she plans to do and explain why in plain English.

The jibes to one side, the main reason why these electronic scribbles have poked at Hearn and Doyle is because they failed to measure up, not to their self-imposed standard of populist nonsense but to the baseline for modern democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hearn and Doyle had ample opportunity to state exactly what they were going to do on Thursday and explain why they thought it best for the country and the province. Let their Leader be hysterical and angry. Seasoned politicians can be strong-minded but relentless in their explanations.

What we got instead from Hearn and Doyle was spin - misrepresentations, half-truths and in some cases contradictory answers from one question to another.

What we got from Hearn and Doyle was weak through and through and relentless only to the extent they both regurgitated their talking points over and over.

Not once did they even pretend to hold an intelligent conversation with their constituents.

To make matters worse, Hearn in particular picked fights - needless fights - with Premier Williams. His "neophyte" crack, if said in the heat of the moment could have been easily forgiven with an apology. Instead, Hearn made the matter worse with further insults, backed, a few days ago by the ever-charming Mr. Harper. To his credit, the Premier displayed restraint when asked to reply.

Hearn and Doyle together persisted in their implausible positions to the point where even their own supporters in the provincial Tory caucus were openly talking of deserting them. Whatever shred of credibility they had even with the most stalwart of Tory supporters, must surely be stripped from them by now. As some have said, how can they go door to door with these guys and sincerely ask voters to support them?

Taken all together, it would be very surprising if either Hearn or Doyle survived to the next election.

Both Hearn and Doyle barely won their seats in the last election. Hearn, in particular, had counted on an easy win in a safe seat; instead he found that a neophyte came within a hair's breadth of defeating him. His weak position in the riding has grown steadily weaker since the last election and in the past several days, one can see that whatever pillars served as his support have been demolished with his own jawbone.

When they stood to vote against the federal government's budget, Hearn and Doyle were seen as voting against their own province and their own people. Neither Doyle nor Hearn bothered to explain themselves to the very people whose support they needed. They left that perception to become reality and it has been their undoing.

Norman Doyle and Loyola Hearn represent a style of politics long since mouldering in the ground.

It remains now for someone else to write the epitaph.

This has been merely a political autopsy.