photo by xenia antunes

Last week one of the nation’s largest arbitration service providers agreed to exit the business of consumer arbitration altogether in order to settle a court case brought against it by the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

The National Arbitration Forum had presented itself to consumers in debt disputes with creditors as an independent organization that served as an impartial mediating alternative to the court system. Alternative dispute resolution is important because, among other things, it helps keep the court system from getting clogged with cases that can just as easily be resolved elsewhere.

Turns out the NAF was hiding some pretty serious ties to the collection industry. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson claimed that the organization actively worked with creditors against the interests of consumers. Evidence included the fact that NAF is owned by a New York hedge fund that also operates a debt-collection agency.

You won’t find any mention of that fact on their web site, of course. What you will see are the words expertise, innovation and integrity prominently displayed. No doubt NAF is expert, but there’s nothing innovative in hiding the fact that you’re not a neutral, impartial party. And integrity seems to be sorely lacking.

CEO Mike Kelly’s statement on NAF’s exit from a huge piece of business (200,000 proceedings a year) attributes the decision to legal costs, the current economic climate, “legislative uncertainty” surrounding arbitration, pretty much everything except “We got caught misleading people and it would’ve cost us big bucks when we lost the case.”

The communication lesson here is simple. Sometimes it’s what you don’t communicate that gets you in the biggest trouble. A simple test of whether your lack of transparency might bite you is to ask yourself one question: “What would happen if this became public knowledge?”

NAR found out … they lost a valuable piece of their business. Guess they couldn’t convince the attorney general to take it to dispute resolution.

photo by hbp_pix

Trust is in short supply these days. Corporate bad behavior is a huge part of the problem, but so is lousy communication.

The financial industry deliberately confuses and misleads us with “disclosures” that run 20 pages long and require a law degree to understand. Big Pharma TV commercials claim that their products will cure what ails us while reeling off a long list of “possible side effects” that make me think I’ll just stick with the disease, thanks very much. And failing automakers like General Motors think they can still blow smoke up our tailpipes. No wonder there’s so little trust in corporate America.

Listen carefully. I’m about to reveal one of communication’s worst-kept secrets.

Here it is: Communication isn’t about sharing your news and information. It’s about building trust. Here’s how you do it.

Be continuous and relentless. Communication is a process, not a one-time announcement. You need to communicate frequently. You need to say, say it again and then restate it because people either miss it the first five times or they’re just not paying attention. Use different media and methods because we’re all different. You may like to read it, I may like to hear it, someone else may like to watch it.

Be visible. Maybe you do a great job of keeping donors up to speed on what’s going on. What about your employees? What about the people you serve? Make sure you’re communicating equally well with all stakeholder groups. You need everyone’s commitment and understanding to be successful.

Share what you know when you know it. There’s no better way to damage your credibility than to share the news after everyone already knows what’s going on. Don’t leave the communication of important news and information to informal channels. You may be tempted to craft your message perfectly and tie it up in a bow, but you frequently don’t have the time to do that. Better to be a little rough around the edges but timely and reliable.

Explain the why as well as the what. All stakeholders need the big picture. Understanding how what’s being done contributes to the success of your mission is essential. Don’t assume “everyone knows” why you’ve taken a step. They frequently don’t. Worse, they may make their own assumptions that are only distantly related to the truth.

Listen. Ever notice how a phone has both a thing you talk into AND a thing you listen through? You’re supposed to use both. Knowing what’s on the minds of stakeholders helps you craft more effective communication. Yes, you have a message you want to get out there. But if no one’s interested in that message, you have a problem. Listening helps you figure out what the message should be.

Be honest and expect honesty in return. I’ve always found that coming from a place of integrity encourages greater trust and a richer dialogue. It doesn’t necessarily mean complete transparency; there is information that can’t be shared with everyone. But letting people know that, and why, is better than lying or misleading stakeholders. Candor and clarity on your part encourage a greater openness on the part of others. Well, most others … being open with stupid or evil people isn’t going to accomplish anything. Go ahead and try it anyway.

Be respectful. No matter how good your communication is, some will not agree with your decisions. Disagreement isn’t the same as distrust. Differences of opinion are healthy and can lead to better outcomes. The important thing is to respect the opinions of others when they’re sincere. Insincerity can kiss my you-know-what.

Enable others to do their jobs through your communication. It never ceases to amaze me how many people don’t get this: Effective communication provides people with what they need to do their jobs. It’s not just about getting the news out or making sure everyone’s in the loop. Being well-informed leads to better decision making.

Be real. “Authenticity” is a word being tossed around a lot these days, especially with respect to social media. It applies to all forms of communication. People don’t engage in dialogue with organizations or corporations; they talk to other people. Maybe that’s one reason corporate blogs are deemed untrustworthy. Be a human being in your communication. If someone feels like they’re dealing with an organization and not a person when they deal with you, then you’ve got a problem.

Take responsibility for your message. Sometimes this means owning a mistake. Better to make it, own it and move on than to waste time figuring out how to cover it up, deflect criticism or distract attention.

One final thought. Your actions are worth a thousand emails. If there’s a disconnect between what you’re saying and what you’re doing, then all the communication in the world won’t save you. Make the effort to follow this advice and you’ll be better off. You can trust me on this.

photo by Collin Anderson

Why is it that so many people consider simple writing too simplistic? I edit other people’s writing and my own with an eye toward directness and ease of comprehension. But I’ve found that many people have an annoying tendency to try to “re-complicate” what I’ve simplified.

Maybe they think a simple, straightforward approach reflects poorly on them. Maybe they’re afraid that readers won’t think them capable of complex thought. But if you’re looking to ensure the greatest comprehension among members of your target audience, then you should be doing everything you can to be clear. Direct. Easy to understand.

I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I only recently started using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests as a gut-check on my own writing. It’s an invaluable tool for helping you polish your writing and ferreting out whatever is getting in the way of clarity and conciseness.

There are two tests. One measures reading ease and the other lets you know the grade level at which you’re writing. A reading ease score of 80 percent means that 80 percent of readers should understand what you’re writing. A grade level score of 8 means that anyone with an eighth-grade education will get it.

Most newspapers are geared toward this reading level for a simple reason: They want to maximize their potential readership. They understand that overly complicated, dense writing drives readers away. You should too.

By the way, I ran this entry through Flesch-Kincaid and got a reading ease score of 65 and a grade level score of 7.6. Not bad, but it could be better.

photo by jurvetsen

Katya Andresen had a great short post on the importance of transparency a few weeks ago. While she’s speaking primarily to nonprofit marketing folk, the lesson is equally applicable to all organizations. Without transparency it’s difficult to build trust, especially in today’s environment.

But if transparency is the new black, I’d argue that clarity is the new grey. Even those who think they’re being transparent frequently fog things up with jargon, unnecessarily convoluted language and dazzling displays of numbers that only serve to confuse.

People are hungry for clarity. A recent Siegel + Gale survey found that 84 percent of Americans say they’re more likely to trust companies that use jargon-free, plain English in communications. Three-quarters believe that complexity and lack of understanding played a huge role in our current financial situation. And 79 percent think it’s an important enough issue that President Obama should “mandate that clarity, transparency and plain English to be a requirement of every new law, regulation and policy.”

Your organization probably doesn’t have a global director of simplification like Siegel + Gale does, so it may be that the job falls on your shoulders.

I’m a big fan of transparency. I think it’s essential to developing solid, trustworthy relationships with your stakeholders (customers, clients, employees, donors). But I’m an even bigger fan of clarity. You really can’t have one without the other.