In his Crisis Guru Commentaries, Jim Lukaszewski provides real answers to real questions about your most critical communications problems and issues.

To submit a question, please direct it by e-mail to crisisguru@e911.com.  Be sure to include your full name, affiliation, address, and telephone number.  All published questions will be identified by title and industry only.  Your confidentiality will be protected.

Question:

Dear Crisis Guru:

Thank you for an excellent and informative session on public consensus. I have a question:

You said we need to spend a lot of time communicating with those who attack us the most. By doing so, however, are we adding to their credibility at our own expense - particularly if the attackers don't truly want to communicate with us, nor try to find a compromise?

Here's the reason I ask this question: We have a small group of “unconvincables” who make outrageous public statements designed increase public fear. They have ignored our attempts to meet with them directly unless there are news crews present, in which case they will show up with protest signs and will leave as soon as the media are gone. They have publicly asked that we "recognize" them as the group with whom we should "negotiate" and "answer questions" as representatives of the local community.

We don't wish to hand over that kind of power to them, and know they don't represent the opinions of the local community, but recognize their power to get their message disseminated publicly. Our preference would be to go around them and continue to communicate directly with interested members of the community. Based on what I learned in today's session, is that unwise?

Thank you for your insight.

51% Factor Seminar Attendee

Answer:

Dear 51% Factor Seminar Attendee:

You are asking about the most interesting and counterintuitive aspect of winning . . . the need for constant communication with opposing factions. Remember three things:

Your power comes from communicating positively, constructively, and directly with those that matter.

Publicly answer every question the unconvinceables raise, continue to ask for public meetings that anyone can attend, and publish the diary of your requests and their refusals.

Make certain what you seek to achieve passes the straight face test. If the opposition proposes some sensible ideas, quickly incorporate them into your plans. This will suck energy out of their position and leave them with the more outlandish and less acceptable positions.

Opposition is created and empowered by being ignored, vilified, or attacked. Convert the negative energy opponents and critics need to be powerful into simple, sensible, positive, and constructive actions 51% of those that matter can follow.

I call it waging peace. It is slower, often irritating, and apparently contradictory but, if applied relentlessly, it is powerful and will ultimately be successful.

Hope this helps . . .

Jim Lukaszewski