Seeing, Hearing and Facing Evil

The sculpture on the left shows what became the basis of a traditional Japanese saying: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The Three Wise Monkeys, first depicted above the door of a 17th century shrine, embody the belief “that if we do not hear, see or talk evil, we ourselves shall be spared all evil” (wikipedia).

I think it is safe to assume that the Japanese (or possibly Chinese) artist who carved the three monkeys was thinking of everyday transgressions such as gossip and slander, not of PR and corporate blogging, when he conducted his work. But there’s an interesting analogy there. Many companies seem to believe in their own version of the wise-monkey approach: if we don’t publicly acknowledge criticism it doesn’t hurt us - it practically doesn’t exist. And even where criticism is acknowledged it is still imperative that no representative of the company ever communicates in a fashion that is potentially damaging to The Message, that strange one-size-fits-all PR hat that supposedly contains the essence of what the brand or company is. The need to wear a communicative makeup that offends nobody (and, as some believe, also appeals to nobody) arises because of two basic problems: a) it is unclear who can speak on behalf of the company (just PR? customer service? the CEO?) and b) it is unclear who is listening outside of it. A large corporation is a very complex entity. The decision of how to represent it must be coordinated and planned, and most people feel that this is not something every single employee can do for himself. The way the company presents itself cannot depend fully on the presentation of its employees; there must be guidelines of some sort.
But there is an inherent problem with the entire concept. The Message was created because of the specific limitations that a large and complex organization faces when seeking to communicate with an equally complex set of stakeholders (customers, competitors, shareholders), often far removed in terms of geography, language and culture. These constraints meant that the communication was largely unidirectional (company -> stakeholder), making it unnecessary to be able to respond to criticism. It also had to be as universally effective as possible and therefore target the mass rather than the individual.

What has changed (or, is still in the process of changing) is how individuals all over the world are able to communicate with each another rapidly, directly and efficiently. This is of course not news - it’s basically what appears to characterize the 21st century - but it poses a specific challenge to organizations. Because they feel the need to somehow streamline their communicative practices they are reluctant to give full control to the individual employee in an interaction with outsiders. The trouble is, however, that only individuals can communicate interpersonally - brands and companies can’t talk - and the way in which these individuals present themselves will never be in perfect accord with The Message, because the The Message is a ultimately a mirage designed out of sheer necessity.

How does this relate to the beginning of my ramble, the three wise monkeys? The monkeys represent the idea that if we keep away from bad things they cannot harm us. Traditional corporate PR seems to largely depend on the same presumption: as long as our Message is positive and we do not allow deviation from it in our communication, we are safe. But of course that’s not true - there’s criticism out there and it is voiced publicly now, for all the world to see and hear. Staying away is likely to make matters worse, as staying quiet also communicates something. But getting involved in a controversial discussion, acknowledging failure, promising improvement are things that only individuals can do. The concept of the unified, one-size-fits-all company image is suited for brochures and TV ads, but not for social interaction. A more idiosyncratic picture of companies will eventually emerge - more idiosyncratic, but perhaps also more truthful, more realistic, characterized by the actual people who are the company. I don’t see why human imperfection, criticism and similar blemishes on the corporate face must be avoided at all costs. Underneath the makeup there might just be a human being.

Note: I’ve used various bits and pieces read over the last week for this post. Sources of inspiration include: Doc Searls, Judy and Heather Leigh.