Reason Vs. Emotion From a Communications Expert

[Paul Schrimpf]

All --

I first came to know Peter Sandman in the mid 1990s when I was working for a magazine covering the landscape industry. He's been helping organizations with risk and public outrage management for over 40 years, and is a leading expert in the field... not to mention a really nice guy. I've kept in touch with him over the years and still use him for expert perspective in my current job.

When the Hospital rhetoric at one point referenced the "emotionality" of the reaction from the public, it struck a chord with me. I checked in with Peter about it, and sent him a link to the Deck conversation and provided a brief overview of my perceptions of the situation from a communications standpoint. And, I asked him if he would be willing to comment.

Peter loves a challenge, and loves to share his thinking on key topics ... so he agreed to write something up. And write something up he did ...

[url]http://www.psandman.com/gst2015.htm#%20rational[/url]

It's very long and detailed, but it does provide some insight into the interactions of activists and authorities. I can see a lot of what's going on in Lakewood in here. Keep in mind that some additional water has gone under the bridge in the past few weeks, and he does not have all the information at his disposal. But I think it's a good assessment, with lessons for all.

Paul

[Meg Ostrowski]

Paul,

I look forward to reading Peter's response to your inquiry but wanted to quickly point out that in your correspondence with him you state that the Cleveland Clinic owns the hospital.

It is my understanding that the City of Lakewood owns the hospital, Lakewood Hospital Association is responsible for managing its operations and the Cleveland Clinic is merely a tenant/service provider in this arrangement.

I don't expect this will have any bearing on his response but feel it is important that we all understand the players and their roles in hospital discussions.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Paul,

I look forward to reading Peter's response to your inquiry but wanted to quickly point out to others that in your correspondence with him you state that the Cleveland Clinic owns the hospital. It is my understanding that the City of Lakewood owns the hospital, Lakewood Hospital Association is responsible for managing its operations and the Cleveland Clinic is merely a tenant/service provider in this arrangement.

Meg

While the article is a good read, it misses the point on many things. Like what came before
this point. One of the big point, no matter who it goes, with zero emotion, "Why should we
allow those that drove this bus into a ditch, be involved in anyway?"

But as Paul can attest, emotions, and facts save St. James when all was considered lost.

.

[Brian Essi]

Paul,

This is great post--I read Peter Sandman's lengthy piece and it shows how Mayor Summer et al are getting an F on his management and why the Save Lakewood Hospital people are winning.

SANDMAN: "Toward that end, [Summers] should deploy all the various strategies of outrage management: .....staking out the middle, acknowledging prior misbehavior, acknowledging current problems, sharing control, being accountable, giving credit for improvements, etc." F He's done none of these.

SANDMAN [Summers] should: not ignore [Save Lakewood] or belittle [Save Lakewood] F ...."[Summers]might even mean talking about the perils of ambition and greed."F--Summers can't admit this--- it would be game over for him.

SANDMAN: "If the establishment genuinely believes an objective examination of the data will support their view that the hospital needs to close, they should want to encourage as much objectivity as possible. F Summers and his data can't withstand this scrutiny or its gave over.

SANDMAN: That may require some more outrage management, specifically with regard to the data:
"Acknowledge that the data aren’t necessarily trustworthy. The numbers might be wrong or incomplete. The interpretations might be biased." F--if Summers does this, his whole plan crumbles---it is a fact that the data is not trustworthy--the numbers are wrong and incomplete and the interpretations are biased in favor of economic development.

SANDMAN: "Acknowledge that one side in any controversy has good reason to be mistrustful when the other side has been singlehandedly responsible for producing “the data.” F

Summers has put himself in a box and he has no way out--he is incapable of admitting any mistakes--he is incapable of compromise--That will prove to be his undoing--I tried to tell him this 3 months ago--He just won't listen

[Meg Ostrowski]

Thank you, Paul.

This is an excellent read for both sides of the hospital controversy.

http://www.psandman.com/gst2015.htm#%20rational

I have always believed that calm rationality is a competitive advantage but after reading this I am adding “THROW A PUBLIC TANTRUM” to my bucket list!

[Meg Ostrowski]

"Why should we allow those that drove this bus into a ditch, be involved in any way?"

We shouldn't. It's time to say "no, thank you," clean house and go back to the drawing board.

[Bridget Conant]

It's time to say "no, thank you," clean house and go back to the drawing board.

That's another issue I have with this "deal." It's being presented as if it's the ONLY alternative future for Lakewood and the hospital when clearly there are other alternatives. That insistence that this is the only choice we have is a warning bell - there is rarely ever a situation that has only one solution.

So many talented people in Lakewood and so many willing to give of their time and effort. I have no doubt that a better solution could be found that would be acceptable to more people. Why are we being shut out? Why are we told to shut up and stop "interfering?"

We have a lease that goes ten more years. Let's step back and look at this and make the RIGHT decision. Put the effort into finding a BETTER deal for the citizens and the hospital. How can they argue against that?

[Brian Essi]

It's time to say "no, thank you," clean house and go back to the drawing board.

That's another issue I have with this "deal." It's being presented as if it's the ONLY alternative future for Lakewood and the hospital when clearly there are other alternatives. That insistence that this is the only choice we have is a warning bell - there is rarely ever a situation that has only one solution.

So many talented people in Lakewood and so many willing to give of their time and effort. I have no doubt that a better solution could be found that would be acceptable to more people. Why are we being shut out? Why are we told to shut up and stop "interfering?"

We have a lease that goes ten more years. Let's step back and look at this and make the RIGHT decision. Put the effort into finding a BETTER deal for the citizens and the hospital. How can they argue against that?

Meg and Bridget,

You are both spot on!

We have time.

I believe we have some emerging leaders on Council who will stand up and stop this and then hold those who caused this mess accountable.

The first easy step is cleaning house starting with removing Madigan and Bullock from LHA so we can have some transparency as to what is really going on.

Second, Madigan has not moved to replace Joe Gibbons who resigned in early May due to conflicts.

The LHA solution has failed the test. It is causing damage and needs to end.

Why, when things are so critical, does she not act to get fresh help?

She made a comment printed in the Sun Post that her opposition is "mean spirited" and engages in the "politics of fear".

She is cruel--she claims her plan will help the east end of Lakewood--it will hurt them severely---we will loss millions of dollars each year in aid to the underserved if the hospital is closed. She can't really believe that a tiny clinic can replace that---its a cruel hoax. She and Tom Gable with their doomsday BS are fomenting fear by manufacturing losses by starting the hospital on fire.

We need new blood and new ideas at LHA.

Not old tired worn out empty heads that nod and swallow every meal cooked and laid in front of them by CCF admin--milking us for millions while they run the place into the ground for their and the Summers agenda.

[Lori Allen _]

Brian,

Do you feel comfortable sharing the names of those council members that you feel will stand up and stop this?

Thanks.

[Brian Essi]

Lori,

I can only speak for me.

But I do admit that I am fighting for the underserved who may not be well represented.

[Bridget Conant]

Might be time to review this interesting post about how and why people express themselves in a contentious situation.

From the paper:

Emotional expressiveness is a strategic asset especially for low-power people.

There’s another reason why officials tend to stifle their emotions while citizen activists tend to let theirs loose. It’s about how powerful and not-so-powerful people deploy emotion. (Yes, I know this often has gender correlates.)

Officials can afford to be publicly unemotional because they have other assets: expertise, stature, formal control over the ultimate outcome. Concerned citizens, on the other hand, have mainly the resources of passion: genuine outrage, depth of commitment, willingness to endure personal sacrifice, community solidarity, informal political power.

So officials learn to respond to situations coldly or at least coolly, intellectually. When strong feelings arise, they try to hold them in check. But to generate the energy needed to stop an official juggernaut, citizens must respond more hotly – and must let the heat show.

[Brian Essi]

Bridget,

Thanks for bringing this piece back up to the front and for the quotes.

I could not help feeling sorry for Jay Carson and Jenn Pae Monday night--they are cracking under the pressure of public scrutiny.

Jay and Jenn said and acted as if they were emotionally outraged at the suggestion that they might have personal accountability for promoting more BL falsehoods. Ditto Madigan.

The whole issue was brought about by their false postcard, but none of them ever mentioned a word about it. Is that rational?

Even though Jay said he felt threatened, he rushed home and posted something on facebook inviting me to his house. What parent with young children at home would do that if they really felt threatened by me? Proof positive that the whole drama queen event was staged for the tabloid paper downtown.

Jenn Pae began yelling at Tom Monahan. Is this how a rational public servant treats a mature citizen simply because he challenges her op-ed piece with facts?

Madigan and Summers have turned City Hall on its head---now a single citizen is "threatening" City Hall's free speech?

I see desperation to avoid accountability, honesty and transparency.