My Photo

Blogs I'm enjoying right now

  • David Grossman's blog
  • Tony Sharp gets political
    Tony has an interesting take on IC - his blog doesn't just talk about good practice - there's an underlying political edge. I don't agree with everything he says but it makes me think (sometimes!).
  • The Chime Blog
    Thoughts from my colleagues across the Chime Group
  • Competent Communicator
    The work that Sue Dewhurst and I did to define competencies for communicators

  • Wedge at Kilobox
    An always interesting collection
  • Spreading Science
    Explaining the theory behind how the world works - even I can understand it
  • simply-blogging
    Marc, Dan and Kelly -
  • David Ferrabee's Blog
    I love how he writes it
  • Heather Yaxley
    Heather's ideas on PR and stuff

« Words we should not use | Main | It's an intelligence thing »

07/25/2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The phase that galls me in this piece, while I agree that a broad set of skills are needed for leaders in communications to be strategic assets, is the idea that the "boss" need not be a good writer. Having worked for a boss who did not write one word that left our department and who was the biggest time waster I ever met, this digs into me. We found out after two people left for other jobs that not only couldn't she write but she was woefully ill equipped in other areas as well. I believe the "boss" must know all the functions that report to him/her. When this is true, they are better problem-solvers, strategic thinkers, editors and leaders.

Thanks for commenting Reese.

It sounds as if you had a bad experience there and it's always a shame when you lose respect for the boss.

However, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the logic of your argument. In a function like comms where there are a very diverse range of skills needed it's hard to find a paragon who is a specialist in everything.

I think it's OK to say that they should at least be well schooled in the areas of comms that are of highest risk - e.g a listed company needs someone who knows financial PR, a unionised business needs a strong HR comms specialist. But we don't need them all to be good at the same things.

Liam

I'm with you Liam. You were being provocative, of course, but interesting that this debate overlaps with CommScrum's ongoing debate - and as you say, it's like kicking a hornet's nest.

I love the written word. I am passionate about good writing. I know you are as well.

But some people (ex-journalists, frustrated writers) doth protest too much, in my opinion. It's ONE OF the skills, not THE skill.

It would do the profession a lot of good if we could get them to add, subtract, multiply and divide as well.

By the way a BRILLIANT riposte over on CommScrum from Indy...

The comments to this entry are closed.