It Would Have Taken the Same Energy…
How much energy does it take to convey a positive image instead of a negative one? Think about the following example when considering what you put out into the world and how it impacts others’ perceptions of you or your business. When I read this, I thought, “How much would it have taken for [the identified business] to expend the same energy to send a positive message that would have put them in a supportive light instead of what it took for them to be such jerks?”
The backstory
A century ago, on January 28, 1922, a massive snowstorm hit Washington, DC. Two feet of snow accumulated on the flat roof of the Crandall’s Knickerbocker Theater, one of the most opulent and storied theaters in the country in its day. The weight of the snow on the flat roof, along with structural issues caused by poor design and corner-cutting builders, caused the roof to cave in, killing 98 and injuring another 133 people.
The issue of perception
Today, at 18th Street and Columbia Road NW, the Adams Morgan corner where the Knickerbocker once stood, a developer plans to build a 54-unit condominium tower on a privately-owned parcel of land. Some community members are protesting the development, which is their right to do so. They want the land to become a memorial park recognizing the people who lost their lives and those who performed rescue operations. The owner of the land is pushing back. Both factions have the right to protest and counter, which are options I have no problem with.
My issue lies in how the private owner handled the situation. The following is an excerpt from the Washington Post article. You can read the full article here.
“A group opposing the condominium project is promoting a gathering for the Knickerbocker anniversary that is planned for Saturday afternoon at the plaza. Organizers say they will recite the victims’ names and unveil what they describe as a ‘memorial sculpture’. However, the plaza’s owner, [name withheld here yet noted in the full article], warned the organizers in a ‘cease and desist’ letter that it did not have permission to host a memorial on the site.”
The owner was fully in their right to send their letter. (Here comes the “however”.) However, considering the reason for the gathering (recognition and remembrance, and not protesting) and the composition of the people (neighborhood residents, gathering non-violently and without antagonism), my visceral reaction to the landowner was, “Seriously? You are going to profit from building on the land where such grief occurred and you couldn’t, instead, send a message of support and recognition of the terrible incident that occurred there?” I asked aloud to an empty room thinking that it would have taken the same energy to send a letter stating, “We recognize the terrible event that occurred at this site on Jan 28, 1922 and acknowledge your efforts to remember all who were affected here.” Such a statement neither supports a protest nor subverts community recognition efforts.
The issue of perception
I am aware that you, my reader, may hold a different opinion of the situation. Keep in mind that I share my personal viewpoint, which is my truth rather than “the truth”. Yet I ask, can you see how one “small action” by a company can influence the perception that the company’s potential and existing clients may hold either negatively or positively?
This is the point I make here. Consider how actions you take and the messages you send may be perceived by others. Determine if you care about those potential perceptions or if you just want your position known. Decide whether the energy you expend on an action or message could be better spent cultivating a positive image rather than otherwise.
Your thoughts?
Sylvia Henderson
