Contemporary Legends of PR: James E. Lukaszewski featuring Dottie Barnes

My name is Sarah Dudnitz and you're listening to PR Hangover, a public relations podcast brought to you by Grand Valley State University's PRSSA chapter. All right, welcome to PR Hangover, everybody. Today I'm here with Dottie Barnes. Dottie, do you want to go ahead and introduce yourself, tell us a little about yourself?

Sure. Thanks for having me, Sarah. I work at Grand Valley. I work as the associate director, news and University communications. So public relations is my full time job. I do teach on the side, which is awesome. I teach some public relations courses, journalism courses, writing courses. So I love to stay connected with the students in that way. I came to Grand Valley in 2003. Before that, for about 18 years, I worked in television news in many different positions. As an anchor, as a reporter, as a talk show host, a news produce. So I did a lead in television and radio before switching over to public relations and love both careers.

Awesome. Well, thank you again for being here. I really appreciate it. And just for those of you who are listening, this is part of our Contemporary Legends series. So if you want to hear a little bit more about how this came to be and this project, you can listen to our first episode with Adrienne Wallace. She gives us a little bit of an intro of how. How this entire thing came to be. So I would definitely recommend listening to that one, but we will jump right into it. Dottie, do you want to tell us a little bit about who you picked for this project and why you picked them?

Yes. So I chose to write about James Lukashevsky. And it was interesting because in the different examples we had of the different PR experts who've really changed the industry or contributed a lot to the industry, he stuck out to me, number one, because he was living. And I know that sounds weird, but some of Legends had already passed away and so writing about them would have entailed contacting people to remember that person. I was excited that not only would I be able to talk with him directly if he agreed, and that crisis communication, for me, that has always piqued my interest because as a member of the news media, knowing what we want to ask, why we ask it, you know, always looking for that good story to be on the other side in public relations made it even more fascina to me to learn, at least in my role at the time, what it was like to handle any type of crisis. Pretty small at Grand Valley, but on a huge level for him. I was excited to connect with him and then maybe learn some secrets. I thought, man, maybe he'll tell me some things that can help me in my career. But the news reporting part of me and the curiosity of what he might be able to share was fascinating to me. I thought if he is the guru and he has counseled people at the highest level, I was excited to learn who he was and maybe some industry secrets. So those were the two things that captivated my interest. And Sarah, when I did get a hold of him, it was interesting when I described to him the project that, you know, we weren't, we were doing and how we hoped that this would be published and we were reaching out to other public relations professionals and big mentors in this profession. He was so flattered because he said nothing like this had ever been written about him. So he took this.

That's surprising.

Seriously. Yeah, that's interesting. I know. Very surprising. I had the same reaction. So he was so into this with me and very particular about what might be written, knowing that this could be published, other people would read it and people knew about him and, and you know, remember he, his big career was the 70s and 80s and even as long ago as it was that I was interviewing him, the Internet, you know, if you googled him, you might get a short bio. So knowing that I wanted to talk to him about his upbringing, you know, everything about him personally in his career. We spent so much time on the phone, like late nights and hours going over what I was writing, why I was writing it the way I was. And I respected him in that while he almost words every word, he knew that this wasn't something he was writing, this was my writing. But boy, he wanted to be sure the overall message was truthful and that it conveyed what he wanted it to convey, if that makes sense. So, you know, as a reporter, I'm thinking, yeah, you don't get to read this. But he was careful not to cross that line. But I'll tell you, every time I would turn in a section or interview him and then submit it and say, you know, this is, this is how it looks from the last time we talked. Boy, we'd go sentence by sentence.

Wow, that is so interesting. I didn't even know that you actually got to sit down with him face to face. So I'm really excited to hear kind of what that was like. That's awesome.

So, so I should clarify. It wasn't face to face, it was all phone calls because, yep, he was in New York. But yeah, it was still that one on one, you know, agreeing to do it and then the endless phone calls that I started to look forward to it, was a little tired that late, but just a fascinating man.

Oh, that's awesome. So you hit a little bit on how what he was known for his. His big thing was crisis communications. And what I loved reading about was that he really valued the ethics of it. He didn't just try to sweep things under the rug or find a quick fix. And he was blatantly truthful all the time. And one of my favorite quotes that you wrote in there was, he knows how to listen. And that's hard to do when you know the answer. And I was just wondering if you wanted to sort of expand on this quote a little bit and just sort of say, like, why is this concept of listening so important in public relations and in crisis communications?

Absolutely, yes. That stuck out to me too. And he would say sometimes he wouldn't even meet the client, that it was something they wanted just his expertise on. And then other times he would fly into wherever they were and then he would sit and deal with the CEO about what was happening and, you know, what they needed to do about it. And so his big thing was ethics. Just as you said, he didn't want to go in and do a quick fix because what would that accomplish unless he could stay and mentor them, teach them why he was taking the focus that he was. He wanted to really change management behavior. So instead of just dealing with what was happening at hand, yes, we're going to do that and set you on a course that's going to be helpful. But he wanted to change management behavior because again, if you remember, this was the 70s and 80s and crisis communication and management was really just starting. And so he was doing this at a time when people were afraid of the media. They weren't sure how to handle the media. They didn't trust the media. So oftentimes he said their gut reaction wasn't really the best thing to do. And he wanted to gain their trust because he was so. He was known for being so forthright, which wouldn't want that when you're dealing with crisis communication. If you don't want someone who would think, oh, is this really what they think? Or do they just want my business? He was truthful. And so, yes, he would say, he would go in and he said, it's tough to do to listen to a CEO or a president and not interject or when you know the answer, not cut them off and just give them the answer, and they have to listen first. And what a great message for all of us to learn that Even though we may know the answer, to wait and listen to what they're saying and what they want before giving your answer. Because he would say, and taught me through these interviews that listening teaches us so much more. If we cut them off, they might not finish their thought, things might go on a tangent. They will then let you take control because they're looking for your advice and action. But if we sit and listen first, even though we know what we want to say and we already have the answer, letting them talk, listening to their perspective is going to help us know not only how to correct the problem at hand, but help them move forward with what their vision is, their goals are the real message they want to get out. And isn't it funny how, especially for some of us public relations people, how hard it is to listen and not interject? You know, that's what we're trained to do. A lot of us are extroverts. We study so that we know what to say and how to handle things. But yet listening is a skill a lot of us need to do a lot better with.

That is definitely interesting and I think that's advice that we could definitely all take. So I love that idea. Another thing that you started to hit on that I would want to hear more about is his approach to how he interacted with the media was so interesting to me, and especially since you've been on the public relations side and the journalism side, I would love to hear more about this. He said that they were predictable and trustworthy. He knew what they were going to ask, what bits they were going to use and everything. And then eventually, following the events of 9 11, he wrote a paper titled News is the Enemy's Weapon, which I thought was really interesting. Do you think that he was anti media and had sort of negative feelings towards them, or do you think that he was just very aware of sort of the psychological game that was being played during a crisis with the media?

Great question, Sarah. That's just great. I think it was more he knew the psychological game. During our interviews, I never got the sense that he didn't like media. You know, certainly there are some reporters who you wonder if you can trust them or not because of what they write or broadcast after an interview, if it's not correct or an exact quote, you know, that still happens, and the careers of those reporters won't last long because of it. And his perspective was, that's exactly right. He said the media is predictable, they can be trustworthy. And. And PR people do spend too much time preparing their statements. So what I fleshed out of that in talking with him was early in his career, which I think set him up nicely to know media without being a member of the media and know how to know what they want and what they're looking for is because early on when he first got his degree, he worked for the governor of Minnesota. So that's where he lived for a long time. Born and raised in Minnesota before moving to New York. And we could talk about his background more in a little bit. But after he decided on public relations as a career, he worked in government and for a time for the mayor. And so, like he said to me, it was his job to deal with the bad news. So as a press secretary and assistant press secretary for the governor of, back then of Minnesota, he would have to deal with the media in anything that was negative. So you learn by having to do this all the time what the media is going to ask and what they're looking for. And as. And I could relate with this. And he's exactly right, because in spending time in my background as a reporter, you only have so much time in a broadcast or so much space in a written piece. So you're looking for that information that's going to pique someone's interest. You're looking for a headline, you're looking for a lead that's going to be interesting and make people want to listen or make people want to read it. And so as you're doing an interview, you listen for those certain quotes and things will rise to the top more than other things you're saying by what is interesting. And I do this even when I teach news reporting. And what he was, Jim Lukashevsky was telling me is, you know, know when I say something, what part of my statement they're going to take, because we are looking for that particular sound bite, if you will, or that particular quote that's going to resonate with people. And if we don't get it, we may ask the same question, but in a different way, because we kind of know what we're looking for. Media and reporters, they do their homework. They know all that they can about the topic and the subject. So then they're going to go in and start hammering and asking about it. And especially at a government rule like that, for the governor of Minnesota, whatever they were asking about, he already knew probably what they were going to ask. And then he could give a message that he, you know, would know. This is the part that I want them to take. And, and that's just good Public relations. And I'm going to be careful what I say and how I say it because if you go down a certain road, media will take anything that seems a little bit sensationalized. So. So he was correct. They are predictable. You know what they're going to ask and you know what sound bites or quotes that they will want. And he learned to navigate that because of his experience. Now that's not to say it's manipulative or untrustworthy or not truthful. He absolutely was truthful. It's just he knew, what are they going to ask? So what's my best answer?

Was there anything else about his background that you feel like really influenced his work?

Oh, my goodness. How long do we have? Okay, you cut me off talking too much. This was my favorite part about him learning about his life. So. So yes, he grew up in Minneapolis and blue collar family for sure. His dad was so tough, but he respected his dad. And by tough I mean there was that, you know, good midwestern work ethic. So, you know, his parents, you know, hard workers and they, his mom was a librarian, his dad was a teacher. And he said, like the dinner table, for example, he told me that the dinner table was not just a time for eating, it was a time to talk politics. And you know, he and his brother would have to weigh in. And if his dad used a word that they didn't recognize, then they had to go look it up in the dictionary. So the dinner table was a time of learning. So I thought that was, was pretty unique in that his dad was tough, but in a good way. And, and the more he would talk about his dad, I could tell not only did he love his dad, but he emulated him and wanted to be like him. Meaning, you know, I'm, I'm hard working and I'm trustworthy. And I think a lot of who he is was instilled in him by his father. Just sounded like a great man. And when he used the word tough, he used it in, in a positive connotation when we were speaking. And, and I put that right in. And in some of those examples of what his dad was like and he, he was fine with it. He didn't change any. Part of that I thought is really cool is he didn't graduate from college until he was 32 and he tried higher education three different times before it stuck. And he joked and said, you know, it took me 14 years to earn my degree and I hope that can be encouraging to other people in trying to find your niche. So he you know, he said like when he was young and a teenager, he played at a band. So he, he loved the band and maybe wanted to do something with music and worked in a music store. And then he worked some other side jobs that, you know, really didn't earn him much money, but trying to kind of find his niche. So that's when he decided, oh, maybe I should try college. He tried different careers in the sciences, but he said he couldn't get past the math, that he liked biology and chemistry, but he couldn't handle the calculus. So he never said that he was wayward, that he just wasn't finding his niche. Well, he very high school sweetheart Barbara, and young in their marriage, they were both very active, which his parents were. They were very active in the community. And so they were both giving speeches in the community and serving on different boards in the community. And someone from a PR company made a remark to him saying, you would be really good at public relations. And Jim Lukashevsky's response was, what is public relations? So he said the man was shocked and tried to explain to him what public relations is, and it sounded good to him. So he re enrolled in a different college, I believe it was Metropolitan State College in St. Paul. Majored in public relations, got his degree finally in public relations. So really that's how his career started. Someone saying to him, I think you would be good at this. He didn't even know what they were talking about. He goes and studies it, and now he's just thriving in college, works for the governor of Minnesota. And that's where he really gets to craft or hone his craft. Learn about the bad news, handling the media, handling. Handling the communication of news that isn't great. And then from there his career takes off. He works in Minnesota for a while. He has a good, good friend of his and a longtime consultant who had his own PR company in New York, Chet Berger. He recruited Jim to work with him and for him in New York for a few years. Now we're talking about the late 1980s after he did that with Chet for a while. And that's where he really got connected to some big clients, which I love it. He mentions a few in the paper I wrote about him, but the biggies he would not say. He said, these are private conversations. They're private consultations. He just told me they were. They're, you know, big national and international companies. But that stays with him. Boy, I have to respect that. And then he finally, in the late 80s, formed the Lukashevsky group, and he is 77. I believe he'll turn 78 later this year and has not retired. And that doesn't surprise me a bit.

Wow, that is interesting. I would not have guessed that. Well, I'm glad to hear that he's doing well.

Right.

All right. And then going into sort of one of my last points, along with that idea of his relationship with the media, he said that honorable companies acting honorably are far less newsworthy. So by that he sort of meant companies spend so much time crafting these statements for the media and putting a lot of focus there when in reality they, you know, can put their focus towards behaving honorably and then they will make the news less. And this is actually really interesting because I was just talking the other day with Derek De Vries about his chapter in this book and. And when we were talking his topic, his person sort of had a similar outlook with the underlying communications culture of a company and then a crisis communications plan. And they sort of felt like, you know, we spend all this time crafting these crisis plans when in reality sort of having a solid, good communications culture and in a company can save you from a crisis. So I think it's always interesting how these ideas sort of hang in balance with one another. But how do you sort of feel about that idea of putting so much emphasis towards that relationship with the media or crafting statements for the media versus his quote of honorable companies acting honorably are far less newsworthy.

Yes. Boy, and haven't we seen that play out like you just said? That's exactly right. The news isn't looking to do a story about how great a company is doing. I mean, sometimes, you know, if it's a heartwarming story, but that's true, that's not newsworthy. So what do we see? Rise to the top. And boy, we can look at some situations right here in Michigan and in our country lately. I mean, I could name a few, but I'd hate to change the focus of where things would handle so well. You know, what did you know and when did you know it? And so we see people getting fired or people stepping down lawsuits because you would think people would know, like Jim Lukashevsky would say, yes, you need a good crisis communications plan. It would be negligent not to have one. But you never know what's going to come up. And so what do we know? When did we know it, what is truthful? And you have to be forthright. You know, how can we manage this? Because if, you know, like Jim has said, and you alluded to, if. If a company and a spokesperson isn't truthful, the media will find that out, and now you've got even bigger problems. And like Jim used to say, I'm there to change management behavior, not just some quick fix to make the situation go away or get them out of the limelight for the moment. It's to change management behavior and how we handle crisis communication. He does give some examples of people who he helped in some ongoing situations that had some companies, you know, in the headlines for longer than they wanted to be. But when you go in and look at how he handled it, for them, it was, all right, let's. Let's look at our messaging, and sometimes we want to talk directly to the people who are our critics instead of the media, because then the media's focus will turn to how we're communicating with them. And I thought that was brilliant for his time. I mean, some of the things we're seeing now, you know, I believe. Did he set this on. On course, because he was doing this type of thing in the 70s so that people now are looking at better ways to handle crisis communication. Because more than once in what he could tell me, for clients that he was willing to talk about because they gave permission, he said, we would look at what is our goal here. Yes, we want to manage what the media is saying and, you know, get through this. But more than once, he gave examples of who are our critics and what is their issue with us. So now let's start communicating truthfully and ethically with them to come up with a solution that will be good for both parties, and then that's what the media will be covering, how we're handling it, what we've communicated, and that really then can change the focus and be more positive. And what is the company doing about it? We're not ignoring it. We're in communication with the people who matter. And for back then, I thought it was brilliant.

Absolutely. Is there anything else about his life that you think is worth sharing or any lessons that we can take from him now?

Oh, boy, there are so many. Please read that chapter, because he is. He really is a fantastic person. A couple of things that stuck with me that, you know, maybe are kind of quirky, but I think interesting is for many of his clients, he would ask them about their mothers and ask them about the relationship with their mom. First I thought, oh, boy, you know, this sounds a little bit like psychobabble, or, you know, lay on the couch and tell me about your mother. But he said, I will ask a CEO about his or her parents or about their moms, because he said it can. It can tell him a lot into who they are, what they're like when it comes to personal experiences. And so he said he learns a lot about these powerful, you know, high powerful people who will then just bring it down and say, oh, my mom was like this, or my parents were like that. Because it. It shows him who they are more personally, what their values are, what they believe, and then he can help them better by getting to know them better. I thought that was interesting because that just kind of takes me back to how much time he spent talking to me about his parents and his dad, what they were like and their work ethic and their influence on him. So he touched on something that I think was really unique and different in that. Who would walk in to a CEO or president of a company who was in the middle of this crisis and wants his expertise and get me out of this, and he's like, tell me about your mother. I just thought, interesting. You know, it's a way to be a good listener, make it personal, and get to know what their values are, who are they? What do they like? And then he can better help them. I just thought that was really neat about him.

I would never think to do that. All right, thank you so much, Dottie. I really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me. Sarah.

I hope you've enjoyed listening to PR Hangover. If you'd like, you can give us a follow on Twitter VPRSSA, and you can check out our show notes@gvprssa.com.