Puzzles and mysteries

Fascinating article in  by that ranges from reflection on Enron, through analysis of Nazi propaganda to the importance of looking for clues in open communications.  The thread is the difference between puzzles and mysteries, relating to whether there are insufficient facts or analysis:

Puzzles are “transmitter-dependent”; they turn on what we are told. Mysteries are “receiver dependent”; they turn on the skills of the listener

One post on Gladwell’s blog rebukes the author for confusing mysteries and puzzles – with the former involving a search for new facts (eg murder mystery) and the latter involving ingenuity or persistence to solve, but few/no new facts (eg Rubik’s cube). 

Regardless of the side debate on semantics, there is a lot of relevance to public relations here – not least in terms of crisis and issues management.  Do we look at solutions simply requiring more information, ie communicate more?  Or are listening and reflective skills (both inside and outside the organisation) required to understand and address modern, complex challenges? 

As we are about to move into the more practical aspects of the Diploma and Advanced Certificate courses – I’ll be challenging the students to think about whether the assignment case study scenarios present them with puzzles or mysteries.

Published by

Heather Yaxley

Heather Yaxley is passionate about PR - teaching the CIPR qualifications, lecturing part-time at Bournemouth University and running the Motor Industry Public Affairs Association (MIPAA). I'm undertaking a PhD looking at Career Strategies in PR. I love sharing ideas and knowledge - connecting news and views by blogging on public relations and educational developments, especially relating to accelerated and active learning. I'm also a published author, qualified trainer and experienced consultant.

4 thoughts on “Puzzles and mysteries”

  1. Speaking of puzzles, I have been trying for two days to post a comment to the post entitled Motor Industry Public Relations Goes Green in 2007,but to no avail. I’m guessing this is because it contains hyperlinks- would that be a likely cause for rejection?

    Apologies for being off-topic, and do feel free delete this when appropriate. I would have emailed…

  2. Heather, thanks for the e-mails.

    I really want to say, especially in light of recent events, how useful the link to gladwell.com was for me. The NY piece is also thought-provoking. Thanks for pointing me to them.

Comments are closed.