Have you noticed that some sound ideas get bad publicity? Two I\rhave in mind are outsourcing and free trade.

No doubt you could name others, but looking at these two \rinitiatives helps us understand a communication challenge for \rmany companies and not-for-profit organizations.

Free trade and outsourcing both produce a few (well, relatively\rfew) big losers, and many (very many) small winners.

More specifically, free trade leads to big losses for a \rrelatively small number of companies and their employees. \rCompanies can go out of business or be forced to drastically \rrestructure; employees can lose their jobs. The adjustment pains\rthey suffer are very real and very significant.

On the other hand, all consumers in a country that adopts free \rtrade are winners. In other words, just about everybody. The \rgains for each person are small, yet, taken together those gains \rfar outweigh the losses suffered by the losers. And the gains \rkeep paying dividends year after year.

The story is much the same for outsourcing. A few employees take\ra very big hit, losing their jobs. At the same time, though, a \rlot of other employees get to keep their jobs because their \rcompanies become stronger. A few suffer for the many.

Which do you hear more about? You hear far more about the losers, \rof course. Why? Well, as a former news writer and announcer I can \rtell you that losers holler louder and longer. They actively seek \rmedia coverage. And that's not all: stories about layoffs have an \rinherent drama that stories about the preservation of jobs just \rcan't match.

In addition, small-scale winners often don't know they've won,\rhow they've won, or what they've won, so they don't march in \rprotest or call news conferences. Add to that the general \rprinciple that good news isn't big news.

What do you do if you face a decision leading to many small \rwinners and a few big losers? First, hammer away at the context, \rat the circumstances that drive the decision. For example, don't \rannounce to employees that a new piece of equipment that does the \rwork of three people will make you more efficient. Rather, \rexplain the competitive pressures that force greater efficiency, \rand the consequences of failing to meet those pressures.

Don't assume everyone shares your knowledge. Few stakeholders \runderstand the broader picture, and even if they could, the \rpressure of day-to-day events may keep them focused on just one \rpiece of it. It's essential to start with as few assumptions as \rpossible.

Communicate frequently: in advance, during, and afterward. \rExplain the problem, outline the options, list the decision \rcriteria, announce the solution, and report on how well the \rsolution has worked. Or not worked, which becomes the new \rproblem.

You won't convince everyone your decision is the right one, but \ryou might convince enough people to make further progress \rpossible.

In summary, when a few people suffer big losses and many others \rmake small gains, you can expect the losers to complain very \rloudly, and the winners to say little or nothing. To deal with these \rsituations, communicate frequently and carefully.

Robert F. Abbott writes and publishes Abbott's Communication Letter. If you \rsubscribe, you will receive, at no charge, communication tips that help you lead or \rmanage more effectively. You can get more information here:\rhttp://www.Communication-Newsletter.com