by Steve Adubato, PhD

Consider the current health care debate in Washington. Many would think it is exclusively about policy and politics. Yet, whether it is the health care debate or any other complex or controversial issue, winning the day often comes down to a question of communication and framing. It is about positioning our arguments in ways that are appealing and persuasive to key audiences. It’s as important in business and life as it is in any policy debate in Washington.

Too often, when we communicate on a sensitive issue, we convince ourselves that the more facts, figures or research we site, the more likely we are to move people. But most people are moved less by logic, rationale and data than they are by emotion and self interest.

When it comes to the health care debate, the participants often get caught up in a useless communication game in which they quibble over the exact number of uninsured Americans. Is it 40 or 50 million? Or, is it as few as 10 to 15 million? The larger question is, does that really matter? Everyone has statistics they can site, but numbers can be deceiving and are often numbing. Numbers don’t resonate with people on a visceral level, particularly because there are so many of them.

The health care debate may ultimately be resolved based on who was more effective in framing their communication. President Barack Obama’s message regarding his health care plan is that the government must play a more active role in ensuring that health care is more affordable, which in turn will allow everyone to have it. Simply put, the issue is being framed around affordability and coverage for all. But notice, you will rarely hear the term “universal” coverage being used by those who support it. In the communication game, “universal” sends very mixed messages.

Those who oppose the president’s plan have also worked hard to frame their communication by engaging one of the smartest media and communication advisors in Frank Luntz, author of, “Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear.”

Luntz has advised his clients that the president’s plan would create “a committee of Washington bureaucrats will establish the standard of (health) care for all Americans.” Think about that language and what it communicates. “Washington bureaucrats”—that can’t be good, right? Would YOU want “Washington bureaucrats” deciding the kind of health care that YOU get?

How much of these two very different ways of communicating on the same health care issue has to do with logic, rationale or indisputable facts? As is often the case in the world of business, when persuading on any difficult issue, it comes down to how you position your argument.

In business, the decision to lay off workers could be framed in very different ways. On one hand, a leader can be seen as insensitive and obsessed with the bottom line to the point of hurting employee morale. Conversely, the same lay off decision could be seen as smart, courageous and compassionate to the company’s best employees who will now have the opportunity to continue to work because their leader made a tough call.

The lesson is clear. It’s not just what you do that matters, it’s what you say about what you do and whether you communicate in a way that appeals on a very human, personal level to those who matter most.