Information hoarders are an endangered species. It’s not enough to know something anymore, because the internet knows it, too. If you don’t share it, someone, somewhere, will. Your value to a company is no longer your tribal knowledge, because knowledge is currency now, and it’s traded on a massive free market.
To many professionals in arenas like communications, customer service, even sales or management, social media represents a threat to their domain. Being obsolete is a scary thing. Decades of career knowledge feel feeble when parked up against the newest, fastest moving thing riding on the back of technology. Relearning what we’ve worked so hard to know already seems a daunting, even angering task.
After all, would you like to be told that the way you’ve been doing your job for decades is inherently flawed in a modern business environment?
But the truth is we don’t need filters, spin doctors, and gatekeepers as much, because we feel more capable than ever before of vetting our own information. We want it fact-based, so we can decide for ourselves. And if it’s access we want and can’t get, we can build our networks outside your walls instead.
I can build my own distribution channels now faster, and without frills. So I don’t need your roads. I can build my own.
Punditry alone cannot survive without substance any longer, because we’re all pundits of our own design (with or without pedigree). Credentials are only as valuable as the work they enable. They may help you skip the line a bit, but you’re still earning credibility now in an ad hoc court of peers.
Perhaps the root of many endless and circular conversations about ROI, shiny objects, and fads is really code for “I’m not sure I understand my place in all of this” or “I don’t know how to translate what I know now into a relevant, meaningful role.”
Which is understandably human. We rail against what we don’t understand, or the things that threaten the comfort (complacency?) of what we know now.
Evolution and change is inevitable. But the very humanity we’re seeking to draw out of businesses is precisely what may very well lie at the center of the adoption impasse.We don’t talk about it much, because talking about our professional insecurities in a business meeting just doesn’t seem like it fits well.
So instead we bluster, we pontificate, we trivialize. But we never really quite get to the heart of the matter.
Which has me asking myself (and you, of course): How do we reframe our conversations and lectures about all this social stuff and make them as rooted in the human element as we’re imploring the business world to be?
image by Everfalling
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f86fc8b7-a14c-4d75-91d5-01a21a8f2dbe)
Amber, the point about hoarding information is well taken — it’s a scary to put yourself and your company out there. Social media has accelerated and enable public relations’ vision — the profession has always aspired to being a facilitator and participant in conversations rather than a gatekeeper — that’s the way it’s been taught, anyway.
But to your other point, I’d argue that business communications is about more than simply “facts”.
Say you’re selling software to manage storage networks. Does your marketing consist wholly of lists of network management features and the choices available on configuration screens? Side-by-side competitive comparisons — of what? Speed? Set up?
Or does it tell a story to network managers and IT directors about how a new storage architecture help their business run smarter, and faster? About how a short term investment prepares you for lower long-term costs? Facts are accurate, but they’re only true when they’re part of a larger story.
In other words, it’s not spinning to choose the story you want to tell — the communicator’s job is to reveal what’s true about their organization — and, let’s be honest — to do this in ways that further the organization’s interests. Communications shine a spotlight on what there is about this group of people and assets that will help customers. It’s not to lie, or pretend there is no competition, or that the organization never makes mistakes,or to smash every non-authorized employee comment or every negative customer comment. But it’s not to reveal every fact or open every decision to public debate, either.
Endless circular arguments about ROI and shiny fads means that either folks are talking about the wrong thing, or they’re trying to use a hammer to drill holes. My guess is that these conversations are about “how do we integrate social tools?” or “should we blog?” versus “how should we react to changing market expectations on how we communicate”, “how does our brand move people?” or even “how will we need to change our organization to help us profitably grow for the next 3 years?”
Social transformation and making the organization more human aren’t always the answer — and sometimes they’re not the answer.
.-= Ken Kadet´s last blog ..Great Writing Isn’t Always Less Writing =-.
Ken, I think we agree about the fact based thing. You layered on the notion of making sure to call out benefits or advantages, which is worthwhile. The trick, though, is framing them in the eyes of the customer, not the company. We get awfully myopic about our own brands (and I’ve been in marketing and branding a long time). Social media is helping us see how OTHERS see us, and it behooves us to pay attention to that instead of always imparting our own organizational bias.
All the things you highlight about communicators are correct, in an ideal world. But call me a cynic: in many, many cases today, it’s just not working that way at all. Social media wouldn’t be rocking so many boats if communicators were doing their jobs well all this time.
And I’d disagree that making organizations more human isn’t always the answer. What I’d say is that some companies aren’t ready or capable. And there’s a difference.
All you say makes sense … my larger point is that “framer” is a necessary and vital role within an organization — and is necessary and vital for helping customers understand the facts and make choices. But in the end, facts don’t just present themselves.
And, of course, good framing involves more customer insight, vision and creativity, and less organizational myopia.
Re: making organizations more human, I will admit that I’ve never run into a case where I didn’t recommend that an organization act more human. 🙂
.-= Ken Kadet´s last blog ..Great Writing Isn’t Always Less Writing =-.
Amber, the point about hoarding information is well taken — it’s a scary to put yourself and your company out there. Social media has accelerated and enable public relations’ vision — the profession has always aspired to being a facilitator and participant in conversations rather than a gatekeeper — that’s the way it’s been taught, anyway.
But to your other point, I’d argue that business communications is about more than simply “facts”.
Say you’re selling software to manage storage networks. Does your marketing consist wholly of lists of network management features and the choices available on configuration screens? Side-by-side competitive comparisons — of what? Speed? Set up?
Or does it tell a story to network managers and IT directors about how a new storage architecture help their business run smarter, and faster? About how a short term investment prepares you for lower long-term costs? Facts are accurate, but they’re only true when they’re part of a larger story.
In other words, it’s not spinning to choose the story you want to tell — the communicator’s job is to reveal what’s true about their organization — and, let’s be honest — to do this in ways that further the organization’s interests. Communications shine a spotlight on what there is about this group of people and assets that will help customers. It’s not to lie, or pretend there is no competition, or that the organization never makes mistakes,or to smash every non-authorized employee comment or every negative customer comment. But it’s not to reveal every fact or open every decision to public debate, either.
Endless circular arguments about ROI and shiny fads means that either folks are talking about the wrong thing, or they’re trying to use a hammer to drill holes. My guess is that these conversations are about “how do we integrate social tools?” or “should we blog?” versus “how should we react to changing market expectations on how we communicate”, “how does our brand move people?” or even “how will we need to change our organization to help us profitably grow for the next 3 years?”
Social transformation and making the organization more human aren’t always the answer — and sometimes they’re not the answer.
.-= Ken Kadet´s last blog ..Great Writing Isn’t Always Less Writing =-.
Ken, I think we agree about the fact based thing. You layered on the notion of making sure to call out benefits or advantages, which is worthwhile. The trick, though, is framing them in the eyes of the customer, not the company. We get awfully myopic about our own brands (and I’ve been in marketing and branding a long time). Social media is helping us see how OTHERS see us, and it behooves us to pay attention to that instead of always imparting our own organizational bias.
All the things you highlight about communicators are correct, in an ideal world. But call me a cynic: in many, many cases today, it’s just not working that way at all. Social media wouldn’t be rocking so many boats if communicators were doing their jobs well all this time.
And I’d disagree that making organizations more human isn’t always the answer. What I’d say is that some companies aren’t ready or capable. And there’s a difference.
All you say makes sense … my larger point is that “framer” is a necessary and vital role within an organization — and is necessary and vital for helping customers understand the facts and make choices. But in the end, facts don’t just present themselves.
And, of course, good framing involves more customer insight, vision and creativity, and less organizational myopia.
Re: making organizations more human, I will admit that I’ve never run into a case where I didn’t recommend that an organization act more human. 🙂
.-= Ken Kadet´s last blog ..Great Writing Isn’t Always Less Writing =-.
Such a great point that all we know can now simply be found on the web and is no longer possessed by certain people/companies. I think what we know means squat if we’re walking in the door at a new company who doesn’t necessarily know (or care) what we’ve done in the past. It’s what we can do for them. I’ve had to prove myself over and over. It’s no longer about talking about past successes and greatness. It’s about execution (a.k.a. “bringing it”). Doing not talking. Rolling up your sleeves, getting in the trenches and actually working makes you more worthy of having real-world, human “stories” then anything else.
.-= Anna Barcelos´s last blog ..Tweetsgiving: What I’m Thankful For =-.
Anna, I think it comes down to showing what you’re about rather than just talking about it. And the truth is many communication professionals that have been in the game for decades have been totally and utterly caught off guard by social media.
They were comfortable in their jobs, with their lingo, in their processes and lukewarm campaigns. (That’s a huge generalization, of course, but I’m exaggerating to make the point).
Now, we are being graded on our performance not just by our boss, but by our peers, our competition, and the public… all because what we do, say, and how we act is thousands of times more visible than before.
We can’t ignore our own shortcomings anymore. We’re being asked to evolve or change or improve, and “they” are watching as we do. It’s important to filter the truly important demands from any old opinion, of course, but the stakes have changed. And that’s scaring the crap out of a lot of people.
I just spoke with a marketing group a few weeks ago where more than half of them were out of work, and desperate to understand what’s changed about their profession. They feel it, too.
Such a great point that all we know can now simply be found on the web and is no longer possessed by certain people/companies. I think what we know means squat if we’re walking in the door at a new company who doesn’t necessarily know (or care) what we’ve done in the past. It’s what we can do for them. I’ve had to prove myself over and over. It’s no longer about talking about past successes and greatness. It’s about execution (a.k.a. “bringing it”). Doing not talking. Rolling up your sleeves, getting in the trenches and actually working makes you more worthy of having real-world, human “stories” then anything else.
.-= Anna Barcelos´s last blog ..Tweetsgiving: What I’m Thankful For =-.
Anna, I think it comes down to showing what you’re about rather than just talking about it. And the truth is many communication professionals that have been in the game for decades have been totally and utterly caught off guard by social media.
They were comfortable in their jobs, with their lingo, in their processes and lukewarm campaigns. (That’s a huge generalization, of course, but I’m exaggerating to make the point).
Now, we are being graded on our performance not just by our boss, but by our peers, our competition, and the public… all because what we do, say, and how we act is thousands of times more visible than before.
We can’t ignore our own shortcomings anymore. We’re being asked to evolve or change or improve, and “they” are watching as we do. It’s important to filter the truly important demands from any old opinion, of course, but the stakes have changed. And that’s scaring the crap out of a lot of people.
I just spoke with a marketing group a few weeks ago where more than half of them were out of work, and desperate to understand what’s changed about their profession. They feel it, too.
Change and security are usually mutually exclusive, especially in the business world. But risk taking can lead to greater security, and is always necessary to maintain a competitive edge. We have to sometimes ignore our inherent adversity to change in order to evolve. Social media is one of these times.
“Change and security are usually mutually exclusive, especially in the business world.”
Indeed it feels that way, doesn’t it? It’s why some companies will always be known as the leaders and innovators, while some will follow (which is perfectly okay), and some will unfortunately fade into irrelevance and perish.
It’s the cycle of business, really. No different today than it’s been for hundreds of years. Today it’s just a bit more visible, thanks to the internet.
People resisting change is part of the “threat to the domain.” It’s territoriality, everyone holding on to their knowledge, carving out their niche, their little place, trying to make themselves seem important and irreplaceable.
Social media has changed things and many professionals are running to catch up. The threat is real: evolve or go extinct.
To Anna’s point above, I agree that it’s not about the past and “what I’ve done for you lately”; it’s about the current work, executing and what I’ll do for you tomorrow.
.-= Davina K. Brewer´s last blog ..You Should Sweat the Small Stuff =-.
Change and security are usually mutually exclusive, especially in the business world. But risk taking can lead to greater security, and is always necessary to maintain a competitive edge. We have to sometimes ignore our inherent adversity to change in order to evolve. Social media is one of these times.
“Change and security are usually mutually exclusive, especially in the business world.”
Indeed it feels that way, doesn’t it? It’s why some companies will always be known as the leaders and innovators, while some will follow (which is perfectly okay), and some will unfortunately fade into irrelevance and perish.
It’s the cycle of business, really. No different today than it’s been for hundreds of years. Today it’s just a bit more visible, thanks to the internet.
People resisting change is part of the “threat to the domain.” It’s territoriality, everyone holding on to their knowledge, carving out their niche, their little place, trying to make themselves seem important and irreplaceable.
Social media has changed things and many professionals are running to catch up. The threat is real: evolve or go extinct.
To Anna’s point above, I agree that it’s not about the past and “what I’ve done for you lately”; it’s about the current work, executing and what I’ll do for you tomorrow.
.-= Davina K. Brewer´s last blog ..You Should Sweat the Small Stuff =-.
Amber, I see this problem a lot. As I told in another comment one of my experiences involved a failed attempt to implementing social media and for that matter any web strategy at a company i used to work. The problem is that we usually don’t talk about our insecurities, but people can still notice them and that works against us in a big way.
It works against us because if we tell our insecurities we appear to be interested in improving, learning and adapting. If we don’t talk about them we appear to be ‘not interested in developing as professionals’ and as someone who is stopping the organization to develop. This if you’re a mid level manager may cost you your job or if you’re top level management it may cost you losing some talent. After I felt frustrated I left that company to start my own ventures.
I think the first thing we need to do is inform people that static knowledge and information are not a competitive advantage anymore and that the real advantage is how we apply all this knowledge in an effective way to accomplish our strategy. Having this clear which may involve some debates we should explain that what social media does is share what we all know and enrich us a lot more because know we have access to the bits of knowledge shared by every brain (either peers, coworkers, costumers or stakeholders) and that gives us a broader set of tools to act on when needed. I think it wouldn’t be harmful to have a psychologist from HR to help people overcome the fear they feel for the apparent lost of their competitive advantage in the organization.
Amber, I see this problem a lot. As I told in another comment one of my experiences involved a failed attempt to implementing social media and for that matter any web strategy at a company i used to work. The problem is that we usually don’t talk about our insecurities, but people can still notice them and that works against us in a big way.
It works against us because if we tell our insecurities we appear to be interested in improving, learning and adapting. If we don’t talk about them we appear to be ‘not interested in developing as professionals’ and as someone who is stopping the organization to develop. This if you’re a mid level manager may cost you your job or if you’re top level management it may cost you losing some talent. After I felt frustrated I left that company to start my own ventures.
I think the first thing we need to do is inform people that static knowledge and information are not a competitive advantage anymore and that the real advantage is how we apply all this knowledge in an effective way to accomplish our strategy. Having this clear which may involve some debates we should explain that what social media does is share what we all know and enrich us a lot more because know we have access to the bits of knowledge shared by every brain (either peers, coworkers, costumers or stakeholders) and that gives us a broader set of tools to act on when needed. I think it wouldn’t be harmful to have a psychologist from HR to help people overcome the fear they feel for the apparent lost of their competitive advantage in the organization.
Thanks for another great post. I had a dialog awhile back with Roy Young of MarketingProfs about this issue: there is a lot of chatter online about “best practices” and what marketers “should” be doing. But marketers do not work in optimal conditions. Marketers are grappling with solving problems that have not traditionally been in their purview. I welcome a realistic dialog that addresses the challenges of how the role of the marketer is changing, generally, but also within an organization.
Thanks for another great post. I had a dialog awhile back with Roy Young of MarketingProfs about this issue: there is a lot of chatter online about “best practices” and what marketers “should” be doing. But marketers do not work in optimal conditions. Marketers are grappling with solving problems that have not traditionally been in their purview. I welcome a realistic dialog that addresses the challenges of how the role of the marketer is changing, generally, but also within an organization.
Amber, insightful and thought provoking and a great comment from Ken.
I have been around long enough to remember business in a “pre-automated” world. Think Typewriters, carbon paper and 10 key adding machines. With any “break-through” technology society transforms and smart businesses and business leaders know how to adapt. Admitting what we don’t know and feeling/being/admitting vulnerability is part of the process.
The transformation to social business presents the same sort of challenges businesses faced when they moved from the manual environment to the automated environment. Interestingly enough – the same ego threat(and threat of obsolesce) existed . Early on, the individual and human side of business was overshadowed by the technology – leading for example, to push/mass/impersonal marketing.Efficiency ruled – we all became numbers. The reaction against that lead to all the “buzz” to put “customer service” back into business and on-to-one/permission based marking.
I think that what we are seeing with Social Business is the ability to add back the human/relationship side of business that existed in the pre-automation or pre-consumer era. Individuals are taking back the control they lost to big business – big government – big everything.
.-= Rick Morgan´s last blog ..Do You Have a Plan? =-.
Amber, insightful and thought provoking and a great comment from Ken.
I have been around long enough to remember business in a “pre-automated” world. Think Typewriters, carbon paper and 10 key adding machines. With any “break-through” technology society transforms and smart businesses and business leaders know how to adapt. Admitting what we don’t know and feeling/being/admitting vulnerability is part of the process.
The transformation to social business presents the same sort of challenges businesses faced when they moved from the manual environment to the automated environment. Interestingly enough – the same ego threat(and threat of obsolesce) existed . Early on, the individual and human side of business was overshadowed by the technology – leading for example, to push/mass/impersonal marketing.Efficiency ruled – we all became numbers. The reaction against that lead to all the “buzz” to put “customer service” back into business and on-to-one/permission based marking.
I think that what we are seeing with Social Business is the ability to add back the human/relationship side of business that existed in the pre-automation or pre-consumer era. Individuals are taking back the control they lost to big business – big government – big everything.
.-= Rick Morgan´s last blog ..Do You Have a Plan? =-.
Amber,
I wrote a post about this very thing a couple of weeks back on my blog. I think the thing we have to do is root our conversation in building relationships.
Every business is built on relationships. We have to explain that the same strategies for relationship building are still, in essence, in place. We are just using different tools to communicate. That, of course, takes you back to the post from yesterday, “it’s not about the tools.”
Every human understands relationships on all levels. What type of people do you want to have relationships with? How do you find those with similar interests?
These are all questions that you can pose and we all have an inate understanding of. I still think that all the tools, and the speed at which they progress, clouds people and makes them afraid. Break through that by taking it back to backbone of what social media does: establishes relationships.
.-= Jeremy Fischer´s last blog ..It’s Not a Brand; It’s Your Personality =-.
Hi Jeremy –
I love the notion of relationships. But the problem is that we’re in danger of using that as a buzzword. What defines a relationship? What that means to you or me is probably different, both in a personal and a business context.
We talk a lot about relationships, but to me we’ve actually done a rather lousy job of explaining what we MEAN by relationships. What characteristics they have, expectations (theirs and ours), boundaries…
Relationships are not a universal constant, so I feel like we need to be careful about tossing that term around too much in business without talking a bit more about what that means, for both us and our customers.
Amber,
I wrote a post about this very thing a couple of weeks back on my blog. I think the thing we have to do is root our conversation in building relationships.
Every business is built on relationships. We have to explain that the same strategies for relationship building are still, in essence, in place. We are just using different tools to communicate. That, of course, takes you back to the post from yesterday, “it’s not about the tools.”
Every human understands relationships on all levels. What type of people do you want to have relationships with? How do you find those with similar interests?
These are all questions that you can pose and we all have an inate understanding of. I still think that all the tools, and the speed at which they progress, clouds people and makes them afraid. Break through that by taking it back to backbone of what social media does: establishes relationships.
.-= Jeremy Fischer´s last blog ..It’s Not a Brand; It’s Your Personality =-.
Hi Jeremy –
I love the notion of relationships. But the problem is that we’re in danger of using that as a buzzword. What defines a relationship? What that means to you or me is probably different, both in a personal and a business context.
We talk a lot about relationships, but to me we’ve actually done a rather lousy job of explaining what we MEAN by relationships. What characteristics they have, expectations (theirs and ours), boundaries…
Relationships are not a universal constant, so I feel like we need to be careful about tossing that term around too much in business without talking a bit more about what that means, for both us and our customers.
To get people to change, you have to make the change relevant to them. That changes, of course, based on people’s varying motivations–Some people will care about continuing to be seen on the leading edge, some will care about delivering results the way they always have, some will care about feeling secure in what they think they know, etc.
So one of the reasons we all struggle with the “How do we solve the adoption impasse?” issue is that there are multiple ways. There isn’t one answer, other than to figure out what the most common root causes of resistance are, and address those.
What’s always worked for me (but isn’t everyone’s style, I know) is to live by the mantra of: Check your dignity at the door.
I learn a hell of a lot more when I admit what I don’t know than when I focus only on what I do.
.-= Tamsen (@tamadear)´s last blog ..I wan’na be like you =-.
See, this is exactly what I’m getting at. You said it better. As usual. 🙂
And while Jeremy talks about “relationships”, the trouble is that the need or desire for relationships is different (and in fact, defined differently) for individual people. We can’t merely trumpet that as mantra, because not everyone defines or sees value in relationships the same way.
Your talk of motivations really strikes at the heart of all of this. I think there’s so much to be discussed around motivations for change. Too much for this comment. But I hope you’ll write more. Pretty please?
Ha! You know I will.
.-= Tamsen (@tamadear)´s last blog ..I wan’na be like you =-.
To get people to change, you have to make the change relevant to them. That changes, of course, based on people’s varying motivations–Some people will care about continuing to be seen on the leading edge, some will care about delivering results the way they always have, some will care about feeling secure in what they think they know, etc.
So one of the reasons we all struggle with the “How do we solve the adoption impasse?” issue is that there are multiple ways. There isn’t one answer, other than to figure out what the most common root causes of resistance are, and address those.
What’s always worked for me (but isn’t everyone’s style, I know) is to live by the mantra of: Check your dignity at the door.
I learn a hell of a lot more when I admit what I don’t know than when I focus only on what I do.
.-= Tamsen (@tamadear)´s last blog ..I wan’na be like you =-.
See, this is exactly what I’m getting at. You said it better. As usual. 🙂
And while Jeremy talks about “relationships”, the trouble is that the need or desire for relationships is different (and in fact, defined differently) for individual people. We can’t merely trumpet that as mantra, because not everyone defines or sees value in relationships the same way.
Your talk of motivations really strikes at the heart of all of this. I think there’s so much to be discussed around motivations for change. Too much for this comment. But I hope you’ll write more. Pretty please?
Ha! You know I will.
.-= Tamsen (@tamadear)´s last blog ..I wan’na be like you =-.
Tamsen pretty much nailed it on the head (indeed, I’m not even sure why I’m commenting at this point). All the work and conversations that need to be had need to be based in striking the right motivational cord that inspires change on both an individual and business level. Most often, people change when the discomfort of NOT changing becomes too much to bear, and maybe that’s it: tough love, forcing them to see how uncomfortable they are remaining unchanged.
Change is the only constant in life and yet we latch on to all that is comfortable, all that seems to be unchanging (though we’re living under such false pretenses as everything is always changing…I mean, our brains change daily [like, literally]).
What will it take, content-wise, to get people better understanding this social space and its benefit, and actually change to accept it? Part of it is really finding out about people. I mean *really* finding out about them. Learning what matters to them, what worries them as people, not just as officers in a company. And then, when that one story from them rings in your head or gut as the kicker, running with it. Putting it back in their faces and relating it to this…stuff. (I don’t know what to call it anymore, I’m so buzzed out.)
I think a lot of professionals in the social space are just as scared to really get to the heart of this human element thing as the people who they’re trying to reach are averse to making the change necessary to flourish. We all need to grow a pair.
Also? I think you’ve really got it right that some people are just not ready and might never be. Picking your battles is key.
I’ve rambled enough. Nice post, A.
.-= Teresa Basich´s last blog ..Swept Away in a Sea of External Validation =-.
Tamsen pretty much nailed it on the head (indeed, I’m not even sure why I’m commenting at this point). All the work and conversations that need to be had need to be based in striking the right motivational cord that inspires change on both an individual and business level. Most often, people change when the discomfort of NOT changing becomes too much to bear, and maybe that’s it: tough love, forcing them to see how uncomfortable they are remaining unchanged.
Change is the only constant in life and yet we latch on to all that is comfortable, all that seems to be unchanging (though we’re living under such false pretenses as everything is always changing…I mean, our brains change daily [like, literally]).
What will it take, content-wise, to get people better understanding this social space and its benefit, and actually change to accept it? Part of it is really finding out about people. I mean *really* finding out about them. Learning what matters to them, what worries them as people, not just as officers in a company. And then, when that one story from them rings in your head or gut as the kicker, running with it. Putting it back in their faces and relating it to this…stuff. (I don’t know what to call it anymore, I’m so buzzed out.)
I think a lot of professionals in the social space are just as scared to really get to the heart of this human element thing as the people who they’re trying to reach are averse to making the change necessary to flourish. We all need to grow a pair.
Also? I think you’ve really got it right that some people are just not ready and might never be. Picking your battles is key.
I’ve rambled enough. Nice post, A.
.-= Teresa Basich´s last blog ..Swept Away in a Sea of External Validation =-.
Amber – I think the single biggest thing we can do is to USE the tools to create the change we are hoping to see rather than talking about them. The challenge, for a lot of people, is to marry an understanding of these social tools with a deep understanding of business. When you don’t have that combination, the conversation tends to be around “joining the conversation” rather than solving real business challenges.
Speaking in another person’s language, whether it’s Mandarin or businessese, is the key to sparking change. Every CEO or senior marketing person I know frames their conversations around results. In fact, their jobs depend on it.
So, I’m not sure the conversations need to be more “human”. I think they need to have more substance.
Amber – I think the single biggest thing we can do is to USE the tools to create the change we are hoping to see rather than talking about them. The challenge, for a lot of people, is to marry an understanding of these social tools with a deep understanding of business. When you don’t have that combination, the conversation tends to be around “joining the conversation” rather than solving real business challenges.
Speaking in another person’s language, whether it’s Mandarin or businessese, is the key to sparking change. Every CEO or senior marketing person I know frames their conversations around results. In fact, their jobs depend on it.
So, I’m not sure the conversations need to be more “human”. I think they need to have more substance.
What a great conversation!
I’m particularly intrigued by Amber’s comment:
“Now, we are being graded on our performance not just by our boss, but by our peers, our competition, and the public… all because what we do, say, and how we act is thousands of times more visible than before.
We can’t ignore our own shortcomings anymore. We’re being asked to evolve or change or improve, and “they” are watching as we do. It’s important to filter the truly important demands from any old opinion, of course, but the stakes have changed. And that’s scaring the crap out of a lot of people.”
It sounds like friendship and intimacy to me. It seems that we are now revealed more than before by social media. Just as in a relationship, we struggle with revelation of self, with authenticity. In the past, that wasn’t a critical job quality in most cases. You used to be able to just do your job without being authentically yourself – and you could get by. Now every interaction has become more transparent. The increased transparency is risky. We have to reveal more of ourselves. We then have to struggle with authenticity, and that is a profound risk to the self.
– Steve
What a great conversation!
I’m particularly intrigued by Amber’s comment:
“Now, we are being graded on our performance not just by our boss, but by our peers, our competition, and the public… all because what we do, say, and how we act is thousands of times more visible than before.
We can’t ignore our own shortcomings anymore. We’re being asked to evolve or change or improve, and “they” are watching as we do. It’s important to filter the truly important demands from any old opinion, of course, but the stakes have changed. And that’s scaring the crap out of a lot of people.”
It sounds like friendship and intimacy to me. It seems that we are now revealed more than before by social media. Just as in a relationship, we struggle with revelation of self, with authenticity. In the past, that wasn’t a critical job quality in most cases. You used to be able to just do your job without being authentically yourself – and you could get by. Now every interaction has become more transparent. The increased transparency is risky. We have to reveal more of ourselves. We then have to struggle with authenticity, and that is a profound risk to the self.
– Steve
Amber – my, in a philosophical mood these days, eh?
You say:
“But the truth is we don’t need filters, spin doctors, and gatekeepers as much, because we feel more capable than ever before of vetting our own information. We want it fact-based, so we can decide for ourselves.”
I think we need to be careful that we’re not shouting in Echo Canyon. There certainly are classes of information that lend themselves to a frame-free source. Generally, facts of some kind; historical data, etc. But expert perspective is still important in complex situations. Learning about medicines, for example. We Google the drug name and read what we see there, but we still privilege “official” sources — the Mayo Clinic, or our local hospital site, or even WebMD. Not all information is on as equal footing as you might think.
Secondly, the Internet knows nothing that people haven’t put there. We’re left to discern the veracity of what we find, and the accuracy of that material improves over time. If we have time. Crowds aren’t wise to begin with even in the best of times. And, they risk becoming mobs, growing more stupid over time rather than becoming smarter.
We trust our friends and their versions of the truth only to the extent that they agree with us — a failing of Web tribalism is that we seek information that matches our world view rather than seeking differences of opinion. This was also increasingly true in the non-Web world, but we had more sources in common 25 years ago than we do now.
This is a caveat emptor world, and I worry that the socialization of authority will defeat accuracy, and that we’ll all wind up dumber for it.
.-= Sean Williams´s last blog ..A Manager Who Can’t Communicate Can’t Lead =-.
Amber – my, in a philosophical mood these days, eh?
You say:
“But the truth is we don’t need filters, spin doctors, and gatekeepers as much, because we feel more capable than ever before of vetting our own information. We want it fact-based, so we can decide for ourselves.”
I think we need to be careful that we’re not shouting in Echo Canyon. There certainly are classes of information that lend themselves to a frame-free source. Generally, facts of some kind; historical data, etc. But expert perspective is still important in complex situations. Learning about medicines, for example. We Google the drug name and read what we see there, but we still privilege “official” sources — the Mayo Clinic, or our local hospital site, or even WebMD. Not all information is on as equal footing as you might think.
Secondly, the Internet knows nothing that people haven’t put there. We’re left to discern the veracity of what we find, and the accuracy of that material improves over time. If we have time. Crowds aren’t wise to begin with even in the best of times. And, they risk becoming mobs, growing more stupid over time rather than becoming smarter.
We trust our friends and their versions of the truth only to the extent that they agree with us — a failing of Web tribalism is that we seek information that matches our world view rather than seeking differences of opinion. This was also increasingly true in the non-Web world, but we had more sources in common 25 years ago than we do now.
This is a caveat emptor world, and I worry that the socialization of authority will defeat accuracy, and that we’ll all wind up dumber for it.
.-= Sean Williams´s last blog ..A Manager Who Can’t Communicate Can’t Lead =-.