The Dean Team

I can’t tell from our class how many people “experienced” Howard Dean’s run for President and how many people view our conversation about his successful Internet strategy as a case study. Again, I show my age, but I remember first hand how news of the Dean campaign’s approach to Internet outreach flooded Washington circles over night.

What had they figured out that no one else figured out? And, was there any possible end to what they could do? My old boss worked for former Speaker of the House Tom Foley and was completely engrossed in Democratic politics at the federal level. He read every article he could find about the Dean campaign and told us his children were helping him to see the success for himself on the Internet. He didn’t care much about the work going on in our office. He trusted us to get it done and kept his sights on what he thought was the most important technological advance Washington had seen in years.

Was it a technological advance or did emotional intelligence prevail over cautious thinking? Years ago, when we talked about the success of the Dean campaign, we talked about the team’s ability to control the message. But, maybe it was the opposite. Maybe the success of the team lies in the fact that there were willing to take risks and allow people from outside the campaign into the campaign in a significant way. “Control,” as we think of it in politics had, for the most part, left the room.

Now, with a better understanding of how things developed behind the closed doors of the Dean campaign, I am even more impressed and encouraged by the power of the Web 2.0 and the people who see its strength. However, I am curious as to how long it will take MOST people, particularly business people, to truly embrace it.

Control plays a large role in corporate America. I had a friend who lost a job once because she sat her CEO next to a liberal member of Congress when he was a staunch Republican. Her boss told her the CEO complained about “not being able to control the conversation” and that was with just one person, albeit an important person. But, how could that same company embrace Social Media in this type of corporate culture?

I plan to spend some time this summer delving in to the corporate sites we have discussed to learn more about how they strike the right balance or if they attempt to go beyond balance in search of conversation. I still believe Social Media will distinguish the good, the bad and the ugly in years to come. And, with the Dean Team as an example, I hope to identify the enormous upside potential for those that are willing to take a deep breadth and welcome people in …

 

Names: Two Extremes

It’s safe to say that this blog post lead me down a path of extremes. My first name lead me to the list of “L” countries, which, for me, began with Luxembourg. As a student of the financial services industry, Luxembourg is a well-known country which might as well be referred to as Candy Land. For years, Europeans took advantage of Luxemburg’s privacy laws, which ultimately, may have caused many people to set money aside, quietly.

But, no one in Luxembourg is talking, so I moved on to my family name, which begins with “M.” Mexico was tempting (I love the country) but, instead, I chose Myanmar, also known as Burma. Quite a shift – I have read many stories about the struggles in Burma. In my last job, I was also repsonsible for guiding my companies position regarding countries that were facing significant politcal and social strife. Burma was always at the top of the list. We received mail from all four corners of the earth asking us to leave the country in a form of protest of the human rights violations that have been taking place there. It was a constant source of conversation with senior management and our Board.

And, this was our position: we can not leave Burma nor can we implement business decisions that would prevent development in Burma because doing so would prevent the rest of the world from traveling to Burma and seeing what is going on.

In general, people hated this position. Why not use our clout to promote change with the government? Well, clout is a funny thing. You can only use it if you really have it. And often, American companies doing business outside the United States see themselves differently than other countries see them.

I went through a stage when I was continuously disappointed by companies that seemed to turn a blind eye to important topics. But, then I realized that, despite the shareholder value, most companies are limited in what they can achieve with governments with whom they have interaction. It’s not their fault, it’s just the truth. And while I always hope for more versus less, I do see now that sometimes, you just can’t get there from here…..

 

“The Business of Life”

Nice to hear someone make a bold statement about how people see and feel about advancement in the workplace. The Business of Life blog points out that for years people have talked about success in terms of connections rather than expertise. I too have been surprised to hear friends and colleagues downplay the need to be good at what you do in order to succeed. In truth, I started to think it was a throw away line for people that were lazy. Sorry. It might sound harsh. But, it’s true.

BOL points out that people are still at the core of what we do and what we accomplish. I agree completely. No one can do it alone – and why would you want to? Learning from and working with other people is still the most important thing we can all do over time.

 

Clueless Manifesto

What’s really eating at the authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto? Why so much anger? This is not a new topic on OTB, but it is becoming increasingly important for those of us that are trying to bridge the gap between the world of corporate communications and social media.

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and they say something so absurd, so over the top, that all consciousness leaves the room? How about Thesis number 10 of Cluetrain: As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in networked markets changes people fundamentally?

When I first read Thesis 10, it sounded as if the networked world has less respect for its neighbors than the corporations that love to hate? Suggesting that people are dumb, uninformed and disorganized without the power of an online, networked community is silly. People are smart and for decades have helped each other make decisions about products and services through word-of-mouth. Yes, I know, the Internet is a multiplier. That fact, I would not contest. If you are someone who needs a quantitative framework, you’re thrilled to share your thoughts with thousands of strangers and make decisions accordingly.

This message would go so much farther with a bit of refinement. And what does the last sentence mean? How does it fundamentally change who we are? It adds to our lives, definitely. It’s helpful, no doubt. But, does it change who we are?

So here’s one friend’s view on the tone of Cluetrain: the language is aggressive to be provocative and force companies to move faster. And, since companies have not done a great job communicating, Cluetrain’s approach is justified. Ok, maybe that’s the motivation. But, if so, it looses sight of an important fact: you get more bees with honey than you do with salt.

This conversation will continue and I have no doubt progress will be made as long is this conversation is treated like any other conversation aimed at progress.

 

Communicators and Politics

Do you find professional communicators are more or less engaged in politics than everyone else? My view is somewhat biased. The bulk of my career was spent in the corporate communications department of a Fortune 100 company and the leadership team loved to talk politics. Sometimes, it made for spirited debate and sometimes it hurt careers.

Political talk is tricky stuff. People are passionate about their views and their views might not comport with the views of their colleagues, the superiors or the organization. Often, people don’t know their company is taking positions on issues and people that are in the news every day.

As communicators, people want to engage and use their skills to be persuasive or provocative. But, sometimes the conversation doesn’t allow it and people try and force it. In the end, no one has said what they really mean, but the paid communicator is in a more difficult position than the accountant, the systems analyst or other colleagues that don’t get paid to be clear.

It’s not fair, but these small encounters, over time, help to shape views on how well people do their jobs as communicators – so be careful. Most importantly, know who your talking to and avoid conversations based on generalizations. There is nothing general about politics anymore. And, when in doubt, listen attentively, express healthy “curiosity” about issues that are important to you and transition your way out of the conversation as quickly as possible. Generally speaking, you’ll be better off for it.