The Wayward Celt

Social media is striating our beliefs, enlarging the gaps between us, and serving to highlight our differences to the extremes. It is a culture changing phenomena which we can not take for granted, nor willingly participate in without conscious and critical thought.

My friend Jeanne Ivy posted on her own blog this week about social prevention outlining the privacy and legal implications of what and how we share and how it is best to give more thought to what we share socially, which got me to thinking… and while mired in thought, I also read another friend’s post, this one from Joe Cook-Giles about Needs, in which he covers some of our driving motivations behind our actions, how some of our specific needs may be seen as annoying by others, and how we all should be more accepting of other people’s needs… and then again (because this is the kind of life I live) I read another friend’s post in which Emmy espouses the virtues of Amanda Palmer’s TED Talk on The Art of Asking which covers a way to think about financing music differently, on a human connection type level of asking for help rather than demanding payment, and making it easier for people to provide that help.

All three of these posts have been rattling around in my brain this week as I work out whether I agree, disagree, or just generally feel about them… and then I came across this image:

.

And the connections became clearer. Sure, on the surface it seems like a hearty warming sentiment about a mother’s love for their children, and I am sure that was the intent for everyone who has shared it on their Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, or G+ streams. The problem is, it isn’t heart warming. It is a logical fallacy cloaked in false assumptions and the need to differentiate yourself through what has defined you.

• First: The logical fallacy is that without children you will have a clean house and lots of money. I’m fairly certain that no one actually believes this. Reality never works with such clarity or definitive results. Logically, you may have a slightly cleaner home and a bit more money, but reality dictates that the idealism in the sentiment won’t be true for you.
• Secondly: the sentiment (albeit unintentionally) completely negates those without children and goes as far as to imply that without children, people’s hearts are simply empty. I can assure you that isn’t the case for me, and I’m fairly certain it isn’t the case for a large number of people who don’t have kids.

But there’s a larger issue here: it is the need to define ourselves, and do so in a way that differentiates us from others in an effort to feel unique, special, or just acknowledged. It is a reaction I understand; a reaction to a world where social media continually barrages us with more and more granular representations of something interesting and special, driving the need for us as participants and consumers to follow the lead and find how we can stand out among the crowds and be noticed.

I have nothing against mothers, or any other group of people wanting to be acknowledged, appreciated, or made to feel special. The issue I have is when doing so denigrates, ignores, or simply reduces other’s assumed importance or standing in the world. (Another friend, Sarah, referred to this as “humblebragging” with class-exclusive content which hurts people who aren’t in that class.) We all have a need, at some level, to be understood and heard… some of us more than others to Joe’s point in his post. Further to Joe’s point, taking a moment to understand other’s needs and their driving motivations (even if they aren’t expressly stated), combined with a bit of critical thinking will help reduce the negative impact of some of these posts. But, before we can understand others, we must understand our own driving needs. Doing so will help us all as we go to share something via social media and realize before pressing the “Post” button, that what we are sharing may have an unintended impact on others. Taking that moment to understand why we are posting and how others may view it will help shift the culture away from the “me-me-me” of social and drive more towards the “us, us, us!” culture we so desperately need to adopt.

But, it doesn’t stop there, as that simple pause and thought pointed to what and why we are sharing will also help us abide by Jeanne Ivy’s post and reduce potential legal or moral issues that may come from sharing the ‘wrong’ thing or simply sharing without thought. Coming from a very personal perspective (and many of you who know me can attest to this): I have a deep subconscious driving need to be right, and if I am wrong, to understand why and correct my perspective. This need manifests itself in behaviours which many may perceive as argumentative or confrontational, when that is not the intent. By identifying this motivating need, and pausing before I share or reply to a post, I’ve been able to avoid potential issues as touched on by Jeanne’s post above, and either re-frame my words to improve clarity of intent, or to bypass sharing altogether.

My motivation for posting this particular article today is two-fold:
One: I’d like to do my small part to help shift the culture of social sharing away from exclusively and inwardly focused posts to a more outwardly and inclusively focused realm, where we stop saying “me me me”, and start saying “us, us, us”! Two: I see my own blog posts and other social shares to be that same kind of connection which Emmy highlights in her share of Amanda Palmer’s talk. No, I’m not saying that I want you to pay me to post to this blog, rather that like the flower Amanda would hand to those who tossed change into her hat, I see that same connection with all of you in our interactions. Instead of change in a hat, however, you pay me with “likes”, “plusses”, “comments”, and “shares”. So while one of my needs may also be to be heard and validated, it is also to give back; to provide value where I can, to call out problems when I see them, and hopefully help as I am able, and like Amanda, ask you to help with this culture shift as well.

You’ve heard me talk about it before, how my colleague Kelly and I have been working towards inboxes of fewer and fewer emails. Following is a Slideshare presentation I built along with Kelly based on our prior blog posts to help evangelize the concept and distill the content into just the basics:

.
Working Outside the Inbox is a concept taken from Luis Suarez’ experiments working in IBM without using email. This presentation is based on the WOTI blog series published on the Notes from Rational Support Blog.  In this series we investigate some of the key items to use in your own attempts to reduce the overwhelming amount of emails in your inbox, and drive towards a more open, transparent, and collaborative culture in the workplace.

You’ve likely heard of the show if you’re not already a devoted fan of it or its spin-off this season: Top Shot and Top Guns. Both shows are hosted by the three-time-Survivor-contestant and television actor Colby Donaldson. Both Jean and I have become fans of both the shows and Colby as a personality, to the point where we began following Colby’s twitter stream (@Colby_Donaldson) to watch his amusing commentary and chatter during the shows.

Over the past few weeks I’ve watched twitter on Tuesday and Wednesday nights to see Colby consistently and actively engage with a very enthusiastic audience. I’ve been impressed time and time again as he tweets replies to both silly and very interesting questions posed through Twitter with tact, humour, and a balance of mock-arrogance and humbleness. He really does “get” the social spaces and how to interact with his audience (if I didn’t know better, I’d think he was following IBM’s Social Computing Guidelines)…

Which is why I was surprised to see this tweet from Colby during Tuesday’s Top Shot episode:

Ok, perhaps not surprised, but a bit dismayed that History Channel executives seem to have a “Command & Control” attitude when it comes to social business. Not to say this was out of the blue or unexpected as “last week” refers to when Colby was tweeting during April 10th’s episode answering some questions about rumoured cancellations of Top Shot and Top Guns. In a few of his responses he noted that higher ratings were needed to pickup for season 5 which, as you’d expect, got the fan base on Twitter a bit active and tweeting to @HistoryChannel calling for renewal of the shows.

From my perspective (as someone who works in a social business role), it seems to me that the “Top Brass” has taken a reactive command and control position rather than embracing the openness and transparency which social interactions thrive on, and which have helped to drive even further interest in two of the shows running on their channel; shows which are heavily promoted on both History and H2 in advertisement spots appearing around once an hour (as an observational guesstimate, I don’t have the specific numbers).

So what happened this week after Colby ‘caught heat’ from the History Channel ‘TopBrass”? One single tweet from Colby noting his absence, and then radio silence. From a social business perspective what I saw was a lost opportunity to continue engaging the audience and building support; lost opportunities to listen to the audience and engage in conversations to improve on the channel’s investments. What I also saw was a turn of the audience from engaging in conversations relevant to the show’s content to conversations solely around the show’s potential cancellation (or renewal) and the few questions/conversation about the content there were go wholly unanswered.

The take away from all this is a real world example of how and why “command & control” mindsets won’t work in today’s social business economies. Conversations are happening regardless of your desires and policies; if you don’t engage, you’re missing out on opportunities to transform those conversations and people into real positive interactions and potentially loyal clients. Social business isn’t about pushing your ‘approved’ messaging to the masses, as it seems History Channel may believe, but rather the way to flourish is to embrace social business concepts and tools to allow for open, transparent conversations and collaboration surrounding your business. Just as critical, however, is allowing the flexibility in your organization to transform and grow, not only to identify the needs of your clients, but to proactively meet those needs and become the leader in your industry because of your ability to engage and work with your client base. That’s what social business is all about.

Serendipitously, my colleague and partner-in-crime, Kelly Smith, recently posted to her blog on “Knowledge is free- bring your own container“, in which she says:

… You can’t put this genie back in the bottle.  Knowledge is no longer in the hands of a privileged few to be doled out to the worthy. Knowledge is being openly shared and recorded, so that others may benefit…

She’s right, of course: You can’t put this genie back in the bottle, the social web has made certain of that fact. Gone are the days of successful “command & control” policies aimed to manage brand perception and hide or obfuscate poor business practices. Knowledge can’t be controlled or contained, and we are seeing evidence of this more and more everyday. The future ahead of us all (and specific to business success) is about sharing knowledge in open and transparent fashions to ensure shared successes; *being* the best at what you do, showing your clients you are agile and paying attention by engaging in these conversations rather than trying to control them and manage perception, this is the way to truly be a social business and find successes ahead…. Something I think the History Channel’s executives may not yet understand.

*** Updated 4-25-2012 ***

I am happy to report that last night’s Top Shot was again accompanied by Tweets from Colby. It seems some accord has been reached between he and the top brass, as his tweets had the same level of authenticity, information, and humour as they had in the past. I can’t find any specifics of what may have happened in the past week, but am pleased to see that the command & control mentality has been backed off. Good news, as it definitely shows that the History Channel is at least paying attention to its audience. Well done there.