jamienotter
- 11 comments
- 2 likes given
- 12 likes received
Bio not provided
Amen! I think to get the simplicity, you need a new level of clarity that will guide people, and you'll have to be more comfortable with an open, decentralized system. I used a similar airline story in Humanize to talk about what it takes to have employees that take ownership.
@danielnewmanUV Email me, jamienotter-at-gmail and I'll send it to you!
Great post! We did a survey last fall about "social leadership," and when we asked people to prioritize leadership traits, "participates in social media in his or her own voice" very interestingly ended up 10th out of 12. But personally I agree with all the points you made. As my co-author Maddie Grant said in a recent blog post, one tweet from a CEO is worth 100 from staff. If you'd like, I can email you the research report.
I think American individualism has contributed to the widespread adoption of cultures that over-value central control. This ties to silos (smaller containers of centralized control), and it probably stems from the early stage of a company when it was run by the founders. There is no question that the founder has total authority, and that evolves into systems where we put too much power in the center and let potential languish in the periphery.
I think it also contributes to a flawed understanding of leadership as an individual capacity, rather than as the capacity of the system to shape its future.
I think I would take it one step farther. It's not just that we need to value people more deeply (though we do), it's that we need to recreate our organizations (including cultures, structures, processes, and behaviors) to operate in a fundamentally more human way. Our mechanical models got us here, but they won't get us to the next level. We need organizations that tap into the power of being human (just like social media did). I write about this in Humanize: How People-Centric Organizations Succeed in a Social World. I would love to know what you think about what we write about in that book.
I also recommend Les McKeown's Predictable Success. I think his material about life-stages of a buisness and the need to balance processes with the entrepreneurial spirit would resonate with you.
@artiegold Well said!
Challenge accepted! Here's my first cut:
Middle level thinking is any analysis, thinking, conclusions, or conversations that can make it through to the simplicity on the OTHER SIDE of complexity. High level thinking paints a picture that we already know. It’s good and powerful, but simple and relatively easy. Low-level thinking digs deeper into the complexity, but never comes out of it.. It’s also good and powerful, but detailed, complicated and not clarifying.
Middle level thinking produces clarity. Middle level thinking sees the whole system. Middle level thinking connects the forest and the trees. Middle level thinking revolves around principles. Middle level thinking is dynamic; it rolls with change. Middle level thinking is rarely complete if done alone. Middle level thinking is sense-making.
I'm guessing that the reason we avoid the risk conversation relates to our fear of failure. If you don't talk about the risk, you don't have to confront potential failure. That's where the fear and risk parts overlap.
WOW! I'm not a PR person, but I have some things to say.
Definitions matter. They are powerful, and they're hard. But the days where glorious definitions were centrally created I think are over. True, that used to be the association's job. We gathered the experts in the smoke filled room and came out with something better than the "rank and file" could. And people listened. Sorry. It doesn't work that way any more. "Crowd-sourcing" funneled through a task force isn't the answer either.
The PR community doesn't need a single definition (from the perspective of this outsider anyway). You need a dialogue on meaning. On what matters. On what's important. You need a really powerful conversation about why this industry and this profession should be a part of our collective future (because nobody's spot is guaranteed). Not crowd-sourced, but decentralized, emergent, organic. Let the brilliance of your community reveal itself. Let the smart people wrestle with the conflict of a top-down-biased industry in a decentralized world. A community that separates itself from its "publics" in a mechanical way. That stuff needs attention. But enough with the task forces. Not on something important like this.
ginidietrichmaddiegrant For both the conversations about transparency and authenticity, the key is understanding that we do not need RADICAL or EXTREME versions of either. You don't have to share everything, nor would it be a good idea. But authenticity is a very important part of human organizations if you ask me. Actually transparency, authenticity, and another one that is inherent in this post--truth--are all components of the human element of Trustworthy that we talk about in the book.
It's still a choice, though. Many companies can choose to be less trustworthy. To reveal less, tell watered down truth, and only show their good side. A lot of them will continue to succeed. But i think the odds are shifting. I think the power for really amazing success lies in pushing the edges on transparency, truth, and authenticity. It may be messy at first. We may see things we didn't expect, or get some reactions that are negative. But over time the power of connecting to being trustworthy, that human trait that is so important and aspirational for us...there's power there and I think we should move towards it.
That was awesome! Just what I needed to hear personally right now, but also a perfect companion to the "Courageous" chapter from Humanize. Wish I had read this before Humanize was published; we probably would have listed it as a "must read." Thanks for sharing.