Facebook: Resistance is Futile?

In August 2008, Facebook had 100 million users. According to a March 29 New York Times article, that number will have doubled one day this week. That's a significant milestone tor each in only five years.

We used to talk about the digital divide in terms of people being online/offline. Given the penetration and pervasiveness of the Internet that's probably not much of a useful distinction any longer. Perhaps the new standard will be those individuals and organizations who have a presence on social networking sites and those who don't.

Managing one's online presence and identity is becoming increasingly important, both personally and professionally. Google yourself and you're likely to find your Facebook, LinkedIn, or MySpace profiles among the top 20 results.

But as more and more people rush to social media and other online technologies, the sponsoring organizations and associations should remember this fundamental principle so succinctly asserted by Crowdsourcing author Jeff Howe at ASAE & The Center's Technology Conference earlier this year: it's not about the technology, but what type of human behaviors the technology can engender.

And as social media technologies engender behaviors that once were too difficult to do offline, conferences need to think about what behaviors can only (or best) be engendered by the human technology of face-to-face interaction and aggressively revise their schedules and formats accordingly. And newsletters and magazines need to think similar about the content and needs their formats can best serve given the searcvhing, skimming, and scanning behaviors that Google and the Web so easily facilitate.

Such very basic considerations, no doubt, but ones that very few organizations have sufficiently addressed.

Are You a Good Setter?

In volleyball, the setter plays a critical role coordinating the team's offense and directing which teammate will actually attack the ball for the score. We also have setters in working relationships. Example:

A local association asked me to speak at an upcoming luncheon and I accepted. After providing marketing copy for my talk, I was surprised to discover the actual event promo substantially modified it without my input.

It's tough to hit the ball when it's been set somewhere different than what was expected.

Partnerships and teamwork involve positioning our colleagues for the win, setting them up to score, and real-time communication of strategy for the next play. Otherwise you have only uncoordinated efforts that are unlikely to produce the desired results.

So, are you putting the ball where it needs to be?

Five Conversations to Have Right Now

One of my favorite thinkers and authors, Meg Wheatley, offers five conversations we should be having right now. Below I've listed the five questions she offers as catalysts. You can get her expanded thinking on them in the BK Communique blog.

BK stands for Berrett-Koehler Publishers, one of my favorite publishers because they describe themselves (and act) as "a community dedicated to creating a world that works for all."

1. Who is my neighbor?
2. How can I cultivate curiosity rather than judgment?
3. What is my role in creating change?
4. Am I willing to reclaim time to think?
5. Can I be fearless?
   

Reading the Labels

Trying to be vigilant about eating whole grains whose nutrition hasn't been refined and processed away can require a lot of efforts some days.

First off, much of what manufacturers use as marketing hooks on their packaging is incomplete or misleading. Whether it be greenwashing of supposedly eco-friendly products or "grainwashing" of goods that aren't quite what's being presented, truth in advertising isn't quite being followed.

So shoppers have to go beyond the snazzy adjectives on the front and dig down into the list of ingredients. But, I don't normally grocery shop with a magnifying glass that allows me to turn the illegible font size on many packages into something a normal person can read. And I also don't appreciate gimmicks like bizarre serving sizes that allow your calorie-laden product to seem like a dieter's dream. Who eats 1/2 a cup of ice cream? Give me the count for a half-gallon.

Why do we make it so hard for people to make good decisions? What do we have to hide? I get that fast food restaurants don't want government requiring them to share nutritional information because of the potential cost to do so and a fundamental abhorrence of regulation. But their intentions would seem a bit more noble if some of their products weren't so suspect.

Instead of spending time and energy on blocking transparency, why not use it to make better things whose quality and contents can be proudly (and truthfully) proclaimed?

And what's good for grocers is good for any business. Companies and associations should think about bundling information so that it makes it easy for consumers and members to make informed choices. The less time I have to spend deciding means the more time I can spend using your actual product or service ... where the real value is.

So take a look at your own offerings and the information you're providing. I guarantee it can be done better. And if you have something to hide, your problem runs much deeper.

What Do Your Actions Teach Others?

A lesson from one of my role models still resonates with me deeply today: the more prominent your position in an organization, the louder your actions speak.

We too casually dismiss the power, importance, and responsibility of being a role model. Take a few minutes and identify the roles you play in life. Now think about the values and qualities you would like others to witness in your actions and experience through their interactions.

Talking a good game is easy. Being a living example is much tougher, requiring greater self-awareness, expansive approachability and openness to feedback, and more regular "timeouts" for realignment of actions with intentions.

As my mentor so succinctly said, "if you don't care, why would others?"

Let's Get Personal

So many of the communications I receive are one to many, that is, mass messaging. If it really is the thought that counts, those messages count for very little.

In our tech-driven world, I'm increasingly appreciative of people who bring their personality into our electronic interactions and bring their whole person (and stay present) to our face-to-face exchanges.

Messages and mailings can be commoditized. Authentic interactions can't. Take a look at your communications. Would they still be identifiable as yours if your name and logo were removed?

Who we are as human beings can't be replicated (yet), so we should bring more of who we are into what we do and how we communicate and interact with others … and create more space for others to do the same.

Win As Much As You Can

I wonder if we are playing a national game of Prisoner’s Dilemma or the variation I often use in leadership workshops, Win As Much As You Can (WAMAYC). Both exercises explore game theory, collaborative or competitive mindsets, and decision-making and group dynamics.

In WAMAYC four teams of individuals make a simple choice each round: X or Y. Scoring is determined by the distribution of choices among the four teams. Everyone gets $1 when all teams pick Y. Everyone loses $1 when all teams select X. When the team choices are mixed among X and Y, the teams choosing X win and the teams choosing Y lose. Some rounds are bonus rounds with the result for that round being multiplied.

Teams make their choices autonomously and can’t speak to the other groups except in the bonus rounds when they may send a rep to a quick conference. Some teams don’t send reps. Some reps agree with the others to have their team make a particular selection in the round that their teammates ultimately overturn. Trust and betrayal issues are not unusual.

Some teams take great delight in “screwing” the others by consistently picking X when all others select Y. Some teams position themselves as the most moral, always picking Y, preferring to go down with dignity rather than succumb to a competitive choice. And it is not unusual to score big by picking X in every round, then secure in their winning position choose Y in the final round where scores are multiplied by 10.

The debrief from this exercise always fascinates me as does the genuine dialogue (not purely partisan posturing) about the President’s proposed budget. If every team picks Y in every round, all four teams conclude the exercise with $25. For some, this equal distribution represents the ideal. For others, it causes them to wonder why even play if no one gets ahead.

Some participants say they chose so that everyone would at least end in positive numbers. The choices made in each round also get a great deal of attention. If all teams choose Y in round one, more collaborative choices seem to follow. But if a team chooses X in the first few rounds, the other teams often believe their stance is unchangeable.

Choosing X or Y may seem more black and white than forming public policy benefiting self or community, but the underlying dynamics are fairly similar. In every nation, in every organization, and in almost any situation, the same considerations are at play. In some respects, our current economic climate needs all of us to choose Y, making whatever purchases we can to help lift the overall financial environment. Some economists suggest that if we all choose X (save as much as we can and defer purchases), recovery is much more difficult.

In any given situation, how would you choose? What choices are the various stakeholders (think staff and volunteers, different departments, etc.) in your own organization making right now? And how can we all have a more transparent and trusting dialogue about the very real consequences at stake?