Collaborative coverage of news and events, with a focus on community.

If we are not part of the conversation or listening to the conversation, then what are we here for? For me the conversation takes many forms today. My personal preferred way is face to face. But that’s not always the way it happens or needs to happen.

We have at our fingertips tool after tool to have a conversation with people that we might not otherwise be able to have a conversation with. Those tools seem to grow in number as much as in controversy, Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Foursquare, Yelp, Brightkite, Text … do I need to list more? And any site you can go to that offers a tool or tools to communicate or measure communication is about listening to the conversation.

Yesterday, I saw this tweet:

So, of course I click the link for OregonLive to read Anna Griffin’s post on OregonLive. “Sam Adams needs to toss Twitter and get back to the big picture for Portland” By Anna Griffin. Really? I disagree. I sometimes wonder what people are really annoyed or mad about when they write something like this? He is the Mayor. Twitter is one of the most transparent communication tools today!

“This is attention-deficit governing, driven by insecurity and enabled by the iPhone. In the short term, it creates the false sheen of engagement. Over the long haul, it’s no way to build public support for the hard and expensive decisions to come.”

False sheen of engagement? Engagement is engagement, Twitter is immediate and it’s timely. And why not use any tool available to build public support?

It would be like me saying: “I think the radio creates a false sheen of engagement because they are driven by sales and their advertisers have agendas contrary to mine. So Mayor Adams should dump any communication with radio.” Right — dumb, ill advised and limiting. Not to mention narrow-minded.

I find it so curious that people will participate in the very thing that they are complaining about. Instead of accepting the change and adapting to progress they fight it. The conversation is going to happen whether any of us want it to or not. So will we participate in it and use it for good? Or will we fight it and try to limit how we connect and tell others how they should communicate?

Email opened lines of communication like never before. We could read an article on line, email the author, and they would respond. Now we can mention a favorite author or individual on Twitter and the chances of you getting that “@someone is now following you on Twitter”, is pretty high. They are listening! And they’d better be!

If you’ve read the book “Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work & in Life, One Conversation at a Time” by Susan Scott, you are familiar with “Our careers, companies and relationships succeed or fail, gradually then suddenly—one conversation at a time.” and “No one engages; nothing changes.” If you haven’t read the book, I recommend it!

Susan writes, “Yes, the conversation is the relationship. One conversation at a time, you are building, destroying, or flatlining your relationships. It is possible, however, to create high-intimacy, low-maintenance relationships – one relatively brief conversation at a time.”

Are you listening to the conversation?

Tagged as: Anna Griffin, Fierce Conversations, Mayor Sam Adams, OregonLive, Sam Adams, Twitter

{ 8 comments }