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?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments }
I say, my good lady, that column is, indeed, pure hackery of the silliest sort!
Public policy is almost entirely made behind closed doors in Portland, just like pretty much everywhere.
As somebody participating in a current bit of public engagement about land use and development, I can assure you that what the mayor and his staff tweet has absolutely zero influence in the actual policy discussions taking place. Most committee members don’t do Twitter and have no idea what people are tweeting about. It’s not even noise. It just doesn’t exist. In fact, I suspect the committee work I’m doing will have only slight bearing on what eventually happens.
This is not to say the mayor’s tweets and public engagement in general are not good politics. Just that they have little or nothing to do with actual policy making. To influence that, you still have to be a wealthy developer.
Steve R.’s spot-on. This is not about Twitter or engagement, superficial or not. It’s about whether the mayor is doing his job or trying to do the job his staff or others should be doing.
For a man who claims to have a clear vision about where the city needs to go, he does a poor job bringing others around City Hall or city government on board and getting on with it. The twitterati may love him, but those who work with or near him see a politician who’s more interested in himself and distracted by favorable opinions of him expressed on Twitter than with advancing his agenda.
Vision is worthless without focus. This mayor does not need to abandon Twitter, but he does need to think about how he uses it.
If Twitter really helps people feel more connected to government, imagine how much more connected they might feel if others in City Hall and city government were encouraged and empowered to use the medium effectively.
Then again, we saw what happened when Ted Wheeler tried to do that.Make up your mind Portland, what do you want?
Don’t fool yourself. Twitter is not reality; it is a rather shallow echo chamber and the positive feedback for Mayor Sam Adams’ tweeting simply suggests people like reassurance that they’re not wasting their time online. The trouble is, they’re wasting his, and that’s something that should concern us all, especially since he seems to enjoy it so much.
You are absolutely right! It is a waste of time for the mayor to hear what his constituents have to say. He should not listen to us at all and just do what is best for himself. We certainly do not want any of that “We the People” crap mucking up the system.
My standard disclaimer: I live in Washington County and can’t vote for Mayor of Portland. But I’m with Jude Kanaga and Anna Griffin on this one. Twitter has immense value as a “business intelligence” tool, or in this case, “politicial intelligence.” Mayor Adams is, however, the Mayor of *all* of Portland, and he is *not* the Mayor of Vancouver, WA or Beaverton.
Sam Adams is the Mayor of those who *don’t* have broadband, WiFi, Androids, iPhones, or netbooks or laptops. He is the Mayor of those who *don’t* work in software and those who *don’t* blog or use Twitter. I personally think those of us who *do* have those things are distracting him from his responsibilities to those who don’t. And I think he needs to be listening to them *more* than he needs to be listening to us. He certainly doesn’t need to be listening to *me*.
He needs to listen to ALL of us. Do you have any information indicating that he does not engage in other forms of communication?
Since the comments seem to be trending towards dissent, I feel motivated to comment in the affirmative. This blog perfectly says everything I was thinking. I also saw the Tweet and followed the link to read the blog (that sounds like a weird children’s song…), and completely disagreed with what was said.
I have been a Portlander for 30 years. I have voted for and loyally backed mayors that were only moderately successful at accomplishing what they set out to do. I loved and still love Mayor Vera Katz, one of the best mayors we’ve had in Portland, but she had her fair share of setbacks and missteps. However, never in my life have I felt so connected to a member of public office as I do with Mayor Sam Adams.
A few weeks ago, I had a question about how to provide input for road and bike lane improvements in my neighborhood. Normally, this would have taken a long and thorough internet search, followed by several phones calls (no doubt being transferred and/or leaving voice mails). Instead, I tweeting our Mayor and asked, “How do I give input for road conditions?” Within a few hours, I had my answer. AND….a few weeks later, one of my recommendations had already been implemented. If that is not giving the public access to their public officers in an unprecedented way, than I do not know what is.
Keep Tweeting, Mayor.
Very well said. It is clear that most of these dissenters have not actually reviewed the Mayors tweets before they made these comments about him tweeting. Silly I know, but clearly the case.
Angela, I’d like to agree with you but I can’t. Why wouldn’t a mayor as interested in helping you access city government as you suggest help everyone by opening the entire rather than advising you how to navigate the bureaucracy?
In the end, you both got what you wanted. You got your point across and got your street improvement, and the mayor earned your undying affection. If Portland really is the city that works, then we should expect more.
I think Anna’s point is that serious discussion has to take place on many of Portland’s issues. And occasional Tweets don’t take the place of that.
I think a tweet is a great way to direct people to a venue where such discussion is taking place. And to let people know how the process in progressing. But tweeting isn’t thoughtfult discourse and consensus building.
That is exactly what the Mayor does. Because of one of his tweets, I attended a community meeting I never would have even known about otherwise and his most recent tweet is River Plan North Reach #Pdx City Council hearing underway: http://bit.ly/omOc6; http://bit.ly/9nDUqn #fb It would have been best if you reviewed say a weeks worth of his tweets before you responded.
Comments on this entry are closed.