The Tyranny of Productivity and The Need for a Dedicated Corporate Conversationalist

For the last year, I have been working with several industry associations or advocacy groups. One of the missions of all of them is to educate the industry by soliciting contributions of knowledge from a wide variety of players: analysts, vendors, practitioners, experts, customers, users, etc. etc.  While there is a lot of lip service as to the importance of this mission (of the variety of players, none can do it on their own, so collective action makes sense), the practicalities of getting it done run up against one consistent barrier:  the lack of time the players have to actually contribute anything.

This is, by and large, not their fault.  They are spending all of their working hours (far beyond the mythical 40 hours a week) just trying to do what is in their job description, generally those things that most visibly contribute to the company's bottom line.  Since the economic crash at the beginning of the century, they have been asked to do more with less.  This is reflected in the generally high productivity that is extolled by the powers that be.

But this productivity has created a cost, which may be tied directly into future innovation:  people simply don't have the time to contribute substantively to any collective enterprise.  The bottom line enforces short-term thinking and anything that has less than a direct, ROI-able justification to the P&L statement.

In the emerging world of participatory communications, networked communications, tribal marketing -- whatever you call it, this lack of time is a major barrier to success.

I say this because, if markets are conversations, that means you actually have to get out there and talk to people outside your organization.  You have to create connections, nurture relationships, add value to the growing knowledge commons, develop reputation through contribution and recognition, etc.  And all of these things, and the tools that they require (blogs included), takes time.  Significant amounts of time.  Not 15-minutes-when-I-can-get-to-it-while-I-multitask-time, but dedicated focused time.

I think all companies should have at least one person whose job description is conversation beyond the company.  This person will belong and contribute to industry associations and collective endeavors.  He or she will reach across traditional boundaries to create connections and identify and nurture ideas.  She will write, teach, speak and evangelize.  His goal will be to represent the company's interests while being open to understanding others point of view.  This will be their only role.  Their time cannot be diluted through the day-to-day emergencies and travails of product marketing, development, sales etc., because those activities always take priority when a choice has to be made.

Some companies are doing this already, through dedicated evangelists.  They are smart.  Because, eventually, the connections made and the conversations held will be the key to the company's future success.  And, as a lovely side effect, it will help foster information and innovation in the industry/market at large.  Everyone wins.

This person, this role, is a fantastic one for the corporate communications person.  Not the old command/control type who hides behind "spokesperson", stonewalls conversation or parrots the "message."  Rather, this is someone who truly understands the company's products and services and the market.  She understands the strengths and isn't afraid to discuss the weaknesses.  He is willing to share ideas, and, most importantly, to listen.  She builds bridges, doesn't burn them.  He is a translator of ideas, not a roadblock.

Let me reiterate, because this is crucial.  Building connections and reputation takes time.  There is no magic bullet.  And it is too important for this task to be delegated to the bottom of the "when I can get to it list."

[Cross posted to the New Communications Forum blog.

Comments

[c]

I could not agree with your post more!

[Productivity Blog]

While it isn't exactly what you are advocating, there are some similiarities in the way that companies are funding open source projects. Many times a large company will hire developers to focus exclusively on free software that is being given away. The company gets the good will in addition to the benefits of using the software themselves. The community at large benefits from there being people who are able to concentrate on developing full time. These developers are often working very closely with the community by evangelizing, recruiting volunteers, and promoting the free software.