I have often written about the importance of listening as a part of effective communication. I stand by this, as I think we are often are too quick to talk when we can learn an awful lot - and have better conversations - by taking the time to listen. Like everything in life, though, there has to be a balance between listening and talking, shaping comments based on what you hear and leading a conversation.
I say all of this because I wonder if the drive for informed listening (ROI on content, measurement and metrics) is tipping the balance toward reactive "me too" content generation and away from creating and leading conversations based on mission and purpose - said differently, are you talking about what you (whether you're an institution or an individual) stand for in the world?
I've always been drawn to the idea of the bully pulpit and how, traditionally, that platform was based on position. Elected officials, college presidents (even moreso in the past) and others had a bully pulpit by virtue of their position. Now, as trust has evolved (see the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer) and information flows far more freely, one could argue that the bully pulpit is held by those who have established the strongest networks. It's more of a grassroots platform, built based on the depth and relevance of the content rather than hierarchy and position.
All of this goes to my original point that individuals and institutions have an even greater opportunity today to take hold of an issue, establish a position and advocate for it. At the same time, because the playing field is far more flat, credibility needs to be established and maintained because that platform can be taken away just as quickly as it was built. Exciting times, indeed.
Comments