We're all in this together.
Earlier this week, I read a fascinating piece from Harvard Business Review blogger, Tony Schwartz.
In it, Mr. Schwartz – an award-winning author and business executive – hypothesized we’d be better off eliminating terms like “feedback” and “constructive criticism” from our lexicons altogether.
He suggested they were largely polarizing; and we should instead be thinking of these exchanges as opportunities for honest inquiry and genuine discovery.
While Schwartz did preface his post by saying feedback is “the primary means by which we learn and grow,” he went on to note the need to establish ways of providing insight with a higher degree of value – meaning the recipient must actually absorb and act on it.
I couldn’t agree more.
The basic principles of human psychology have taught us that we are hard-wired to defend our existing positions. It’s a reflex – a safeguard, if you will – to vet all feedback against the limits of our knowledge and understanding.
Until those limits can be breached, the interchange is fundamentally futile, as the desired outcome of the information provider will not be heard, let alone realized, by the receiver.
If you step back and view this dynamic from a public relations perspective, you can quickly see the merit of Schwartz’s argument.
Under the concept at issue, constructive criticism causes many communications professionals and their organizations to become entrenched in a particular policy or collective belief. We’ve all seen it: practitioners defending a viewpoint that, to the average stakeholder, seems utterly ridiculous (see BP oil spill, Enron, Toyota). Honest censure, in this model, only encourages a more introverted response.
But if we in PR adopt a much more open and formative approach to consultation – the very forum propelling the growth of social media – we can use these exchanges proactively as a way of gathering external opinion, evaluating cause-and-effect, and then developing a strategic message that is highly informed, honest and ultimately powerful.
I’ve personally implemented this methodology in my own workplace in the form of a national communications committee – so far, to resounding success. We’ve enjoyed heightened level of engagement from talent pools previously untapped (thus boosting overall morale), and stronger end-product results. In other words: a win-win for everybody.
I’m not saying we all have to sit around a campfire, join hands and sing Kumbaya; I do still believe, after all, that initiative and conviction are the drivers of innovation. Yet, we cannot ignore the immense worth of collaborative creation – not just simple teamwork, but the basic tenets of shared intelligence.
For now, I’ll call it common sense crowdsourcing. That is, until some Harvard-type comes up with a better name.
Discussion
No comments yet.