Manage the conversations, not people or things

I have the view that the folks we have been calling "leaders", whether designated as such with that role and title or not, are in fact "conversation generators and managers". That’s what they do, they bring new conversations into existence, nurture and manage them till they are sustainable, and displace, or take out of existence, existing conversations that are inconsistent with or thwart the conversations they generate.

Before I go on, a bit more of the framework my colleagues and I work with: Context (the sum of our conversations internal and external) shapes the way we see the world; the way we see the world shapes the actions that are available for us to take; the actions we take shapes the outcomes/results we produce.

Which means, if we want different outcomes we need to change the context – which means put a new conversation into existence and/or take an existing conversation out of existence.

It is not hard to see the impact of new conversations on behavior and outcomes. Some politicians and marketing folks are brilliant at what we call “conversation management”. Look at the impact of Google and uTube, to say nothing of the Internet - powerful examples of new conversations - and new behaviors and outcomes from those who engage with these conversations.

What we, as leaders (conversation generators and managers) have available to us now is a technology, that is getting more sophisticated as we speak, to disseminate conversations – virally multiply them – till they are “the way people see the world, which shapes their actions…” We are now able to troll the Internet for particular conversations – to give them more mass, and therefore power to shape behavior - or to delete them, with the same intent in mind.

Part of what some people complain about in this emerging real/cyber world is their sense of dislocation as the form and content of “conversations” they were familiar with are changing or don’t mean anything any more. So-called leaders complain that what used to work for them in getting people to do what they want doesn’t anymore. They don’t appreciate how come a conversation in a private meeting is all over their organization, or even the Internet, in minutes because someone sent an instant message – a what? Or how come an off-hand remark can have such devastating results. In the US we even have a new way to speak about the phenomenon – a macaca moment - thanks to a former US Senator, George Allen, who was recorded on video making an off-hand derogatory remark, which got lots of play on TV and uTube.

We only have to look around us to see the power of conversations on the collective behavior of a group, organization or society. For example, I suspect there are few in the world who are unaware that the US has a presidential campaign under way. Here are some implicit/explicit conversations in the US about what a candidate must believe to be fit for the role:

1. You have to believe in god – with a capital G, (a Christian God). If you are an atheist or agnostic, or believe in some other god don’t apply – or, be very good about faking being a believer
2. Guns are like children, they’re ours – don’t even think about taking them away. And you better show you are for them – guns and children that is.
   

Staying with the US for a moment. Much of the world may have been perplexed that a second or two of Janet Jackson’s breast being exposed – which most people did not see until the instant replays – could have ended in senate hearings, the Federal Communications Commission issuing new broadcast regulations and fines. And broadcasters instituting new practices the insert time delays in their broadcasts so they can edit out “indecencies”.

Anyone who doubts the power of conversations in shaping actions and outcomes only needs to reflect on some examples like these that are all around us. Any anyone who is unsure of the power of technology to amplify and disseminate “transformational” conversations is not paying attention.