Additional Musings about the Naked Emperor
I have recieved much helpful feedback on my last blog regarding leadership accountability & social networking. I intend to do additional research in this area. The thoughts around using technology and social networking were intriquing. Some of the inherent challenges to this method are quickly obvious. Persons who were dissatisfied customers of the organization could take advantage of the public forum to ventilate their anger toward one of it’s leaders in an unfair manner. The boldness of this approach could also work in the favor of the leader. What better way to quickly build trust than to make themselves open and vulnerable in this way. In today’s internet search engine world few matters of a leader’s public or even private life can long be concealed anyway. This could move a long way to increasing transparency and honesty. If a leader had distanced themselves from reality; surrounded themselves by ‘yes men’; or had become victims of group-think, the open-forum interaction via the blogs and FaceBook could prove to be an invaluable tool to remind the leader that his ‘talk’ was not lining up with his ‘walk.’
Courage | Robert A. Moore, Jr. November 16, 2009
6 Comments to “Additional Musings about the Naked Emperor”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Bruce Kuhlman, November 27, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
I have to be careful here for this is my sacred cow. The internet communication. What we in fact would be doing in the telling the Emperor he was naked is communicating. But Webster says communication is “exchange of information or opinions”, and simply lobbing a constructive/destructive comment to our Emperor is not allow him his end of the ‘exchange’. The one sending critique may not fully have the story of why the Emperor is naked at the time, and that person will be sending some lop-sided critique at the Emperor which will be taken in perhaps a destructive manner. As human beings, our communication is not simply the verbal..but inflection of voice, body language, distance from the Emperor, and general overall demeanor. We often do not do much good by ‘coming on cold’ to anyone. (including the spouse) We work up to it, from our immediate circumstance to the Emperor’s immediate circumstance. I believe if the social media was to be used for constructive means, then there needs be a camera on the top of the senders computer. Never can tell, perhaps if the Emperor sees who is speaking and respects that one, he may find a robe quickly.
By Robert A. Moore, Jr., November 29, 2009 @ 12:22 am
While I agree that the relationship and demeanor of the messenger is of great importance to the one recieving the message the most important thing is still the message itself. Leaders, in my opinion, bear the responsibility to keep the lines of communication upon-in both directions.
By Ray Waldo, November 20, 2009 @ 7:56 am
The current phrase describing this manner of engaging followers is “Social Media Marketing (SMM).” Although we tend to shudder when we think of a church (or other religious entity) trying to “market” themselves, the reality is that is exactly what almost every organization HAS to do today in order to remain viable.
Whether that is “right” is irrelevant – it is essential (unless God performs a miracle on behalf of the organization). In our borrow-buy-struggle society, consumers look for the best “deal” for every commodity – including shopping around for the “ideal” church.
Personally, I have demeaned Twitter since I first heard of it as being bane and self-centered “updates” of which TV show one is watching. What I am now seeing is — that is the domain of Facebook. Many large corporations are now getting on the Twitter bandwagon as a means of spreading their brand by offering special benefits to those who “follow” them on Twitter (and other similar “marketing” strategies).
Here is a link to an article called “Is Social Media a Fad? Here are the Success Stories.” It is a very brief overview of what the author sees as the essentials of how to make social marketing work. http://www.bitrebels.com/lifestyle/is-social-media-a-fad-here-are-the-success-stories/
By Robert A. Moore, Jr., November 28, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Thanks Ray, that is a very useful link. I found item #3 regarding ‘conversation’ as most useful. The whole point in the church leadership situation is to keep the leaders -followers engaged. Not all conversation has to be transformational. If lines of communication are kept open in both directions the effective leader will be enriched by broad perspectives of the organization, the viewpoints as well as the needs of his co-workers and any blindspots he might have or tend to develop.
By Jeff Wolf, November 18, 2009 @ 10:28 am
As I have commented before, I am a very transparent pastor. I break the traditional pulpit rules as it relates to talking about elephants in the room. Having said that, I can see the positive and negative perspectives of using social networking to provide connectivity of leadership and an avenue for criticism and praise. In my experience, however, those who post criticism rarely do it in love, and with a willingness to also receive criticism. Just this week, I received sharp criticism, left in a disrespectful, angry and insulting tone. The critic did what most do when spouting garbage, what I call “hit and run.” Immediately after leaving the “comment,” they removed me from their friends list, therefore not being able to receive a response in the same public forum in which they attacked me. It didn’t accomplish anything, except to create negative feelings and emotions. I am not implying that everyone who has criticism also has a mean spirit, but those who would offer it in a constructive way, most likely would not do it in a public forum, but rather privately. I guess my underlying questions is, how would expressing concern in a public forum agree with the Matthew 18 method of resolving an issue with a brother? Jut my opinion. For the record, there was no need for me to defend myself, as dozens of my fellow laborers who know my heart and character took care of that for me.
By Robert A. Moore, Jr., November 28, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Thanks for those comments Jeff. I think all of us are being forced to become more transparent-wehter we want to our not. You’re ahead of the curve if you’ve decided that’s the way you want to live your life. People want to respect their leaders but they also want to know that they are human and they struggle with many of the same issues they struggle with. Pastor Craig Groeschel tells, in his early ministry, he was counciled to “protect the pastoral mystique” as a means of image control and to keep distance between himself and parishoners. He goes on to say that following that advice almost shipwrecked his ministry.
You may be right about ‘most’ people posting criticism rarely doing it in love. I think, however, that is rapidly changing. The proliferation of persons communicating via and using social networking sights seems to be changing it’s impact. Not only are more people getting involved but they are increasingly smart and saavy. When someone post comments unkind or clearly biased we are much slower to take them at face value. Such a person is quickly identified as someone that may be critical by nature or merely have an ‘axe to grind. It is becoming a type of self-regulation. The example you gave, I think, supports the fact. Readers of the comments who really know you were unwillingly to take the word of the ‘hit and run’ attack of the unkind comments toward you. One unkind thread does not transform you into a tyrant. You did not even have to defend yourself. If many others joined in and thus described you there may be some credibility. Does that make sense?
Your question about Matthew 18 is right on point. Clearly this is the biblical and best model to resolve issues. I gave a personal example of this in the thread “Renewal inside of a helmet’. The entire expression of having an open forum, however, is to have a place to communicate with leadership -both positively and negatively-where they are not accessbile for personal contact. Wether this is due to busy schedules or geographical separation or personality limitations these barriers clearly exist. My premise is that some forum needs to exist to help busy leaders–espcially of large organizations–from becoming the victims of group-think or unintentional corruption of attitdues of entitllement that often occurs when they are dominated by feedback that comes from ‘gate-keeper’ who will only tell them what they want them to hear. i have to wonder, how many great leaders have we lost because we ceased telling them the good with the bad?