Comments on: Failing your way to success http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/ A Blog Community for Business Communicators Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:41:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Alan Crozier http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/#comment-890 Alan Crozier Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:24:09 +0000 http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/#comment-890 Of course communication is a process, a journey, sometimes iterative, always enlightening. But not every organisation is culturally ready for the adult to adult discussions that Carol suggests. That's where we need to get to, but in the organisations that are still cynical, disenfranchised, or disconnected; you get one chance to make a first impression, and it's got to be right because it will last. Of course communication is a process, a journey, sometimes iterative, always enlightening. But not every organisation is culturally ready for the adult to adult discussions that Carol suggests. That’s where we need to get to, but in the organisations that are still cynical, disenfranchised, or disconnected; you get one chance to make a first impression, and it’s got to be right because it will last.

]]> By: Bob Lory http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/#comment-886 Bob Lory Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:50:36 +0000 http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/#comment-886 Every kid who's learned how to ride a bike knows the truth in the old Chinese adage: "Fall down seven times, get up eight." Every kid who’s learned how to ride a bike knows the truth in the old Chinese adage:

“Fall down seven times, get up eight.”

]]> By: Brian Kilgore http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/#comment-768 Brian Kilgore Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:58:41 +0000 http://commons.iabc.com/employee/2006/08/04/failing-your-way-to-success/#comment-768 I like the four questions, but... The posting suggests that "communication" is a project, not an on-going process. So, yeah, if you (the royal you, not Carol or the army specifically) think that communications is a sampling project with a dozen fresh-faced teens at each of 27 summer fairs and special events, heading out half-portion bottles of Lime-Flavo(u)red cola, you can think of what you'd do differently next summer, when the flavo(u)r injection is orange. But what if the "communications" is on-going, like, for instance, this blog? The IABC board members could each answer the first three questions, type them up and post them here. After all, this blog has huge potential to involve 13,500 people around the world. And then, where all the members have posted responses to 1,2 and 3, they could then tackle Q4. About Q 1: We need the board to answer Q1 cuz I don't know the desired outcome of creating this. I think that having one in five IABC members scan through the five sections every two weeks would be a good desired outcome. But when this project was started, was the goal one in five, or one in five hundred? And one posting comment per section (not necessarily per original message)by X% of members, every two weeks, would be a good target outcome. But what is X? One percent would be 135 postings, leaving ninety-nine out of one hundred to be shy, or on holidays, or recently deceased. About Q 2: There's no easy way a board member couild determine visits. Some IABC technican would have to report the visits, but that's easy to do. But the board members can count the responses posted, and do the math on that. About Q3: This would be fascinating. First, of course, the board members would have to see if there is a gap between Q 1 and Q 2. Maybe, in return for the $300 a year or so members pay, the results of Q2 meet the objectives of Q1. Is Q1 and Q 2 match, great. But study can still be done, with the objective of changing the value of X. If not... Is it promotion? Do members not own computers? Do members not care about the profession? Are communicators shy? Is there a huge cultural difference, with Canadians either much more willing to share ideas or less shy or so bored they having nothing better to do than comment here? Is the blog badly designed? ? ? ? About Q4: No need to think about "next time." What would the board members recommend doing for this on-going process? ------ I'm curious how many board members have read anything in the Commons since July 20. BAK I like the four questions, but…

The posting suggests that “communication” is a project, not an on-going process.

So, yeah, if you (the royal you, not Carol or the army specifically) think that communications is a sampling project with a dozen fresh-faced teens at each of 27 summer fairs and special events, heading out half-portion bottles of Lime-Flavo(u)red cola, you can think of what you’d do differently next summer, when the flavo(u)r injection is orange.

But what if the “communications” is on-going, like, for instance, this blog?

The IABC board members could each answer the first three questions, type them up and post them here. After all, this blog has huge potential to involve 13,500 people around the world. And then, where all the members have posted responses to 1,2 and 3, they could then tackle Q4.

About Q 1: We need the board to answer Q1 cuz I don’t know the desired outcome of creating this. I think that having one in five IABC members scan through the five sections every two weeks would be a good desired outcome. But when this project was started, was the goal one in five, or one in five hundred?

And one posting comment per section (not necessarily per original message)by X% of members, every two weeks, would be a good target outcome. But what is X?

One percent would be 135 postings, leaving ninety-nine out of one hundred to be shy, or on holidays, or recently deceased.

About Q 2: There’s no easy way a board member couild determine visits. Some IABC technican would have to report the visits, but that’s easy to do.

But the board members can count the responses posted, and do the math on that.

About Q3: This would be fascinating. First, of course, the board members would have to see if there is a gap between Q 1 and Q 2.

Maybe, in return for the $300 a year or so members pay, the results of Q2 meet the objectives of Q1.

Is Q1 and Q 2 match, great. But study can still be done, with the objective of changing the value of X.

If not…

Is it promotion? Do members not own computers? Do members not care about the profession? Are communicators shy? Is there a huge cultural difference, with Canadians either much more willing to share ideas or less shy or so bored they having nothing better to do than comment here? Is the blog badly designed? ? ? ?

About Q4: No need to think about “next time.” What would the board members recommend doing for this on-going process?

——
I’m curious how many board members have read anything in the Commons since July 20.

BAK

]]>