There's a Mole in our Protest Organization and It's Us

It's happening over and over, and it's very effectively debilitating the idea of organized protest.

You remember 'protest' don't you, from its glory days of the 60's ? People believed in a cause and due the emerging influence of the TV media, they got coverage and their message spread far and wide developing supporters in unlikely corners - supporters that were voters - and so governments listened. It was simpler times, and it represented with some hindsight, the peak of the ability to influence policy and direction through mass protests.

These days, you'd think organizers would have it easier. There's certainly no lack of causes - (insert your city here) G"x" protest, university fees, global warming, save the furry mammal, this war, that conflict, garbage dumps, changes to public transit...the list literally does go on and on and I haven't even mentioned the perennial favorites like poverty, abortion or homelessness or the cadre of social program changes out there. But - here's news - the anti-protest types are smarter at the moment, and they know how to effectively debilitate any protest out there...

You see the anti-protest types are using the eye of the media very effectively against demonstrators who've become complacent in their view of the publicity the generate. The "truth" it seems isn't enough anymore to create a rallying cry around their cause. That's because perception rules, and the 'anti' camps have begun to spin the story so that the truth is all but obscured. Instead you see masked protesters looting stores, flipping cars and causing damage, which all but eliminates the veracity for whatever cause it is. The TV pictures and print & online media stories and twitter updates are about how uncontrolled and unruly the protest is (we expected Gandhi perhaps?), which means we the external audience lose our sympathy for those protesting...and if we voters don't care, then the powers that be who are being protested against, don't care. Voter in this sense carries both a literal and financial meaning.

So, if you were being targeted by some fair-thinking group that didn't like your policies, would your organization hire some folks to don masks and pretend to play along with the protests, and then do the visible bad stuff ? All with the intent of swaying public opinion ? I bet you would. In fact there's a growing chorus of accusations of this from various public bodies that have held protests in recent times.

Now, walk the steps of the fair-thinking group's protest organizers who have a sizable task just getting people out, to show support for their cause. They don't control the crowd, or issue wristbands to those protesting for them. After they set it in motion, they are bystanders to the wave of enthusiasm they helped generate. They're powerless to do much other than complain after the fact that their efforts were hijacked if that turns out to be the case. And afterward...well it's too late. The very nature of what they try to do (organize strangers) means open communications as well, enabling easy infiltration. So, I put forth that today's model of mass protest is screwed.

But there is an answer I think, and it lays with the very piece of leverage that has moved the balance of power. Media attention. Once protests drank from it in an age of innocence, and now the anti-protest groups manipulate it more effectively.

Think about this.. what was the most effective large protest in very recent times ? The Daily Show's "The Rally To Restore Sanity/Restore Fear" which drew over 200,000 to Washington. It was masterminded by the left/right/left wing approach that Stewart and Colbert very successfully bring to TV. While it's causes are interesting, they aren't material to this argument - the point here I'd make is that they succeeded in bringing an unpopular sentiment to large scale attention because they are masters of media spin. They controlled and managed the message fully.

The lesson here therefore is that to succeed you need a media consultant - a professional who does positioning, and secures the message to be brought by the crowd to the media, almost without the need for the crowd itself. Imagine a virtual protest, or even a threat of large scale protest. Get celebrities endorsing it, get excitement building about it, and get it all done without the uncontrollable masses being your delivery mechanism for the message. Organize it, get people on message and put it in cells where just anyone isn't allowed to join. This is a 21st century protest, and it'll do away with the biggest single issue any protest faces - our open involvement. You see in the world of mass demonstrations, we're our own worst enemy.

The Days when it Just Seems too Hard

Some days we struggle to maintain our focus, our purpose and our energy.

It's natural, and one of the phrases I heard a while back that has echoed a little for me was that in order to focus, you must de-focus. Think about that one for a second, as it does make lots of sense. The original intent of it was different, but it works nicely here too I think.

When there's too much noise and clutter and other debilitating things that vie for our attention (like wasting time reading some vacuous blog!) coursing around us, we need to step back at times and gather ourselves, regroup if you want to call it that. It may take a moment, an hour or a year depending on the circumstances. You've heard people talk about the wonders of the power nap at work ? Same idea.

One thing were rarely given within our work-time confines is the freedom (in a defined time sense) to think and be creative, and that's another form of re-grouping and one that often re-energizes us for our tasks and helps us develop new, fresh approaches to the things we do.

I happen to be one of those people that likes a to-do list (not on Saturday's thanks very much though, honey) and I find simply revising this to refine and break down the various deliverables I have, helps me to see the larger picture and allows me to step back into whatever I'm doing at full pace. No doubt each of us has some trick they know that works for themselves.

I'm writing this today to promote the idea of giving yourself a little break, as the ability to re-focus, re-energize and re-purpose your own efforts will mean you're able to freshly apply yourself. It parallels the idea of giving a muscle a short break between exercises to allow it to rest, knowing you'll be needing its full power again shortly.

So, step back from what you're doing if it's just too difficult today. Take a breather, and re-structure the task as if you're the boss and then go at it again full steam ahead. You'll more creative and committed to the result that way.

You see, sometimes to go faster, you need to go slower.

Our Message in a Bottle

Is actually a gold plated record, made of copper. It contains greetings in 55 languages (I can't help but think the recipient will try to speak the 'earth' language and only be able to say Hello, Hello, Hello etc...) and it's currently 17,409,695,485 Km's from Earth. It's moving away from us at a mind-bending 18kms per second. (London-New York in 5 mins anyone ?).

It's Voyager 1, and it's the farthest object from the rest of us that our race as ever created. It's pushing well beyond the edge of the known solar system, having been in space since September 1977. It reflects our values, our message and our technology from that time.

If it were to be sent today, would we have included a DVD instead ? (or perhaps an iPod). How would our core messages have changed in 35 years..? Think now 50, 75 or even 250 years out...our message in a bottle will be a quaint antique reflecting how things were in an emerging technical society that less than 10 years earlier had made it's first footprints upon another stellar body. How different will we be, assuming we're still here..

Voyager 1 represents both the best of us in our reach towards expanding our own horizons, and the most myopic of us at the same time. It reflects a moment in time, captured immortal as if it was the most important. I pray whoever finds Voyager 1 (and happens to own a record player of the same vintage) takes pity on us and sees our impertinence as a virtue of youth.

I Wish for Less

It's a common feature of any evolving product or service that over time it becomes 'bigger' or more complete. Features are added to please and attract more people and a by-product of that growth and depth is that it can lose it's initial attractiveness. It also invariably gets slower - that is the interface we have into it requires a few more choice and buttons that are placed there to give us options.

Rarely is anything ever trimmed to make it faster. In our commercial world, cares are probably the only commodity that actually offer this, but these 'versions' aren't designed for the masses, they are the limited edition racing-esque models for those that can afford to take their fancy car to the track and blitz around it. Back seats are removed, as is the stereo, all for extra money and some go-faster paint job.

In a software or application sense, rarely is the goal to make it simpler, and less onerous...more true to it's core purpose. And that's a shame as good applications or fine products that do exactly as promised are few and far between. Items such as an abacus, a compass, barbed wire or zippers have remained largely the same for hundreds or even thousands of years. Should it be necessary to upgrade to the latest version only to be slowed down in it's actual purpose ?

I don't think so, this is a case of less is more.

Hi-tech, No-tech

I was reminded again this week about how people involved in technology aren't necessarily jazzed about technology.

I was with a team that have really cool tech offerings - neat stuff, cutting edge in many ways. However when I asked them about use of online capabilities, I found the room was a group of Luddites. Not one knew about, let alone used anything. Hmmm.

Now I'm not suggesting that you have to tweet and poke folks on Facebook and live social media and online connectivity to be 'cool' by any means. By I am suggesting that if you walk new technology as part of your role, you ought to consistently do so. I'd expect that as a customer, and so they lost tremendous credibility in my eyes over something innocuous and unimportant.

Once lost, it's really hard to regain credibility.

Transparency vs Need to Know

This is a question that's been festering in my head ever since that Wikileaks story surfaced in the media. For the record, I don't think the story is about:

• US foreign policy
• Access to data laws that may have been broken
• Domestic terrorism or national security
• The ego maniacal nature of the Wikileaks founder
• What any other country thinks of the data revealed
• The technical nature of how the data was accessed
  

For me, this is a tug of war between the need for greater levels of transparency in government and large organizations, and the understanding that some things are not intended for a wider audience. It's the geopolitical equivalent of parenting. On one hand, there's what we really think of our kid's performance on the field, in the class or wherever...these are thoughts that rarely leave our mouths. On the other hand, there's what we say to insure that our words are positively reinforcing, and don't cut down the kid's ego. Wikileaks parallels this to me, except that both voices are actually heard and laid down for the record on a governmental scale.

Should an ambassador be allowed to give an unvarnished, un-spun version of how they see another country or situation, knowing its intended for purely internal use...yes of course. Should a government be allowed to make important decisions and not disclose those, as they may be unpopular ...probably not.

But the context of the Wikileaks situations brings this into sharper and more pressing focus. Should a third party organization be in a position to expose all information they lay their hands on, in the public interest..? Well that's an interesting one. No right has been given to them to do this by the public, nor was the public asking for this depth of information. And government's certainly aren't happy about having their pants pulled down in public.

But there's a silver lining here I might suggest, even though we didn't know we needed one.

Knowing that we could be exposed, that our stock price might dip, that our popularity could sag in the event our "true" bad behaviors are revealed, that will help keep us in line a little. If we've lost our moral compass as a guiding principle, at least the fear of exposure will help keep things on the straight and narrow a little. This is clearly a stick rather than a carrot, but if as a society we don't elect to self-motivate ourselves into doing the right thing, perhaps there's a role for the wiki-leaks of the world.

This is a sad conclusion of course, and one we can fix by managing our companies the way we would want to be managed, and electing individuals to represent us that don't just tell us what we want to hear, but also tell us the hard truths we need to hear. I'm not sure that's a short term realistic expectation however, so we're back to relying on the Julian Assange's of the world.

Very sad indeed.

Faith

I do work for a company that I used to work at as an employee, and as happens occasionally, events with customers or internal developments don't go quite as planned. It's frustrating to me but I go with the flow as they say, understanding that it's difficult at times to get customers moving at the speed you might like. We've all been there.

There are guidelines or rules as well though as to how our interactions happen - that is between the company and I, and while I have to have faith that our work together will be fairly looked at, I do find it interesting and concerning that at times that's one-way. You see when things are up in the air as they often are with customers, the company sees risk and so do I. When this happens there's a very clear choice that has to be made - do you continue to work in good faith, or do you put on the brakes and decide not to expose yourself, waste anymore valuable time and so on without some guarantee of being compensated.

Now, I for one like the idea of faith in each other, as it makes the pavement of life a little better to walk along if I look at it in a big picture sense, but I'm also aware we live in a litigious society today, and the lack of a confirmed commitment to do work together means we don't have one. In the event that things do turn out for the worse, then I would be relying on the goodwill of my friends at the company to do the right thing. That spells more risk for me, but none for them.

Faith works best when it's shared, when we all have the same vision for what success looks like and move together in that direction. Having faith alone in something - that's usually the start of the definition of 'crazy'.