Had a meeting today with one of our Knowledge stakeholders, responsible, among many other things, for their community area on our intranet. She appeared down and upset. Upon asking why she told me the community’s annual conference was held last week. At the conference, a senior director in the community used his speaking slot to verbally attack an area of the community site. He used ‘Amazon’ as an example of what was needed (along with their budget I hope!). Without seeking any guidance or counsel from the community stakeholders he broadcast what he wanted. Recent research of the community (an online poll which nearly 50% of the community responded) didn’t support this view. The comments made also highlighted a known area of weakness which was to be addressed by the community stakeholder when resource allows.
Do we love or loath this man? Personally I love him! Why? At a high profile meeting, in front of the whole community, he mentioned the community intranet site. Although he didn’t do any research or collected evidence he also spoke about a known weakness of the site. I could also applaud him for using Amazon as an example and not the BBC but that’s another matter.
Why love him? His has given us the visibility, platform and audience to address this issue now. He also provides us a path into senior members of the community to gain resource to address the issue. He’s talked the talk in front of his community. Now he needs to walk the walk. The community stakeholder, although upset, has arranged a session for us all to look at the way forward on this. Involving the attacker means he now has input, responsibility and a personal interest in getting something done.
Do you agree we should love him?