Diplomacy or Policy? You Decide

by Jay Deragon on 02/22/2008

By Jay Deragon & Scott Allen

The first question in last night’s debate between Clinton and Obama was whether they, as President, would meet with the new Cuban leadership now that Castro has stepped down.

Clinton said that Cuba would have to first indicate that they were on a path to “real change”, and said how the Cuban people are “entitled” to democracy. She wouldn’t meet with them until they made certain policy changes. Obama, on the other hand, said that the idea that meeting with the President is some kind of privilege reinforces the idea that the U.S. is somehow above the rest of the world. He said that he absolutely would meet with them. Yes, human rights and democratization would be on the agenda, and that there would have to be preparation for the meeting, but that he wouldn’t put any preconditions on it.

Now, regardless of what your politics are – and this isn’t an endorsement of Obama over Clinton, but on this particular point, one might be completely horrified at Clinton’s response and applauded Obama’s. Obama is saying that we have to have a relationship in order to effect change. Clinton is saying that “they” have to change in order for us to have a relationship.

Is The Difference an Attitude?

Whether the President of the USA or the CEO of a large corporation, building relationships requires a conversation rather than a policy. Too many policies get in the way of having open and honest conversations from which both parties can learn the perspectives of the other and hopefully find common ground from which to establish a relationship.

Whomever we individually or collectively think we are none of us could possibly know everything needed to understand everyone. Arrogance is the fallacy of fools who believe they have learned and experienced everything life has to teach us. Sometimes, actually a lot of times, our own attitudes are our own worst enemy and until we can learn to have conversations with open minds nothing can be learned or gained.

How many times have employees and customers run into corporate policies that simply don’t make any sense or logic? Refer to yesterdays post about Jake McKee experience with American Airlines. Doc Searls talks often about how relationships create transactions and markets. How can we expand our world and solve problems of scarcity unless we’re willing to converse. Conversations start with a willingness to begin a relationships. That is the entire premise of The Relationship Economy.

What say you?

About Jay:
Jay Deragon’s professional career includes providing strategic management consulting services to Fortune 500 companies as well as local small businesses. He has consulted with numerous industries spanning over 25 years of professional experience globally. His current professional endeavors are all centric to the disruptive nature of the social web. He writes at Relationship Economy and provides social media strategic services to businesses large and small. Jay Deragon is an avid student of the emerging landscape of all things social and the subsequent impact on business dynamics. Since 2004 Mr. Deragon has been actively studying, sharing and learning how business as unusual is changing business methods, models and relationships. Life is a journey and the experiences along the way provides learning that furthers the experiences if we know how and what to learn. for more info go here http://www.relationship-economy.com/?page_id=2

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Thomas Clifford February 22, 2008 at 9:19 am: Jay,

Interesting post. Two quotes immediately jump into mind…

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” -Mahatma Gandhi

“Seek first to understand and then to be understood.” -Stephen Covey

Seems to me that Obama really does understand the meaning of the word “change.”
Scott Allen February 22, 2008 at 10:09 am: I thought one of the key points Obama made on this topic was regarding the consequences of what Clinton suggests. He said that treating a presidential visit as if it is some kind of privilege which has to be earned reinforces the idea that America is somehow above the rest of the world.

Again, the parallels to the business world are obvious. Many companies act like getting to speak to a supervisor or a manager is a “privilege” — something you have to somehow “earn” by going through the processes with their first line of defense.

I recognize that there are practical issues. You can’t let every single person who calls the company with a problem ask to speak directly to the CEO. But again, that’s not the issue — the point is that diplomacy, including “diplomatic” relationships between companies and customers, as well as between countries, begins with conversation, not with policy.
Marc Sirkin February 22, 2008 at 10:20 am: This was and will be the defining moment in these campaigns for me – I believe a similar issue was raised regarding Iran a month or so ago as well – with the same responses from both Obama and Hillary. It’s about trust, humility and conversation.

There is a larger issue here that is affecting not only politics, but marketing and society in general. Having a 2-way conversation (is there any other kind?) with your customers is the right way to build a relationship both in the short and long term.

Obama’s got it right on this account – he clearly understands the term “Relationship Economy.”
Margaret Orem February 22, 2008 at 10:34 am: This reminds me of something that Thomas Power , Chairman of Ecademy suggested that I consider:

In the U.S. the thrust is to conduct business and then develop a relationship, while in the U.K. people develop relationships and then conduct business. Extrapolating that to politics does not seem far afield.

How many missed opportunities have there been and will continue to be when individuals use positional bargaining or when some pick up their toys and go home when others don’t follow their dictates?

It seems to me that controlled, civil, and respectful conversation has always been the mechanism to ease strained relationships and to cultivate new ones, no matter what area of life is involved.

In The Relationship Economy, the thrust is to cultivate relationships, in every media, which will provide value to our lives.
Carter F Smith February 23, 2008 at 3:37 pm: The bottom line is that all these politicians need is a crash course on relationships. In the marketplace, the reaction to someone who completely and totally offends your offering of a relationship is the removal of that offering, the commitment to take your business elsewhere, and (if they were really offensive) the commitment to report this offense to everyone you know, everyone they know, and as many people as you can by a variety of broadcast mediums. In government and politics, we have to wait a bit longer — usually around four years. Nonetheless, we all remember the ways to get involved in politics from our American Government class, right? If you don’t like the way you are represented, either jump on the bandwagon of someone you agree (more) with, or build your own bandwagon.

Just to make things a little more complex, some scholars are reporting that genetic predisposition can account for up to 50 percent of our political ideology. This revelation comes like a cannon ball in the gut (I’ve never felt it, but I watched enough cartoons as a child to be able to imagine how it feels). Could it be true that it is actually our gut that affects our political persuasion?

http://carterfsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/arrrgghhh-all-those-years-studying.html