The dangers of being an evangelist

• Tweet

• Tweet

I don’t know about you but I detest ‘evangelist’ as a secriptor for people who handwave and bang the drum for anything new. It has connotations of over-reaching zeal that I personally find grating. Even so, it is a term that has gone into common IT vendor parlance so there it little to be done. Even so, I found Susan Scrupski’s brutally honest discussion as to why a presentation she recently gave on the benefits of new ways to work using the web illuminating.

Susan used the thinking of Gregory Berns as a backdrop for the difficulties she faced with a recent audience:

Gregory Berns, the Distinguished Chair of Neuroeconomics at Emory University.  Berns’ soon to be published book, “Iconoclast” outlines how and why iconoclasts essentially think and behave differently than non-iconoclasts.  In 2.0 evangelism, very similar to the role of an iconoclast, we’re attempting to change people’s behavior which Berns admits is difficult and uncomfortable.

Susan attributes her ‘failure’ to the fact she didn’t have a particularly high reputation quotient with her audience and that the details of the subject matter were unfamiliar. I’m not convinced about the first part of the explanation. I have seen many a presenter with whom I was not previously familiar weave magic and capture the imaginations of their audience. It’s a gift and one I freely acknowledge I do not possess. It’s why I rarely do public speaking engagements and try to avoid video unless it is in a situation where I have complete control. The second part of Susan’s explanation makes a lot more sense.

Convincing an audience to abandon technologies with which they have been familiar for many years is like my saying that double entry book-keeping is dead. It may well be but it works and at a core level keeps many professionals in business. Why would they consider abandoning a principle that has served them well for so many years?

I think this comes down to something that many social media and new technology pimpers forget. Solutions are only any good if they are solving an identifiable problem. Too often I see social media people trying to force fit solutions based on a perceived need. It is all done with the best of intentions but it is a fundamentally flawed strategy. Here’s a good illustration.

The other day, my good friend Tom Raftery was arguing that the $700 billion US financial industry rescue plan paled into insignificance compared to the good that could be done by investing a fraction of that amount in greening technologies. He may well be right. Many of us at least vaguely know we’re all going to hell in a hand basket if we don’t get a grip on climate change issues. But it isn’t top of mind in the US. Not even remotely close. Given the choice of an immediate resolution to what many believe is the imminent collapse of the US capital markets and a far off destruction of earthly resources is a non contest. The second reality is too remote for many to contemplate even though Tom’s argument is laudable. I suggested putting it in those comparative terms. Whether he does is another matter.

The same goes for many new technologies, or rather the way  they are presented. The flipside is that those who embrace the logic behind some of the new thinking will unquestionably benefit by carving out differentiated services. Experience also shows that those who do, almost always gain an unassailable lead, precisely because they think and act like edglings.

Business as a whole may not want to be on technology’s cutting edge nor take the risks that implies but that is not the part of the bell curve where I want to be. It’s not where I can maximize the value of the investments I make nor is it where I will find the best people with whom to work.

Susan concludes with:

I’m publishing this account of my experience to caution other evangelists to explore as many ways as possible to bridge the gap between what the client already knows and the richness of what you are trying to present.  Our eagerness to spread the “good news” of 2.0 will continue to fall on deaf ears if we can’t make the story relevant and compelling in terms the clients can appreciate.

While I think Susan is on the right track I think she misses an important trick. Clients will *never* buy into a solution unless it solves a clear and present threat, danger or other major obstacle. Offering an alternative without demonstrating massive, order of magnitude, mind blowing difference will at best illicit a shrug.

Further, we need to summon our own courage to overcome their innate biological fear of change in order to truly unleash radical innovation.

Brave words but fundamentally wrong. Nothing stimulates change more than existing fear or pain. Offering to inflict pain is a non-starter.

Back to the term evangelist. If memory serves me right, the most famous evangelist of all lost his head – quite literally. I would not wish that fate on anyone though very often I see that spectacle – metaphorically speaking – in the lunacy that passes for much technology evangelism.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Secret to Successful 2.0 Evangelism is found in Social Intelligence
• The Ellsberg Paradox
• Failure Now An Option
• My projects seem to be heading down the Long Tail
• The closest thing to Jedi mind tricks

Tagged as: Bleeding edge, Climate change, Emory University, Gregory Berns