The culture issue is a tough one. I tend to agree with Lewis’ notion of top-down culture because only those with control can set behavior expectations and dole out rewards and punishments based on adherence to the code. I think the notion of spontaneously-organizing culture, even online, is a false one. Wikipedia, for all its merits, is not nearly as “everyone gets to edit” as its own marketing would have you believe. To be organized and efficient you need an organization, and it has to be run by someone.

That said, it would be foolish for such leaders to dismiss the naturally-occurring cultural ideas that bubble up — so long as those ideas fit into the cultural framework that’s required to make the company effective.

I think of the much-lauded Zappos example that’s making the rounds these days. That company has an intense culture, but it’s been architected by the company owners/leaders, not developed by the staff or the customers. Now that they have the culture they intended, the company is growing wildly and they even pay new employees cold, hard cash to QUIT if they don’t want to work in the culture they company has developed.

Separately, I do agree that color-by-numbers approaches to business management or strategy are silly, but such frameworks simply help organize thoughts and give points on which leaders can mentally grasp the company. Even Bob Lewis would likely say that there aren’t really a set 10 dimensions in every situation. But it’s a way to frame the discussion, which is fine by me.

And I further agree with your point about public media not involving the public — that’s been a long-standing problem that, in the age of the Internet, is now being exposed. I’ve certainly seen senior managers dismissing the notion that we involve the public more in our deliberations about how best to serve our community. “It’s too much trouble,” or “we know what to do” are the common (albeit paraphrased) refrains. So we really don’t know how best to serve the community because, well… we haven’t asked!

(Some will debate me on that point, referring to studies or surveys and such. But those are mechanical procedures in most cases, usually used to reinforce what you’re already doing.)

As for costs and content, I don’t know that I would say content wants to be free. Everyone that consumes content wants it to be free, but that will never happen. There’s always a cost somewhere. Whether it’s your own time and effort in creating your own content or paying with your attention while watching advertising embedded with content or paying directly for subscription services — someone, somewhere has to make this stuff and they need to feed themselves and their families.

The cost of making pro-quality TV is astronomical and only getting worse. There’s a new class of production that’s several steps down from there, but then you have a generational and technology gap. The “old school” pubmedia producers all want to do “the best” and they assume that means they must spend the most. But I think true public service — the “best” we should be aiming for — is not based upon HD broadcasting excellence. It’s about being local, engaged, human, intelligent and open to the community. We should go cheaper on the tech and spend more on building relationships.

But that’s me talking.

As for these issues facing public media, I think the most challenging question to address is what, exactly, do our constituencies value in public media. When was the last time we asked them? What is it that public media does better than anyone else? What do our stakeholders think? If content wants to be free, then how do we convey the message of the costliness behind public media’s content? And why is it so costly? Can public tv and radio be accomplished with less expensive capital equipment? How many producers and editors are really needed to make good content?

Food for thought…
- Lisa