Community Guy - Latest Comments in Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Jake — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:18:38 -0000

@Jim Hirshfield - I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you...

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Jim Hirshfield — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:07:50 -0000

Jake - Very cool post...I'm more curious how you came to have dinner with all these 007's.

But on your point, I think this should also be a wake up call for many execs to abandon the war analogies in business. (Does The Art of War still need to be required reading for biz execs? I couldn't get more than 1/2 way through it!).

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

alfredjr — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:30:11 -0000

Very insightful, Jake! I would go a step further, and say this history shows why Americans are so accepting of secrecy in government. People carried the "loose lips" mantra through the cold war, accepting government secrecy as necessary to "beat the Russians."

Anyway, it wasn't a political post, but I think the cold war secrecy aspect can't be ignored for why this attitude has lasted 3 generations. The internet boom happened after the Berlin Wall fell, remember, and it wasn't for lack of computer networks, there were plenty all through the late 70's and 80's.

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Rachel Happe — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:14:31 -0000

Really interesting observation. I had always attributed the distancing of corporations from their customers to mass media and the rise of Madison Avenue ad agencies to develop 'mass communications'...and I still think that was a major influence. However, coming on the heels of the war, that distancing between corporations and their customers must have seemed acceptable to customers because of the highly secretive/secure environment during the war. Interesting - thanks for the post - and Aaron to passing it along!

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Jake — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:26:51 -0000

Iz, to clarify, I'm not making the point that secrecy during war is bad or good. I think in the case of WWII, secrecy was very much needed.

My point was just that we've been carrying the legacy of during-war secrecy (and perhaps more specifically the fear of breaking that secrecy) for three generations now. We've seen the business culture shaped for a long time by the culture that was established during the war that sharing was inherently bad.

These days, however, we have a generation growing up with little to no connection to this legacy and it's changing the way companies operate and interact generally.

Yes, openness for openness sake is foolish, and there absolutely ARE times when secrecy matters. But hopefully we're moving to point where the goal is to choose what information and interactions NEED to be locked down rather than locking down absolutely everything and having to make a case which pieces can make it outside the four walls.

The real point of this post was merely to say that we are a result of our context. History shows us that we are never that far away from the events that came before.

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Aaron Strout — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:01:36 -0000

Jake,

Your post/research is fascinating. I had always just accepted that business in the U.S. favored closed/tight-lipped communication. Having recently read about WWII and the necessity for not talking openly, I can see why many of today's leaders whose parents experienced WWII first hand were indoctrinated in this way of thinking.

Once again you are delivering value into my RSS inbox. Keep the great ideas and information coming.

Best,
Aaron (@astrout)

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Ben Martin, CAE — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:39:05 -0000

Seems to me that the real key to keeping the ships afloat is open ears, but I agree that getting customers to talk with you means loosening the lips.

Re: Silence meant security: Overcoming WWII Propaganda

Iz — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:19:34 -0000

Not sure how I feel about this post. I don't condone the secrecy that surrounds the war in Iraq, and I don't condone corporate cover-ups. But the rationale behind these requests during WWII seems to be to be solid, not manipulative or secretly about PR. They really WERE trying to protect our nation's security. And talking about operations really WAS dangerous to us.

I think it's important to separate between when information is hidden because it will make the perpetrator look bad, and when information is hidden because it will hurt something important. I guess in the end I am not a fan of openness for openness' sake, and I'd need to be convinced with a post more convincing than this one -- which basically assumes the reader shares the writer's views.