The network and the podium are equally valid and effective ways to use Twitter.  At the end of the day, however, each of these ways reveals one common intention, which is the engagement of a community.

The podium represents one type of engagement approach, which I’ll call an "active engagement."  It is an attempt to inspire and enroll a community into a specific agenda or call to action.  The undertone here is “I AM” and “I have something to contribute in this moment.”  Active engagers who use Twitter as a podium are looking for community in the form of an audience.  At best, active engagers are real leaders and have the benefit of ALL in mind when they enlist others into their visions and calls to action. 

The network approach to engagement is a more passive type of engagement, though I don’t mean this in the pejorative sense at all.  The undertone here is “YOU ARE” or at the very least, “I’m open to what YOU have to contribute in this moment.”  “Passive engagers” are looking for community in the form of a tribe; they are as open to being engaged as they are to engaging.  At best, passive engagers who use Twitter primarily to network are the glue of a strong community and they, too, have the benefit of all in mind when they interact and connect with other members of the community.

There is nothing wrong with either of these approaches, and everything right with both of them.  In fact, I see them as being completely interconnected and interdependent.

The only pitfall, as I see it, is when we, as community members, get stuck on one side of the equation without having the range or discernment to employ the other approach at the right time.  Not employing the right approach at the right time may mean that the community does not activate its full potential or realize its goal of true engagement for the benefit of all. 

For example, if one particular community member is only ever “actively engaging” or using “the podium” of Twitter, he may be missing opportunities in the way of CO-creating with a community.  It is through co-creation that some of the best ideas and solutions come into being.  He may also be at risk of being seen as less than human in his communications and only ever pushing his own agenda, not for the benefit of all, but for the benefit of himself, and this is anything but engaging. 

On the other hand, if one particular community member is only ever passively engaging (or using Twitter for “networking”) she may be missing opportunities to bring about what SHE wants to see in the world.  Don’t we all have a unique vision and perspective that can be leveraged?  At worst, networkers maintain a lot of relationships, maybe they even take on a lot of projects, but nothing of real value ever gets put out into the world.  And putting something of value into the world is the ultimate fruit of engagement, no?

We might do ourselves a service by taking a good look at what we’re doing now and whether it is working for us.  There’s nothing wrong with emphasizing one or the other of these approaches (as I’m sure we all do), but life has a way of responding to our intentions when we become aware of what we’re doing now and where we need to grow to come into our full authenticity, our full value to our community, and to create and co-create in a way that benefits the whole.

How are you engaging?  Are your approaches to engagement fulfilling your intentions for yourself, your company, and your clients on Twitter?

PS THANKS to the #usguys for inspiring this post.