I feel an interesting conversation potentially burgeoning here on RBC. In my eyes, it's never the initial discussion post or comment that provides value; rather, it's the ongoing dialogue that ensues. We may start on one topic, but the conversation may veer off on a slight tangent . . . upon which there are nuggets and insights that are beyond invaluable. To me, such is the power of a social network that encourages and embraces user-generated content.
Pam, good point - there can be a mix of both. When it comes to conferences, there better be, right? Especially when it's two days of talking heads!
My question is more along the lines of a single presentation, say 60 minutes. Would you look for the mix still? (the context is more for today's times than generally speaking)
P.S. There is no right or wrong answer - if it's right to you, then it's right! :)
Great response and I truly understand where you're coming from, John - there is a time for group discussion and there is a time for a tried and true Big Biller (many times over) to lead the floor amidst a backdrop of Recruiters that want to 'bill bigger'. Maybe it's just me (admittedly so), but I don't believe the world has changed so much. Our ability to collaborate and communicate has, and I believe that education frees the mind (i.e. we finally elected a minority President), but is the notion of human community so different in a hyperlinked world?
At the sake of sounding funny, I've attended Danny Cahill's training and heard marginal producers question him - I've been there in person. He fields those questions and I can promise you he answers them point-blank. However, this is day-long training as opposed to a keynote. I'd also be remiss not to mention that his material isn't for an Internal Recruiter (hence his partnership and presence at Bullhorn).
This conversation will likely go on for the foreseeable future, but I do find myself asking where Leaders have gone? I recall an article I read about how Massive Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) have led to extreme collaboration and teamwork, but many in Gen-Y are afraid to grab the mantle and lead. Of course, this was an opinionated article, but it led me to reflect on where society is heading. Surely, there must be a middle ground. Providing motivation to others doesn't have to be indoctrinational or drill instructor-esque. For example, my younger brother just lost his job . . . and I'm trying to motivate and empower him through other ways rather than booting him in the rear (as hard as that can be) :)
P.S. I do think there is a time to be binary, and a time not to be . . . but I ponder the following about Danny Cahill: Has his charisma and motivational qualities become a cross to bear? I see so many position him as nothing more than a 'motivator', but I ask why? His material is rock-solid, however is his method of delivery (foundation-shaking) the reason for the positioning in the market? I wonder why I'm one of very few to step up and say they've learned something from Danny and become a better TPR as a result? Perhaps I'm in the minority.