All too often, organizations decide to rule with an iron fist. Why? I suppose because it’s easier to create binary rules which can be easily enforced behaviourally and technologically. Top-down communications is a great example not just because it’s clear what information is being pushed out, but which information, at what rate and in which direction.
That approach, and others, overlook one thing: people talk and always have. It started a long, long time ago with face-to-face communications using body language, then spoken language with town criers and messenger, which led way to written language and the postal system. Don’t forget about smoke signals. Then the telephone, radio, television and this thing called the internet.
Organizations have embraced many technologies over the years to help with communications, business development and networking. None has been more controversial than the internet which offers ample opportunities to build and sometimes destroy business with a few keystrokes. As a result, an increasing number of businesses are waging war on democratized social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter.
The biggest fear is the rate at which information travels. Gone are the days when an employee would leak information to the wrong person at a social gathering and find the information reaching the press several days or weeks later. Stories break on the internet, particularly Twitter, on an hourly basis and companies don’t like that the data doesn’t know social, geographic or political boundaries.
Things have changed significantly and quickly for business. I understand their concern. Particularly since the new wave of authentic, transparent and regular communication is something the establishment hasn’t yet embraced. Old traditions die hard. We have to graduate through another generation of business leaders, perhaps two, before modern social communications finds its way into the fabric of the corporate world. Until then, communications will remain the work of an individual or specific team, not the entire company.
In my work over the last few years, I’ve become aware of a number of situations in which sweeping decisions were made with little thought about the impact. For example, many government departments I’ve worked with have blacklisted Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. Those restrictions also applied to the communications and human resources department, teams that could benefit from using social media to monitor conversations, participate in conversations, recruit and check up on potential hires. Getting exceptions for these departments was/is challenging. Conversely, I’ve heard of some forward thinking companies that recognize making allowances for personal use of the company phones and internet connection means people are happier at work and don’t have to leave the office for extended periods or sneakily try to do online banking at the office.
Some people I’ve spoken with noted that their management views social networks as unproductive use of time, apparently forgetting ill-planned and poorly executed meetings, many of which start late, end later and achieve nothing.
There are many ways social media tools can work for companies. The simple lesson to remember is that people talk, no matter which channel is available to them. The companies that create a culture of trust and provide support and education are best positioned to manage and even benefit from the use of social media.
comments