3 posts tagged “rob+paterson”

Zero.

Implementing social media systems in a business will only add value with adoption and usage. JP asks: "Does it make sense to have asymmetric information within the firm? Once we start acting as if information has value by and of itself, it is only a matter of time before people start using this information to gain personal advantage within the firm."

That is why social media in just about all its forms requires openness, transparency and trust. But, for all their protestations, that's not how businesses typically function. So I'm a little surprised that Martin Koser is stressed by the fact that "Management is supposed to be [a] people business, it is inherently social by all accounts."

Management is, but business is not. Business is mainly about the bottom line. And that is why Susan Scrupski points out that many businesses think 'social' equals productivity drag.

But collaboration using social media can help the bottom line if it is in the flow, a part of the every day, part of the nature of a business. Rob Paterson asks, hypothetically I think: "Isn’t an underlying principle of 2.0 that it uses nature’s rules and hence should make everything a lot easier?"

For early adopters of social media, social media already is part of everyday life. The SF Web2.0 Expo is not the first to use live audience participation (this time through Twitter), and sometime soon many company staff events will follow suit - a trojan mouse if ever there was one.

Unlocking the ability of a business to collaborate, to activate a virtuous circle able to create new knowledge is where the value of social media in the business lies. As JP concludes:

"We should concentrate on providing good service and good product, concentrate on providing that service honestly and diligently. And the money will flow. Not by hoarding information, but by freeing it up. Collaborating with each other, within the firm, with our customers, with our partners, with our markets. Even with our competitors."

There are many FUD-related reasons for companies to hesitate about social media, and while sometimes it seems that the leading lights are too far ahead of reality to be relevant, along comes Shel Israel's recent experience on FastCompany TV.

Here's someone who has tried something new for him, and understandably is learning as he goes along. No big deal? Like 24-hour rolling news, everything has the potential to be a big deal in the blogosphere. And like the stand-up blogger he is, Shel has openly accepted the feedback and moved on. He even points to Tyme White, who says that Shel "is his own best story of how social media can impact a company and a brand."

And that's the point for companies. They may think that they can avoid getting involved in the conversation, but that doesn't stop the conversation or its impact on a brand. As Kami Huyse says, you can't control the conversation, but you can - and should - take part.

Fast Company changed its business model and brought in Shel because the world changed. In comparison, CBS has buried its corporate head in the sand while the world keeps on turning. Rob Paterson warning is apt not just for CBS, but for companies who continue to wait for all the right answers: "Moving to this new world is NOT ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY. It is about culture. If you are imbued with their old culture, it is unlikely that you can make the shift."

Trying is nearly always better than wondering what could have been.

Whatever size company you work for, it’s frustrating knowing that there's information worth sharing out there, but either you just can’t get to it or it can’t get to you.

What to do is to open up both paths so that there's nothing in the way of two-way information flow. Companies traditionally set up editorial panels to meet and discuss story ideas. An alternative now might be to turn as many employees into journalists. I like Scott Karp's swing at defining what a journalist is for Web2.0, as I think it opens opportunities within corporations:

"Being a journalist and practicing journalism is no longer strictly a function of where you work - it’s a function of what you do — and how well you do it. Not everyone who publishes on the web is acting journalistically - VERY far from it. But we need to embrace the reality that not all the people practicing journalism, for better or worse, are working for traditional news organizations."

Businesses should equip as many of their employees as possible with the right tools - a mobile phone with a camera would be a minimum - and let them send the information to you. Then, the editorial panel can act in a more value-adding role. Scott summarises discussions on the role of the trusted human editor by, among other things, leveraging a "fabric of trusted individuals / people who are trusted and credible."

This might be slightly counter to Rob Paterson's take on why organisations can't collaborate - insofar as I do not believe that they break "up work and people naturally into separate and competing parts."