When it comes to the social enterprise, don't ask "why?", ask "why not?"

In a recent research survey, consulting firms Gagan MacDonald and APCO Worldwide found that 51% of companies of 500 employees or more have already implemented some time of Internal Social Media (ISM) tool. Perhaps more importantly, their research found that 58% of employees would prefer to work for a company that uses ISM.

This quantified information comes in handy for me as I continue to find myself working to justify the value of ISM to business leaders.

As I've blogged here before in previous posts, many leaders are still not ready to be as honest (read: vulnerable) as ISM requires if they are to attain the level of authenticity that employees clearly crave. (In fairness to these leaders, employees apparently have similar apprehensions as documented in this post by Jacob Morgan.)

Too often leaders are accustomed to keeping the decisions they face, and their reasons for their ultimate choice on those decisions, behind closed doors. I understand why they would, since these decisions are often difficult because they will lead someone to be unhappy, no matter what choice they make.

But when it comes to business decisions, employees and the public are increasingly expecting more and more transparency.

Therefore when discussing the implications of ISM with business leaders, one thing I always prepare them for is the necessary shift in mindset from "why should we share this?" to "why should we NOT share it?".

Make no mistake, this shift is not insignificant.

The best leaders understand that they never had "control" of communications, and instead see the benefit of ISM because it gives them to opportunity to "direct" communications by engaging in ISM conversations. Leaders who participate in the discussions have an incredible impact in the effectiveness of internal communications, as demonstrated by the Gagan MacDonald and APCO findings that executive leadership accounts for 75% of an employee's perception of internal communications.

So the lesson here is, when it comes to ISM and leadership transparency, don't ask "why?", ask "why not?".

Have you had a similar conversation with one of your business leaders? Are you struggling to convey this message to your own clients? Or are you perhaps a business leader with a different perspective? I'd love to hear your thoughts so please share them in the comments below.

Don't let #McDstories McRuin your enterprise social media plans

In my line of work, I spend a lot of time allaying fears.  


I'm constantly reassuring my clients that they should take a chance and get involved in social media. "You've got to let your guard down," I say. "Be honest, transparent and humble, and constituents will reward you with loyalty and support. Put yourself out there." 


Usually it's good advice.


That's why the recent #McStories gaffe by McDonald's on Twitter is tough to watch. Because unfortunately, it's mistakes like this that serve as the perfect excuse for any business leader to NOT try something new. I can already hear my next client's response when I give her the advice above - "What are you, kidding me? You think I want to be the next McScrewup?" 


Ultimately such response would be a cop-out... a weak excuse to choose not to do the right thing for fear of the risk.


Yet this fear is more than present, it's pervasive. Client after client, experience after experience, I inevitably get the same question from business leaders I'm advising, usually in the form of "Can we delete negative comments?". (I blogged about this topic back in September 2011). This is effectively a question about risk and, ultimately, exercising control.


So I've decided to compile a list of reasons why this Twitter folly by McDonald's is different than the situation in which I'm advising my client, to prepare myself for the inevitable day when one of them references this as a reason not to take my advice. (Be sure your situation really IS different before using any of the arguments below).:

• Consumers are a different lot than employees. Employees have a vested interest in your success and therefore want you to succeed.
• While I don't advise censorship, you DO have control over the social environment in an enterprise, and therefore you can remove personal insults or profanity if they arise.
• With the above stated, employees generally want to remain employed, so they'll keep their criticisms constructive. And even if you allow anonymous posting, most employees feel you can still find out who they are if they state anything too negatively (and let's be honest, they're probably right.) 
• McDonald's brand has, for better and worse, come to symbolize ALL fast food, and fast food has legions of haters out there. These haters are just waiting for an excuse to pounce and talk trash about McDonald's, or fast food in general. You don't have this problem in the enterprise space.
• This campaign was ill conceived in that it doesn't address a legitimate issue. The original purpose of the campaign was to share the pride that McDonald's farmers have in providing quality food; however I would argue that most fast food customers know the food isn't good for them, and DON'T CARE. Why try to put lipstick on a pig when everyone's happy with the pig as it is?

Do you have additional arguments to the ones I've listed above? Please use the comments section below to add them.

Google's mistake demonstrates why they rule

I've always admired Google's approach to business and how they communicate. They're straightforward, simple and honest. And as a result, I've often referred to their style when counseling my clients on how to internally address business "issues" they're faced with.

Too often the client is hesitant to transparently communicate about whatever the problem is. Heck, they almost never want to use the word "problem", it's always an "issue". Yet I've always argued that straightforward, honest messaging is not only appreciated, but that it will actually gain you credibility. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than in Google's recent response to the buggy Gmail app they released - and subsequently pulled - for Apple's iOS 5.

A simple search online will easily get you the background on what actually happened, but suffice to say they made a new Gmail app available on Apple's newest operating system, and it had serious problems. After pulling the app, they tweeted the following explanation:

How great is that for an explanation?

Even better, I read this CNN article and frankly got a little defensive on Google's behalf. The comments from so-called "experts" imply that Google is on the brink of total failure and has lost all confidence from users. Then I read the comments attached to the article, and I was reassured that all is not yet wrong with the world. Here are just a few so illustrate my point:

btaylor328 said:
oh yea, reminds me of glass houses and stones. it's easy to throw the stones. like apple hasn't sent out mistakes, like MS hasn't sent out mistakes, like many, many companies haven't sent out mistakes. there isn't a tech company that hasn't launched a product that hasn't had mistakes, it's how you handle the error that should be praised or criticized. 

LIGHTINF said:
"Sorry we messed up." Accountability....that is what its all about. 2 thumbs up from this guy.

Houstondoc said:
Actually I like this.  They made a mistake and came right out and said it and are working to fix the problem.  This is better than apple did with Antenagate and now Betterygate.

Not only is Google getting praise for their honesty, but their competition is actually getting CRITICIZED.

I'd love to see more business leaders learn from this type of transparency. Especially in today's day and age, where employees are so sensitive to corporate-speak and, quite frankly, bullshit. To me this proves how people appreciate honesty, and will actually reward you for it with their respect and support.

I can only hope this type of courage leaks into the internal corporate space, if only just a little. It will be a rare but refreshing change.