Control or influence (not a social media posting)

Years ago, my sister-in-law had a boyfriend who was a producer on a music radio station and he was launching a new show with a new presenter.  One night he was writing all the letters from listeners that they would use in the first week of the show, which rather surprised me. 

He explained that he wanted to set a particular tone and that if you didn't you'd just attract lots of boring "can you play something by Daniel O'Donnell for my auntie who has a cold..." sorts of messages. 

His ploy worked and he's gone on to far greater things, like owning his own radio station for a while.

I remembered this the other day when thinking about the issue of control and social media.  I don't think it's new - it's been around for as long as we've had things like intranet fora and in quite a few places you can still see an official censor's stamp on postings on staff noticeboards.

And I think the control issue is one of the biggest barriers to the growth of social media in the workplace

There is in many organisations an entirely understandable concern that a disaffected but vocal minority could poison a whole workforce.  Assuming that there is little legitimacy behind the complaints, the logic goes that if you deny them access to the means of communication they won't spread and multiply.

I have a degree of sympathy with this view.  The internal communications team would be unwise to act as a convenor for mutinous debates.  Why put your credibility on the line so that the same old group of moaners and complainers can exercise their imaginary right to workplace free speech? 

However, I also think that you can't stop people having negative thoughts at work - denying people access to media doesn't remove the cause of dissatisfaction.  And organisations need some sort of safety value to allow people to vent steam from time to time.  As I saw Shel Holtz write somewhere, just because you're not listening, it doesn't mean they're not saying it.

But what interests me more is how do you encourage people to have the sort of debate on social media at work that is profitable for everyone?

I think this is quite legitimate to follow the lead of the radio producer and seed the debate with examples of the sort of thing you want.  From time to time perhaps encourage people you know to hold an interesting opinion to post comments if they will help the tone of debate or maybe open up new topics as a diversion if an existing strand is failing.

You won't kill a debate if it is real and people care about it - but it may provide enough of a diversion if it's the pet rant of only a couple of people.

With one proviso, I think it is acceptable to set out the parameters of the debate you expect on certain channels.  If you want a forum for questions about business strategy does it help people to have to wade through dozens of questions about the price of potato chips in the canteen or the allocation of parking spaces?

Clearly, unless you have a vehicle for these sorts of issues they will come up where you don't want them.  And you have to be wary of the impression you give if you attempt to suppress inappropriate or misdirected comment.

However, someone recently likened the role of internal communicators to that of a good dinner party host.  Finding enough topics of conversation that everyone can join in and making sure that the bore at the end of the table doesn't ruin it for everyone.

Liam

Comments

[Liam]

By way of a postscript, people may have heard the debate about Debbie Weil. If you haven't here's a link.

http://www.blog.ragan.com/shadesofgray/2007/07/blog_me_blog_you.html

Debbie has asked a few of her contacts to help her by chipping in to a blog she supports. Result - outrage from assorted blogger purists.

I pass no comment apart from observing that I might not have done it, but it's a tactic as old as letters pages on newspapers and political campaigning...

Liam