"Following Jeremiah Owyang's post, I got a very practical comment from Beth Kanter asking the following:
I’m curious about your points about how to balance top-down mandates and completely grassroots adoption strategies? What works do you think? And, do you have a case study or step-by-step or some tips?
I was about to respond in the comments thread, but figured this warranted a new (albeit quick) post. Balancing top-down mandates and grassroots adoption can be tricky, but it's not impossible. Finding the intersection of corporate mandates and employee value can be summed up in one sentence:
Will it (social media project "X") help employees do the job you are paying them to do more easily?
Companies employ people so they can help them accomplish certain objectives. Employees are paid to help the company reach those stated objective. So there's inherent alignment of objectives and incentives. Social media should reflect that. If it can help employees do what their companies are paying them to do more easily, you've got a home run. Companies should focus on finding the tools that accomplish that.
But there's a big catch. The employees have to be the ones to determine what makes them more efficient. A few folks in the CIOs office, HR or corporate communications, really aren't the best arbiters of which tools employees feel will help them do their jobs.
Likewise, if a company's motivation to adopt social media tools revolves around something like solely saving money, it's likely to be met with a dull thud of non-participation. Employees aren't interested in saving the company money. They are interested in doing their jobs so they can be paid, go home and enjoy their lives.
So, when a company follows that model - listening to employees on what they think will make them more effective at what they are being paid to do, and then enabling them accordingly - it's a win-win.
All resulting in more time for employees to waste time on Facebook. (did I just say that?)"
No comments:
Post a Comment