HR Newswire sign up
Follow us on twitter
Search:

STRATEGIC HR
Jul 9, 2012

Social media: What's really new?

Here's a hint: It isn't the technology or the policies and principles around it
    

By Dave Crisp

After two posts on social media looking at how businesses and HR are managed internally, it’s a good time to ask, "What’s really new here?"

The short answer is: "Both more and less than we think."

You may recall my major premise is we need everyone to adopt “new” leadership skills, but of course they aren’t really new. The behaviours needed to make leaders exceptionally effective today have been around through all of human history. It’s just that only about 18 per cent — fewer than one in five leaders — use them, even after 100 years in which they emerged as the most powerful styles.

In relative terms, 100 years is less than a blink in the 100,000 plus years of human history during which command-and-control leadership was most effective. We’re creatures of habit and evolution is slow.

Social media arrived on the scene as a phenomenon less than 10 years ago and, as business tool, it’s hard to say it’s even truly launched yet, maybe dating from only one year or so ago among the largest, most well-resourced users. So there’s lots to ponder and plenty to learn in a future that’s arriving with greater speed daily.

Fast Company’s newsletter this week highlights an opinion that effective ads on Facebook follow the same criteria our grandfathers would recognize as good marketing. Maybe, but the headline "Advertise Like Your Grandfather" is patently wrong. We appeal to the same things in customers and we have to catch attention powerfully and quickly, but what catches and how fast are arguably quite different.

Similarly, a few weeks ago speakers at a Strategic Capability Network event recommended a principle for policies for social media use within companies — following the same principles we’ve always used as standards of behaviour for staff — give no revealing confidential information (about people or the company), pay attention to decency and don’t libel anyone and so on. All the same things we’d ask people to sign as a code of conduct 40 years ago.

But the similarities fade when we recommend telling the unvarnished truth as we now want it. Instead of a PR face on problems, we expect everyone from the lowest to highest levels to own up, apologize and explain how things will be improved. More jurisdictions are even passing legislation to allow people and organizations to apologize without increasing their liability as if they’d admitted wrongdoing. We are striving to enable instant and automatic whistle-blowing without recriminations and that will eventually include public revelations that even today would be questionable.

The web site Talent Management highlights the increasing use of collected data to predict and guess secrets we might want left unrevealed. On the pure HR side, we’re moving toward very publicly posting individuals’ results — public performance appraisals — and struggling with how, not whether, to do it, something we’d have said would never be appropriate. Yet we still expect bosses to adhere to the principle of dealing with problem behaviour one-to-one in private or with only legally required witnesses present.

Some principles stay the same but the tone, timing and emphasis surely shifts toward more open discussion of pretty much everything. We hope for more sensitivity around the feelings of those involved and a search for the best ways to make it OK for everything to be transparent to anyone with the slightest need to know. Privacy is still a major concern, but now we struggle with how to achieve the transparency everyone wants while protecting the fundamental privacy individuals expect to take for granted.

Like it or not, social media drags these questions front and centre and won’t let us escape dealing with them. The good news is , sooner or later we have to recognize the paradoxes all this creates — where opposites are not only true, but valued by everyone. The only way to resolve paradoxes is to actually think, reflect on the opposites and try to find a workable balance that incorporates at least some of what’s best for everyone. Some call this "common sense."

Whether we like it or not, this is where we’re being driven. I can’t wait for the day when we face the challenge squarely to make this the number one principle in every situation. Are our courts up to it? Are our institutions? Are we?

Dave Crisp is a Toronto-based writer and thought leader for Strategic Capability Network with a wealth of experience, including 14 years leading HR at Hudson Bay Co. where he took the 70,000-employee retailer to “best company to work for” status. For more information, visit www.balance-and-results.com.
    
COMMENT ON THIS BLOG POST
Headline for your comment (Optional)
Name (Required)    
Email Address (Required, will not be published)
Comment (Required)
All comments are moderated and usually appear within 24 hours of posting. Email address will not be published.
COMMENTS
How open, and why?
Friday, July 13, 2012 5:41:00 PM by Dave Crisp
Thanks George, I'm glad I'm understanding correctly that more and more transparency and open communication is becoming the norm. I think that's for the best. Social media is certainly a tool, but whether it's a harmless paintbrush, a sometimes dangerous, but useful hammer or a vial of nitroglycerin, there are different uses and abuses of tools. Sometimes the tool does lead the way in the sense that it enables much that was previously more difficult and so inclines many more people to use it. I think if we add Internet to the human brain we are collectively reinventing ourselves and the way we relate for sure. The question is how to maximize the value of the tool and minimize it's potential for damage.
How open, and why?
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:49:00 AM by George
Open discussion of issues, as a general principle, is what many of us in the "new" HR strive for. As with most principles, there are exceptions and moderators. In the great experiment of life, we are continually bouncing against the boundaries and checking to see if somebody's reaction to the bounce needs reassessment.
I'm currently in a polite discussion regarding the ethics of an executive who thinks nothing is wrong with appointing her daughter to a position that directly reports to her, in a non-profit organization. "What? That's not nepotism!"
What is your salary? Do you care who knows? Does your boss want others to compare salaries?
What is an intern? Isn't it illegal to require a person to work for you without pay, or to have other ESA conditions being met?
What is really wrong with Wikileaks?
Do I hear screams of "Yes, but..."
I agree that the new environment we are in allows those types of questions to be raised, more easily than would have been possible in the near past.
But is it "social media" that is leading the way, or is it one of the tools? A tool of what?
An anthropolgist might say that we are changing as a species - that we are reinventing ourselves (sporadically, and unevenly across our cultures).