Social media tools (or collaboration, or email, or ...)
By now, many people at EMC really "get it" that this is the next big thing to propel our company forward. It changes the way we interact and contribute to EMC's success.
But there's a very hairy debate looming -- and the answer will define not only the future of social media at EMC, but at every company on the planet that attempts this.
And there's no easy answer.
Controlled environment and rollout? Or an experiment in emergent behaviors?
This is one of the key debates that's emerging in companies deploying social media.
And, I believe, both sides are wrong.
The Controlled Perspective
These people are in the majority.
They want to make sure that there are clear policies and procedures in place before anyone does anything on a social media platform. They want to understand each and every risk associated with social media, and have a plan to avoid it.
They favor neat, heirarchical taxaonomies. Large, centralized functions that control and work in the environment. Maybe they don't work for IT, but they want it to look like an IT project.
They are very concerned about secure or inappropriate content ending up on a social media platform, even if it's behind the firewall.
These people have a very powerful argument, based on past history. They point to uncontrolled use of email, SharePoint, eRoom, Notes etc. and say "look, we don't want this to happen again".
Somewhere along the line someone may have used a platform inappropriately. And they point to large repositories where taxonomies have utterly failed to bring order to chaos.
They have practical concerns about scale, availability and administrative overhead.
And they're right -- the wrong platform in the wrong hands can have some negative consequences.
The Emergent Perspective
These people are in the clear minority.
They believe that centralized authority and policies restricts the use and adoption of social media platforms. They believe that -- over time -- people figure out how to use things effectively, and natural evolution takes place at a surprising rate.
They point to the web and all of its fascinating derivatives as a public example of wildly successful collaboration and interaction that's happened without a centralized authority and a heirarchical taxonomy.
No one runs the web, they say. And anyone can do whatever.
Any attempt to control it (e.g. government authority) is absolutely futile, they observe. People just find another way to connect and interact. DNA figured out a way to organize itself to create all life on earth. Who are we to say we have a better way?
And they're right -- we all want to live in a world of the web, warts and all.
Most of the worlds' content and interesting interactions has ended up there. And, if any of us are willing to invest the time, we can find what we want, and the people we want, on just about any topic you'd care to think about.
The Hybrid Approach
I think, at least in our particular use case, there's an interesting middle point that combines the best of both worlds..
Let's start with a big party analogy
Maybe it's your high-school reunion.
At the party, someone's done some prep work. They've sent out invitations, found a room, brought some refreshments, decorations, music, etc. They've created a nice place to bring people together and interact.
That's an up-front investment in time and money that someone had to pay for, otherwise there'd be no high-school reunion, would there?
If you think about it, there are some implied rules of behavior at the party. Dress appropriately, perhaps. Or make nice to people you can't remember, or would prefer to forget. Don't get stinking drunk and obnoxious. No loud arguments. Etc.
If someone ignores the default rules, other people drop clues that the person in question isn't respecting the norms of the gathering. Maybe these are subtle hints, or maybe not so subtle. If someone is really acting up, more direct action is taken.
Maybe even the police, given some parties I've seen.
But, as long as everyone respects the default rules, it generally works. People organize into smaller clumps, and start chatting. No one is monitoring the conversation for appropriateness. No one is saying who can and can't join a conversation.
If you're at the party, you're free to go from group to group, interact a bit, and move on. If you get tired of the party, you leave. Some of the conversations are interesting, many are not.
No centralized authority. No taxonomy of people or social groups. No command and control.
The central organizer simply brought people together in a friendly place, they all had something in common, and there was a general societal context for what good behavior and bad behavior looks like.
Now, we all can remember parties where there wasn't that sort of societal context about good and bad behavior.
People doing progressively more outrageous things as the alcohol (or whatever) took effect.
Yes, it's fun to watch those parties from a safe distance, but it can get really nasty really quickly. And can end up in some pretty unfortunate consequences for all involved.
The Social Media Perspective
We want to have a professional social gathering at EMC. We don't want a drunken beer-fest.
That means we have to trust people to act professionally. And if they're not quite sure what that means, we have to gently remind them. And if that doesn't work, well ... we have to be a bit more forceful.
The centralized approach assumes that people will do the worst. The result will be a controlled environment, and we'll lose the "social" in social media.
The emergent approach assumes that people (eventually) are doing their best. We'll have a very social environment, and hopefully some day a platform that delivers business value.
I think the answer lies somewhere in between.
I hope I can convince EMC of this.
Comments