The answer's social media - now what's the question?

Another cross-post from insideleapfrog.com

Last week I read a request for help on LinkedIn that so vexed me that I’m still thinking about it a week on.

A member of an IC interest group wrote: “I’m struggling to engage a specific group of employees who are reluctant to embrace social media any suggestions on some new innovative ways?”

My response was: “Do they have to embrace social media? It would seem that whatever the question is for IC pros at the moment, the answer is ‘social media’. Sometimes, in its many and various forms, it is the answer – but not always. 

"We seem to be losing the art of face to face communication and the appetite for traditional comms. In the rush to embrace the electronically-driven social world, that could be a very costly error. Have you talked to this group? What’s their take on comms? Are there channels and media that they appreciate and respect? What’s worked for them in the past – do you know the reasons why they’re not embracing social media?”

“Without knowing that side of the story, it’s tricky to suggest a way forward. But, the newest, sexiest, shiniest forms of comms aren’t always the best for any particular group, and the worst mistake we can make is to impose what we like onto a group with a different (and perhaps just as valuable) perspective.”

The debate has gathered almost two dozen comments, with a group suggesting various options to draw this non-specified audience into social media, while others have either supported me, or in the case of Jim Shaffer, moved the debate on a little. Jim’s point is that we shouldn’t be arguing about traditional v social, but, as he said: “The question and a lot of the responses here are about process versus results or outcomes. What results are you trying to change? What outcomes do you want from “embracing social media?” It would seem that if people 1) had access to a solution that would improve a business outcome, 2) if it was in their best interests to make the improvement and 3) it was their idea to adopt that solution, they would.  Or that’s what usually happens. Asking people to embrace social media is like asking them to embrace posters.”

For me, Jim’s hit on an issue that’s worrying me more and more as I engage with comms pros here in the UK. There’s a distinct band-waggoning on social with the result that any discussion of strategy or tactics that doesn’t involve the latest application of digital wizardry is kicked out the door in double-quick fashion. There’s an assumption that social is some kind of magic bullet – and that the likes of Jim or me advocating an approach that looks at audience needs, business outcomes and the best way for comms to enable such an outcome must be something akin to walking with dinosaurs.

It’s worrying to me in that we seem to be knocking back a good decade of internal comms evolution – the decade that took us from output to outcome and brought leaders across organisations out from behind their emails. To me, there’s a real danger that too much emphasis on social will push our leaders back behind their electronic walls – while too much emphasis on social media will over-dignify the technology, while underplaying the need for solid comms that brings people together in the right way to achieve the right outcomes. Too many people are getting a little too excited about the outputs again – without considering if they’re achieving the right results.

There’s so much talk of social media democratising business – but do you know what? Businesses aren’t democracies. And unless the principles of capitalism are about to fail, they’re not about to become democracies. I am immensely in favour of social’s ability to enable collaboration; to break down the barriers of geography and time zones. But it’s not a panacea. Surely it will enhance our communication offering, not replace all that has gone before?

Not according to Gartner, apparently. Last Thursday I headed up to Milton Keynes to listen to the very excellent Rachel Miller talking about ‘putting the social into communications’. In a really informative and entertaining presentation, she raised many points I agree with – and a few I’d take issue with.

Of course, the first slide above is Gartner’s interpretation. But really? 80% in two-and-a-half years? That may well be true in the largest organisations or ones that are staffed largely by Millennials. But it most certainly won’t apply to the pick and pack barns I work with, or the leave-your-own-device-in-your-locker call centres; or even among the care workers who regard their phones as something to use voice to voice.  We’re getting a little too carried away by the social wave – and I’m not sure enough people are holding it up to scrutiny.

To be fair to Rachel, she absolutely is – and was at pains in her talk to balance social media with other tools in our comms toolkit.  She emphasised strongly that social is a state of mind – it’s fit for purpose for some, but not all, and should be dialled up and down depending on need.

She raised another point though that I don’t want to agree with. It’s about the changing role of comms professionals.

   

Okay. I’m still with those dinosaurs. I’ve gone through the stage where IC ‘owned’ comms. We were the creators, shapers, packagers, and postmen; measurers, reporters and crank-the-wheel-againers. Rachel suggests that time has passed. The role of IC pros now should be to manage the display to ensure it’s as effective as it can be. The new tools and channels are placing comms in the hands of everyone in the organisation, and our role is to ensure everyone has a voice.

I’m not so sure for two reasons. First, that rapid evolution hasn’t reached most businesses yet. Even the largest organisations I work with are still operating in an old paradigm. Take up of the new-comms mantle is patchy, and the demand for good creative content from the comms team remains strong. Second, the curatorial model could invoke anarchy. Could you apply it to other functions?  Should we all do a bit of accountancy or a bit of IT. Shall we just use HR for a bit of window dressing while we do all our hiring and firing and people management team by team?  I like the idea in principle, but IC must do more than curate. We still need to take the lead. As much as the accountants are the experts (and not to be messed with) in Finance, we have to be seen to be the experts in comms. Yes, it’s more about facilitating, enabling and coaching than packaging – but this is not the time to abdicate responsibility.

I’m wondering if some IC pros are leaping towards that abdication because they don’t actually have the solid grounding in content creation?

As Rachel said last Thursday night: “Content is king, Queen and Jack.” Sure, we can’t own it all and nor can any IC Pro be an expert across all content fields. But actually, some of the old-paradigm dinosaurs have that expertise in bucket loads.

Perhaps the holy grail is about breaking the false divide. Social should not be separate from traditional. Everyone in IC should be focused on enabling the right business outcome – the process of how you get there is important – but what matters most is asking the right questions in the first place.

The Freelance Rules #4 - Establish a routine

When you move from corporate life to an independent operation, it's often very hard to establish an effective routine. It helps to know if you're really out of the corporate world for the long term or whether you're just passing through an independent phase for a short time while looking for that next great corporate opportunity. But if you've established that a microbusiness life is the working life for you, it's important to set a routine that distinguishes your work from the rest of your life.

That's what we set out to do when Jac and I set up Leapfrog, though 10 years down the line, I look back at some of the early thoughts (and early expense) and cringe. Having freelanced from a back bedroom for three years in the 90s, I was determined that Leapfrog would be different, so set about finding an office we could work from to give us a presence. And to a degree, Leapfrog was different - it wasn't just me making money from the venture, and I wanted  to be competing a little further up the business chain - getting the projects, not just the in-house overflow. So we sub let an office in Henley and then moved to a lovely office in Oxford - marble pillars and even a shared swimming pool! With the desks, the tech and even a sofa in it looked a treat. The problem was, we were hardly ever there.

My two main associates lived in Kent and Bedfordshire respectively - so while we occasionally met up at the office (and they even more occasionally worked from it), we were more likely to meeting in London where most of our clients were. And the fact our client base was in London largely negated the need for an office in Oxford. We'd selected it, cleaned it up and made it look welcoming because I naively thought we'd have plenty of clients coming to see us - but of course, that didn't happen. Since they were buying our brains and the ability to make their communication work, what they needed was us: sometimes in person, sometimes on the end of a phone - more often across a flurry of emails. In the first year of the Oxford office, I spent 40+ days working on Diageo's premises and more than 60 in London, Paris, Bristol, Brussels and Zurich on a project for Orange. For many of those days, the office was empty. It was something of a vanity expense and not in the best interest of the business long-term.

When Jac and I moved house, we decided to buy somewhere with an office built-in. The room I'm writing from now is an extension to the original extension on the house. It has space for two desks and is just about big enough for Leapfrog's needs. But it fits a changing microbusiness world. The business is portable and goes where the work is. Sometimes it's just me working on a project and at other times the network swings into action again - though now we're all connected over the internet from our respective home offices.

The difficulty working from home though is establishing a working routine. It demands discipline and balance - but can be far more productive than working in a office.

If I'm not at a client's premises, I'll be in here from 8.30 in the morning. I close the door and am 'at work'. The difference to being in a big corporate office is that I'm not called into a million meetings that are less than directly relevant to my work and I'm not also copied into all those interesting but not overly productive emails that circulate in any organisation. It tends to mean that when I have a task to focus on, it gets done quicker and with far less distraction.

Much as the office brigade may buy into the myth that we homeworkers just sit with feet up and the telly on when work is slack, I can probably count on one hand the number of days I've actually done that. Sure, I'll put the washing on and get the dishwasher going. I might even put out the bins, but from 8.30am - 6pm I'm in 'at work' mode. I will, however, break off for a natter with the kids when they come in from school and wander up to Costa to meet up with my fellow homeworkers - the very worst thing to do is to stay in the bubble all day with no external contact. I'm also very reward-driven: editing a document by such a time might earn me the time to read a chapter of a book; arranging my week's meetings might get a chocolate biscuit - that kind of thing.

I wish that all those hours in the 'office' during the week were billable, but of course they're not. But the trick is to make them productive nonetheless. For the last few years for me that has been fairly easy. I do some training and coaching, and there's always a deck to tweak or material to update. I'm also in mid-PhD and that, frankly, counts as my learning and development. So, as well as the part of the week I devote to university stuff (scheduled in, of course,) I'll grab a couple of hours here and there to take notes on a text or do a bit of online research. Then there's the necessity to 'stay connected' (see previous post) and the aligned need to keep up with clients and former clients and even potential clients to see where future work may come from. So, even if I'm not immediately busy on a piece of work, I have to keep myself occupied on ensuring there's work in the pipeline. And of course, business red tape ensures there's plenty of admin to fill the remaining time - as a microbusiness, there's no-one else around to do it for you (that was quite a shock after so long in-house).

When I started off running my own business, a more experienced colleague said: "Make the most of your downtime." A decade on, I know what she means.

Of course, routines are there to be broken, and one of the great advantages of being my own boss is that I've been able to walk my youngest daughter to school for much of the time we've lived here and can slip away more easily to school events than I ever could when I worked at Forte or Barclays. I even have the chance to take a day off on a whim.....though in practice, rarely do.

Rules get broken the other way too. While I endeavour to finish up my working day by 6pm (earlier if I feel I've put the right effort in), the dynamics of working to other people's agendas do still mean I work some late nights to hit rush deadlines. But it never feels so hard to switch off the PC at midnight and just walk up the stairs knowing I'm home rather than contemplate a late-night tube and train ride.

My routine works for me: others will find a very different way to make microbusinessing work. The trick is to find the balance that's right for you.