2009
Use
of social media will continue to cause problems for businesses. The
initial problem is trying to control it. Then the next problem is not
understanding how to leverage it.
All problem situations, regardless of the
specific kind of problem, have the same general structure. The three
elements of this structure are:
1. the problem state
2. the solved state, and
3. the solution path.
The practical implications of the general
problem relative to use of social media is one of apposing force
fields. On one side of the problem you have internal forces “pushing”
an organizations culture to do things the way management wants them
done. On the opposing side you have the market forces desiring outcomes
from the marketplace represented by the businesses who offer value to
the market.
Internal forces of a business represent
the collective interaction of people, processes, technology and
communications. Collectively these “forces” should be managed for
optimum outcomes that exceed any markets expectation. Doing so is an
aim of never ending improvement that constantly and forever “listens” to the wants, needs and desires of the external forces, the market.
The Force Field Of Social Media
Generally speaking users of social media
enjoy the freedom to communicate which the technology enables for
personal and professional objectives. Users are growing in influence
and power while the suppliers to the markets chase the users attention
and attraction to business propositions. The irony is that most
businesses don’t realize that the market of conversations includes
their internal resources, their suppliers and they do indeed
communicate.
The “field” between driving forces and
constraining forces is where either conflicts arise or opportunities
are realized. Conflicts represent unmet expectations which are then
communicated and either resolved or ignored. Opportunities are where
issues that impact the organizations performance are openly
communicated and resolved. Problems not resolved represent issues
that sooner or later get communicated into “the field” which lies between the two forces fueled by communications.
Current vs. desire
d conditions can either be improved by resolution or ignored. This
separation of current conditions vs. desired outcomes represents
organization opportunities to improve market relations and subsequently
revenue. Notice the term “market relations” which
implies “peoples” experience with the organization. People being
internal and external relations which engage with the organization.
The current reality – In the case of users
of social media, represents the experiences of the users — may be
viewed as a response to a complex set of interacting opposing forces.
The opposing forces are institutional methods vs. crowd methods
resulting from use of social media. This represents a field of forces
and the forces can go against you or with you. Going against the crowd
brings consequences. Many behaviorists might call it the “imbalance of consequences.” Because of social media the balance of power and influence has shifted to the people vs. the institutions.
Businesses want to increase economic
gains, users want the opportunity to to be heard and served. Why don’t
business leaders apply thought leadership and simply close the gap
between business wants and user desires? The reason is that
the power of communications has been unleashed to people and most
business leaders think of communications as the means to seek control
of their current environment.
The current environment has shifted away
from previous environmental constraints. This new “open environment”
of communications is both a threat to the old and an opportunity for
the new. Old v.s new is not about age rather it is all about thinking.
What say you?