Skip to main content

10 Typical Concerns About Social Intranets

I am not suggesting that these are right or wrong, only that they represent the kinds of things people say. I am also not suggesting that having concerns is inherently a bad thing. In every single organization I have worked for, some variation on these themes has come up.

1. "If they (employees) have an open forum and complain about something, we will be liable if we don't fix it."

2. "They will complain nonstop. Especially the troublemakers."

3. "They will spend all day talking about nothing, instead of doing their work."

4. "The union will be all over us."

5. "Do you know how many (legal, IT security, HR...) issues this brings up?"

6. "And who is going to staff this thing?"

7. "What is the authoritative version? What if someone puts out misinformation?"

8. "If the employees can just communicate with one another, what do they need communicators for?"

9. "Work is not social. Work is work."

10. "I don't understand why they can't just use email."

My own personal view is that the more evolved your leadership and management culture is, the less likely you are to hear these kinds of things. Because the workplace of the future is essentially about a geographically distributed small team, collaborating within a larger network, to get things done. Open communication promotes trust, and trust promotes collaboration.

Of course the elephant in the room is = what happens when we are so productive with so few resources and such high technology that we simply don't need as many staff? And don't need the traditional hierarchical management style (read: SES jobs and excessive layers of middle management). What happens when people simply join the civil service, self-organize, pick a project, and check in with compliance experts to make sure they are following the law?

I can't answer that, but economic realities will force us to ask the question.


Opinions my own.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …