Social media – the latest but not the last

Interest in the use of social media in internal communications shows no sign of diminishing. Which looks like it might result in some ‘wrong-end-of-the-telescope’ thinking by our senior stakeholders – particularly those who like to be up with the latest thing.

Nothing new in this. As I've said before, there were always those who wanted a video, or a DVD, which is now replaced with ‘should I have a blog?’ and ‘what should we do about Twitter/Facebook/Yammer?’

Wrong end of the telescope, for which read ‘looking at the challenge from the wrong direction’.  

One of the satisfying things about devising a solution to a comms challenge is identifying the range of channels that will best suit what needs to be done. Unless it’s a very simple challenge it’s likely that more than one channel will be needed as each has its own plus and minus points. Sometimes it can be useful to start with a simple analysis of the balance needed between one- and two-way communications. Mostly you’ll need both. Plus point of one-way communication is consistency for all audiences; plus point of two-way communication is that the dialogue allows feedback which, by definition, allows the message to be tailored and therefore it is not consistent.  To avoid everybody coming away with a different idea of what the message is you need a standard something for them to refer to (intranet page, leaflet, written brief, for example). To enable everybody to understand what the message means for them you need to facilitate that dialogue.

And while we’re on the subject of one- and two-way communication, I’ve heard it said that two-way communication is better. Not for everything, it ain’t. If you need something to be done fast, consistently and with clarity, one-way is best. As somebody once said to me, “if there’s a fire, you don’t want a discussion about evacuation procedures.”

Where does social media fit into this mix? Its greatest benefit is its participative nature. It can be quick in that what’s posted is there immediately, but this speed is reliant upon your intended audience identifying the message amongst the plethora of other information that’s there. And for it to work people must feel at ease with it. It’s tempting to look on this as an age thing and generally it’s true that 18-25/30 year olds are more familiar with it than old fogeys like me.  And given that senior level people again tend to be older than average employees this can help you decide what channel is best to use for what message. (In support of this I still know CEOs who ask for their emails to be printed out.)

Perhaps social media should be looked at as more of an employee engagement tool than a set of internal communications channels? Good discussion to be had there…

But even within social media, I think Yammer might be different. By all means use it to sow the seed of an idea or ask for feedback but I’d suggest it shouldn’t be used for key messages. Last time I did a channel analysis I included 19 channels that were managed by the internal communications function (including Facebook and Twitter) but the value in Yammer is that it isn’t owned by any one person or department, it develops organically into whatever the people who use it want it to be. To use it for key messages will make some users suspicious and destroy its meaningfulness.

Participate in Yammer as an employee not a comms professional.  Encourage someone else to set it up and hope it grows. Join it and contribute interesting and useful things that enliven people’s jobs and broaden their horizons. Just don’t try and manage it.