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.
