Can Social Media Thrive in Hierarchical Organizations?

The answer to the question, according to Gerald C. Kane (Associate Professor Social Media, Boston College), is Yes... But



The traditional bureaucratic hierarchies we are most familiar with do have a problem because most of them tend to shift decision-making processes upwards, to C-Suit level (the final frontier?  ;-)?). However, sticking to the bureaucratic information(and time!)-processing customs is bound to fail in a fast moving - digital and customer-focused- world. Kane comes to the conclusion that setting out the guidelines (C-suit approved) can be the most important step in shifting responsibility and action downwards, at shop-floor level. Employees will have enough "training" to "do the right thing". Are employees ready to take on this responsibility, and - even more questionably - is top-management ready to relinquish control? What will be the consequences for not choosing to "do the right thing"? Human beings will stay well, human? So, one can think of a million ways employees might "fail" to handle the situation properly? Maybe this all comes down to trust and training? In any case, what can be said for sure is that more research is needed.

Landscape offices

A quote from a book I am currently reading:

"Le bureau-paysage facilite le contrôle en cours d'exécution, la supervision directe, la transmission d'ordres. Il freine les échanges authentiques qui s'organisent à deux ou trois dans des bureaux ou à une douzaine en salle de réunion (Dupuy, Devers & Raynaud, 1988, p. 63)."

 This makes you think about the impact of office infrastructure on internal communication.

Cheers, 

Mark

DIRCOM: un bouc émissair idéal

Does the function of "internal communication officer" in reality come down to being the perfect scapegoat? Jean-Marc Décaudin & Jacques Igalens (2009) sure seem to think this way. Consider the following paragraph from their book:

"La grandeur et la difficulté de la communication interne sont entièrement contenues dans cette confusion des genres: on n'ose pas toujours reconnaître que derrière l'arbre de la communication se cache la forêt de la participation. Il est banal de rappeler qu'en entreprise, communiquer c'est à la fois informer et écouter mais l'écoute ouvre tout naturellement la voie au désir que ce qui est dit soit reconnu, considéré, éventuellement pris en compte. Communiquer, c'est entrer en relation, échanger et il est presque inévitable que cet échange engendre des attentes dont l'insatisfaction risque de rejaillir sur la communication elle-même (p. 8)." 

How do internal communication professionals feel about this? Looking forward to the empirical operationalization of my PhD research. Excited to see the results that will come out.

Follow this blog in order to know more. Updates soon!

Cheers,

Mark

Reference of the citation:

DECAUDIN (Jean-Marc) & IGALENS (Jacques). La Communiction Interne. Stratégies et techniques. Paris, Dunod, 2009, 218 p. ISBN: 97821000528981

The Dilemma Of The Social Scientist

"The dilemma of the social scientist in the organization is this: to show that his knowledge 'works' and can fashion techniques that can master the world in the manner of the natural scientist he looks up to, because they are based on valid, objective knowledge, he has to commit himself to values which emphasize control. In his objectivity there is a commitment, not to humanity's control of the natural world, as the applied natural scientist may affirm, but to man's control of man, to one side or another in a field of conflict (Albrow, 1980, p. 282)."

ALBROW (Martin). The dialectic of science and values in the study of organizations. In: SALAMAN (Graeme) & THOMPSON (Kenneth) (Eds.). Control and Ideology in Organizations. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1980, p. 282.

Really interesting paragraph in a book on control and ideology in organizations

Hi guys,

Today I take the word "Blogging" seriously by doing just that: "back logging". I have read a really interesting piece on the role of the internal communications expert within the organization. The words of this author are over 30 years old but still surprisingly newsworthy:

"If an organization is especially dependent upon the unity or support of its personnel it will again devote considerable resources to the intelligence function, in particular by employing 'internal communications experts'. The internal communications specialist supplies political and ideological intelligence the leader needs in order to maintain his authority." 

The exact reference of this paragraph is as follows:

WEEKS (David R.). Organizations and decision-making. In: SALAMAN (Graeme) & Thompson (Kenneth). Control and Ideology in Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 1980, p. 204.

I do have a comment on this though: I think the author assumes a number of things without providing evidence from own empirical research or existing literature. I think there is a need to do just that.

Questions regarding this paragraph:

• How to define how dependent an organization is on its employees? 
• When do you speak of "considerable" resources? 
• Which activities do you consider as being part of the "intelligence function"? 
• Does an internal communications expert really provide mostly political and ideological intelligence? 

As you see, quite a few things still need to be looked at in closer detail. 

So you are an expert on EU foreign policy?

• Shania Twain: So you are a rocket scientist? That don't impress me much.. uh, uh, uhu, oho, yeah, yeah...

• IES Alumnus: no, but I am an expert on European foreign policy...

• Shania Twain: *Speechless*

• IES alumnus: Finally, something that does impress her!

Simplicity is not in the EU dictionary... Too bad it only impresses a US country singer...

Baby boomers beware of the big bang

"(...) until now, adults have always maintained their domination of society on the laurels of the dictum

that knowledge is power. That was a notion that has, until now, translated approximately into age is power, as age paralleled knowledge. But now, in the IT world, that knowledge - the mastery of computing and its peripheral capacities - reverses this dictum (Okpaku & Kerby, 2008, p. 47)."