There is no second opinion on the fact that most corporations have taken a serious note of the existence of social networking sites and are keen to explore what it means to them and for their businesses. Everyone agrees that it is a new ball game and no one really is an authority. Everyone is learning.
Some organizations have started tweeting and posting industry news. Facebook has digital images of advertisements and TV ads added in the video segment. Some corporates entertain comments and feedback from social network groups while most don't. Organizations, such as the police, seem to have taken to Facebook. You can post on their wall, pictures and videos linked to corruption or illegal license plates or cars with illegal red pilot lights and other incidents, and you see the police department responding with either a promise to act or action taken.
I find organized business and social networks to be two extreme ends of spectrum, with nothing in common. The reasons for my belief are as follows:
- Organized businesses or corporates are focused on profits, market capitalization and shareholder wealth creation. They have short-term and long-term targets and metrics that revolve around these parameters. Participants on social networks have no such goals. These groups revolve around, common interests and stuff that excites them. This stuff could be anything from Katrina Kaif to coffee to cricket to corruption or cancer.
- Organized businesses or corporates are structured entities. When you join a corporate house, you are fitted into an organizational structure with clearly defined roles and KPIs handed down that you need to meet in a pre-determined time frame. You can create a career progression and a development path along with the HR and walk that path based on merits of your performance.
- Social networks are different. Participation is voluntary. Each participant has a very different goal and each individual can publish his or her motives and goals to garner support for the cause. People gather around the cause based on how well it emotes with them and the success is primarily a function of how many people believe in it and are willing to participate in an action needed to take the cause to its logical end. A case in point is the India Against Corruption drive.
- In a corporate house, while there is a debate around ideas, once a decision is made, the enterprise collectively approaches to meet the goals even if a few key individuals were initially against it. The enterprise is supreme. On the social network, no such rule is binding on participants of the social groups. People will walk away from a movement as quickly they walked in with support. All of this could happen in a flash and without a warning.
- Enterprises work on streamlining people, processes and systems into a cohesive and well-oiled machine to meet specific targets. Behind every successful delivery in the corporate house, there stands a well-oiled machine.
Social networks are different. Participants of social network build resources and the means of deployment on the fly, as the idea starts capturing imagination. Idea originators tend to initially do this on their own and gather support around them unlike a corporate house where you get to present your ideas, work the back channel and make a pitch to secure resources. In the world of social networks, there are no key individuals at the helm and hence no back channel to work. You are not sure how your cause will emote with the social network participants.
The habitats of the corporate world and that of the social enterprise, even though most people play in both worlds, exhibit behavior that is at extreme end of every spectrum in each of these worlds. In such a scenario, do the enterprise culture and its way of life come in the way of an enterprise participating in social networks? Please note that most corporate employees are voluntary participants in a social network too and behave in a completely different manner on these networks.
To be continued...Read tomorrow's post: How To Win On Social Networks
