Recently Jeremiah Owyang released the Altimeter report “The Two Career Paths of the Corporate Social Strategist. Be proactive or become ‘Social Media Help Desk’.”
Owyang asked 140 Social Strategists what made them successful. 46% attributed their success to their “willingness to take risks.” One other noteworthy trait, and my personal favorite, was “ability to keep a cool head.”
Owyang’s report reminds us that getting support for social is no easy task. The person who does this has to basically have super-powers. It’s that hard. The issue must be attached from all angles.
Joie De Vivre–Joy of Life (can be found at work)
Last Sunday I found myself at the Samovar Tea Room for the Zappos delivering happiness event. There were a handful of guest speakers accompanying Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos and his Delivering Happiness crew. One stand-out speaker was Chip Conley, CEO of Joie De Vivre, also the author of Peak: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo From Maslow.
Chip mentioned the Maslow hierarchy of needs–highlighted in his book–in his talk on Sunday. I can’t blame companies for not considering this hierarchy in managing average companies. It’s very easy to forget “the human condition” when you are trying to hit quarterly goals.
Owyang’s report on the “social strategist” reminds that the biggest hurdle in getting wide-spread adoption of social business is not the user friendly software. The challenge resides in legacy corporate cultures.
There are a few companies that don’t have this problem. Tony Hsieh of Zappos gets it.
When I say “it” I mean the fact that companies that recognize this hierarchy of needs see the return. We don’t need fancy consultants or expensive software programs to start experimenting with social. We just need a culture that’s ready.
After the Zappos event last Sunday on the Delivering Happiness bus I asked Tony Hsieh about social CRM. I told him how frequently his case study is cited.
He laughed at me. And he always laughs at me when I throw out fancy jargon generally used by our industry.
The concept “social CRM” is not complicated. It’s very simple. It wasn’t complicated for Zappos because social slid in easily with their culture. There is a culture war going on. And avant-garde leaders–literally meaning “out in front at battle”–like Tony–are changing the world. But most of us are still on the sidelines watching–a result of what is possibly performance anxiety–at the corporate level.
The Dark Side
When I asked an old friend–who was an executive director–what makes people show up for work, he told me fear. I politely disagreed and I still do. Fear paralyzes workers. It is demotivating. How many of you have worked alongside employees who don’t show up for work even when they do?
Knowledge work requires critical thinking, problem solving and focus. Companies with mentally checked-out employees see their sales will fail.
We’ve known this for a few years. A report released back in 2007 noted companies with low levels of engagement saw operating income drop more than 32 percent and earnings per share drop over 11 percent (Towers Perrin).
Legacy
One of the most cited management gurus in the world is Peter Drucker. I recognize that Drucker, during his time, had very forward-thinking ideas about management of knowledge workers. But the reality is today his management tactics are outdated.
His books don’t consider disruptive technologies.
Advances in collaboration technology throw out many of the legacy rules we are accustomed to.
For example, Drucker encouraged managers to model the military in leadership style. Simultaneously he preached companies should treat employees like volunteers, free to leave at any time. This is counter-intuitive to me.
You are either using fear tactics, or you are not. And those that use fear tactics are not even aware of it—it’s that ingrained in the culture.
It will take more than a few Jedi-mind tricks for change agents and social strategists to convince upper management of the value of social. We are years away from where we need to be in corporate America. Yesterday it was reported that Wal-Mart made 3.5 billion dollars in the third quarter–and most of this revenue came from overseas. With the state of the American economy, social business might save us–unfortunately it’s going to have to be much faster than we are currently moving.
This can’t happen fast enough.
Blake,
Keeping up with all things “social” in business is misdirection. From a business perspective being social is not the endgame and as you point out it is hard to stay at the top of the latest social thrust. I suggest business people see social as an important vehicle in addressing three businesses imperatives. One, the flat, collaborative and engaged elements of a social business build in the capacity to adapt to today’s fast-changing, uncertain and complex business climate. Two, social business encourages employee engagement and while this can have economic value it contributes to employee satisfaction and commitment. Third the customer relationships, if it ain’t reciprocal it ain’t a relationship that will last.
If corporate social media strategist set these as their goals they don’t have to be swayed by what others are doing to be the most “social” company. They also gain a lens by which to judge whether a technology company has and offering that helps them in their mission. Just like interpersonal relationships, every company should strive to build uniquely meaningful relationships. Social can be the vehicle.
John
John
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I interviewed R “Ray” Wang this week for CMS Wire and he had some really interesting comments on disruptive technology. http://bit.ly/acrDQJ
Firstly he highlighted the fact the not all technologies are going to help the company become more social. Relationships are now P2P not B2C or B2B. The software must understand that.
The technology is important but should be an afterthought. Leaders need to address the culture roadblocks within the company that hinder the use of social media. Leaders need to have candid conversations with all of the heads of the business in addition to employees from each department.
If you implement fancy software and moves too quickly without addressing objectives and culture-the process will take longer and be more difficult.
I would love to hear your thoughts on how social media is couched within “innovation” as a discipline. Any thoughts?
B
Hi Blake,
I very much relate to and sympathize with the sentiment of your post. I also agree with John that the socialization of business is not the solution and moreover with the three business imperatives he mentions in his comment.
More importantly I believe that the Corporate Social Strategist should not exist. I see a lot of “Social Media” specialists rising in the corporate ranks, mostly as part of the marketing or corporate communications department. This has very little to do with “strategy”, it’s plain fear of the unknown or un-understood..
Companies which are a little further down the maturity road form multidisciplinary teams to get a certain job done. These are the normal trivial jobs we have been doing before: Saving costs, increasing revenue, improve customer loyalty, increase employee retention, collaborate, innovate, communicate etc etc.. These teams will seek opportunity to meet the projects objective by leveraging the new technology.. This is NO different than we have been doing things before..
The sentiment of your post is not about new technology though (please correct me if I’m wrong).. I believe it’s about the Customer (centric) – employee – company collaborative partnership we intuitively know to be able to make the difference, much like it seems to be doing @ Zappos..
This, in my humble opinion, has very little to do with Socializing Business.. this requires a paradigm shift in the logic many companies currently apply..
And one thing’s for sure: reaching the tipping point of Social Media / E2.0 application or number of Corporate Social Strategists in business will not mark the shift of the paradigm..
Maybe you should ask Tony Hsieh what does.. He knows what did it for them
Dear John and Wim
Thank you for your comments.
Consider this–>
While it’s easy to sum up how “the elements of a social business build in the capacity to adapt to today’s fast-changing, uncertain and complex business climate”–what that means for individual businesses ranges a great deal.
People like Esteban Kolsky and Mark Tamis clearly state that before implementing any kind of social business program–> the company must identify their objectives.
The person designated with turning a company from transactional to transformational will be tasked with setting up the goal (not ad hoc attempts at facebook pages and twitter accounts).
My question for you is why do you comment that social strategists are currently starry-eyed about what others are doing?
It sounds from Jeremiah Owyang’s report that many of these “champions” have been at a given business before they take on this role. Where is the reference about social strategies being captivated by others-not investigating their specific business needs?
You and Wim both argue the Social Strategist is unnecessary. Maybe it wasn’t for the case studies we are familiar with. Like Zappos for example.
Tony Hsieh built an initial foundation that was in step with the principles of social.
Here are the ten zappos core values-it took Zappos 1 1/2 years to establish them.
1. Deliver WOW Through Service
2. Embrace and Drive Change
3. Create Fun and A Little Weirdness
4. Be Adventurous, Creative, and Open-Minded
5. Pursue Growth and Learning
6. Build Open and Honest Relationships With Communication
7. Build a Positive Team and Family Spirit
8. Do More With Less
9. Be Passionate and Determined
10. Be Humble
Unlike Zappos who had a head start most companies are now having to go back and do damage control. Social does not gel with their cultures.
Wim–> the blog was not so much about having a customer-centric culture, but rather having a culture built on values of trust and morality. People do the right thing when the manager isn’t looking.
As our friend Tripp Babbitt says–>when you focus on the work–>things fall into place. Employees have to be empowered to do their jobs effectively. I’m not talking about the end of titles or hierarchy. But I am talking about accounting for variation, blurring lines between personal/professional, and other ideas still foreign to much of the corporate world.
Without a social strategist who is going to come up with the social doctrine within a given company? Do senior level employees within different departments really have time away from their core responsibilities to do due diligence for a social strategy?
That includes study the market, research, talk to other brands, attend conferences, talk to customers, and establish an internal center of excellence with the heads of all departments (+employees)?
That is what some orgs are doing in order to do social right.
Someone has to understand the insides of the business. And someone has to educate people–not in a forceful way–but in a way that considers things like cost, efficiency, ROI and all important measures to the business.
And Wim–>yes I did ask Tony about the secret sauce–earlier this year. http://www.customermanagementiq.com/podcenter.cfm?externalid=537
Hi Blake,
I don’t think we are far apart.. If your understanding of Social Business is what’s represented by the 10 Zappos core values then I’ve have not been discussing those apples in my first comment..
So, I fully agree that more company’s should embrace (in thought and action) core values based on trust, transparency and morality.
About the Corporate Social Strategist.. Zappos did not have a Social Strategist, they have Tony and his team, as well as the circumstance to be able to build a company form start (which does not make it less of an achievement)..
If it’s changing culture what you’re after, a Corporate Social Strategist, is not enough, or maybe even obsolete.. If you want/need a cultural shift everyone in the company should embark upon the journey together. Also you may need change agents throughout the enterprise. Without C-level commitment, this is not happening, because it’s costly (at first at least) and it requires stamina.
Now, I too applaud companies doing all the stuff you state in your reply-comment (Although I’m not sure we’re talking Social as in Social Media, or as in Corporate Values of trust and morality in this respect).
The way they do it is probably fine in the early experimentation stages. I would advocate though to free up time of those senior employees to get their hands dirty themselves. Not only is this the best way to learn. It’s also the best way to get commitment and to keep “social” unsilo’d..
What do you say/think?
Changing the corporate culture is the real issue here. Tony built his organisation on his intuition on how his employees should be interacting with customers, empowering them to go the extra mile if needed, and recognizing great service. It all starts when people come onboard, hiring the person that fits the culture – I believe there is an anecdote in one of his books about having a BBQ with candidates, as well as the choice given to anybody wanting to leave the induction process to go the whole nine yards or take a substantial check if they drop out.
Maybe the key will be the onboarding of senior managers – what if shareholders start demanding that they should ‘fit the bill’ or else be fired. I expect that pretty soon you’d see a lot of these suddenly get a penchant for social…the only hic is that a clear correlation needs to be shown that such cultures do drive revenue. Zappos is a great example to start off with, but we’ll need many more.
Mark-thanks for the insights. Reminds me of something highlighted that Frank Eliason said at E20.
He said:
“When I interview people to work at Comcast the biggest question I always asked was, ‘what’s wrong with Comcast.’ Even if the interviewee was wrong about something they were still hired if they had passion. The reason I did this is because you can’t coach passion but you can always correct the misconceptions and facts that people have.”
People always talk about how Tony pays people to quit to weed out those that might not be a good fit for his team…More and more we hear about people hiring for qualities and traits that aren’t necessarily about specific skills or abilities. I think these are probably the same people who understand social. They are passionate, they are intuitive. They are the ones that stay up late answering customer inquiries on Twitter-like Frank once did for Comcast Cares. He just cared more.
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/how-frank-eliason-brought-social-business-to-comcast-009287.php
Wim
Leadership sets the tone for the culture. People reflect what they see–especially if its behaviors driven and enforced at the top.
You suggest the answer of distributing a taskforce of “change agents” throughout the enterprise. What is the difference between change agents and the social strategist? Isn’t that the same thing here?
In my opinion it’s not realistic for people-who are very focused on their KPIs, and keeping their bonus, to take their hands off of that for the rainbows and butterflies of social. And I can’t blame them. Everyone is just trying to put bread on the table.
It is true that with the way orgs are currently set up–people need to be incentivized. You talk about the co embarking on this journey together–but that is not actionable or tactical. Social strategist is tasked with bringing this home. Writing a tangible roadmap so from a day to day perspective it is clear what has to be done.
Reading this I think maybe the social strategist is really more a social family (traditional sense generalization) – a father role to be the provider of structure who in a sense enforces the new routine/chores, the mother role that encourages & nurtures the growth/learning process, the sister who pushes the bounds of external communication and trends & the brother who challenges and games any and all systems.
Because going at it alone is tough and somewhat unrealistic if changing the very nature of a thing. And not everyone can be everything to everybody. You need the group to challenge the org, and each other but support each other as they change and grow – and realize there will be growing pains ‘fa shure’
Super oversimplied and obviously roles are super generalized. By the way I loved Peak – it’s like caffeine for the “working” soul LoL
Janet–Absolutely fabulous ;-]! I got nothin…compelling analogy-I totally agree.
Pingback: What Did Maslow Know About Customer Centricity? It Ain’t Happening! @ crm intelligence & strategy
Pingback: How to fix the social anything bind | ZDNet
Pingback: What Did Maslow Know About Customer Centricity? It Ain’t Happening!
Pingback: What Did Maslow Know About Customer Centricity? It Ain’t Happening! | Constellation Research
Pingback: How to fix the social anything bind | Constellation Research
Blake,
Thanks for this intriguing post. My experience tells me that one needs to differentiate for whom the “social” is targeted. Is it for the customers or is it for inside the organization? Moreover, what kind is the targeted population? For example, are these customers who would like to buy, let’s say, shoes, or are these Gov clients?
Then, one might ask, what is the social culture within the customer base and what is it in the organization that tries to sell something. The methods in which the “social” will be applied depend on all of these circumstances and there is no one solution that would fit all. This emphasizes the real need to a social strategist. This person, BTW, should not assume in the beginning that the “social” will solve all or some of the organization’s problems. He or she needs to analyze the goals, problems, cultures (of both the clients and the organization and then assess what is the best solution. In that sense, the social strategist is also a strategist in general and one who would feel comfortable with situations that do not require social strategies.
Nahum. You pose excellent questions here. You are right that the subtleties of the social program are going to vary according to the particular business’ challenges.
Owyang highlighted in his report where he interviewed 140 social strategists–>58% of survey respondents described themselves as “multi-disciplinary,” and 45% said they had the “ability to rally different stake-holders across the organization.”
My argument doesn’t assume that “Social” is a panacea to all the organization’s problems-but a lot of problems the company isn’t even aware of yet-will stem from their lack of involvement in the social-sphere.
I do not disagree with what seems like an investigative approach. This is precisely why the person in this role generally has a multi-disciplinary background (see stat above) and free agency to move throughout the pores of the organization.
I would be interested to hear your perspectives on culture within governmental organizations.
Blakely
There are two points I’d like to make.
One, I totally agree that the tools are easy enough for organizations to experiment with social media. In some companies, there is simply an inherent cultural resistance, which I am trying to understand. I’m trying hard not to fall back on the
default answers, like: fear of losing control, generational resistance, legal, etc. So, I began
wondering if there had been other tools/technologies that had elicited a similar reaction: email, web sites, cloud computing. But I don’t think so. The only fuzzy thought I can come up with is the transparent nature of social media coupled with the increasing importance consumers are placing on companies challenges how companies operate and their profit.
Two, I agree with Nahum, who brought up a good point underscoring the importance about knowing your audience and how that it fits into an overall strategy.
Thank for the great post!
Hi Jennifer. The only thing I have heard this period in time compared to recently was “ecommerce” by R “Ray” Wang.
It’s hard to find a parallel technology/time period because email and the other things you mentioned were not as public as social media.
Like social, cloud computing initially got a lot of slack because generally people were afraid of risking their data–of having it floating somewhere in an unprotected cloud. Now it’s the norm.
While you say you are trying not to fall back on popular answers “Fear of control etc” they are popular because they are very real.
Thanks for your comments!
Pingback: Changing the Molecules of the (Board)room « The Blakery
Pingback: Changing the Molecules of the (Board)room
I’m really impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it’s rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays.