During the past week, I enjoyed a number of face to face meetings with clients from across a wide variety of industries. We talked about a raft of issues, some industry-specific, some pretty general in nature. A theme that seldom surfaced explicitly but that underlies much of the discussion is what I like to call “the seduction of social.” briefly stated, it’s widely-held but erroneous belief that social is magic – that if you deploy a social tool, somehow something magic will happen. A variation of this thinking appears from time to time as a product or service provider buys a social property expecting it will catapult them to success based on users flocking to that social site because of some invisible but compelling draw.
The seduction of social often plays out in the context of a social, collaboration or knowledge management program like this: some senior person says, “we need to install social app X. It will (insert your benefits statement here) for example, “we need to buy social app X because it will make use more collaborative.” The social initiative program manager buys social app X and installs it. Of course, there is no need to provide training because “nobody ever needed Facebook training.” After the initial flurry of excitement, usage gradually declines. In 9 – 12 months, no one but the hardiest tech pioneers use social app X.
It’s fascinating to see some variation of this scenario play out over and over again. The details are a little different from case to case – it may be social app Y that is deployed rather than social app X – but the results are the same.
If you’ve read my blogs or research, you know that the “provide and pray” approach does not work. Social must be focused on solving a thorny business problem and the worker at whom it’s targeted must see personal value in what the technology is offering them. So there is a big risk of failure when social is deployed for social’s sake.
But there is another dangerous risk to be reckoned with.
In many organizations, social is being championed by people who see the value in de-leveling some of the traditional corporate structure and allowing anyone to talk with anyone. But this meritocratic view also scares a management team that is classically trained and steeped in Taylor-esque approaches to work.
The big risk is that if these well-intentioned but poorly supported social experiments go forward and fail, it’s too easy for those managers to say, “see, I told you so.” Their view that social is just a waste of time is reinforced and the possibility to attempt another social experiment anytime soon is greatly reduced. In fact, experience shows that the next most will again approve a social project is two years hence, “because we all know what happened last time . . . “
So if you are contemplating a social project, plan it well. If you have a social project that is languishing, get it back on track.