Social Networking: Helping or Hurting Organizations?

I am an advocate of utilizing social networking tools.  I participate in LinkedIn discussions on how to do so, and read pretty much anything I can get my hands on that might help me do it better.  I especially like the real-time exchange available through things like Facebook and Twitter for use in projects, where each person's actions/decisions often immediately affect everyone else's work.

However, it appears that not everyone takes the time to learn about how to use social networking tools before diving in.  A recent study described by Chris Nerney of ITWorld (article found on PCWorld here) explains the lost productivity (measured as an overall 1.5% drop) experienced by organizations when employees are doing their FB thing during work hours.  In other words, they're not just using social networking to get work done.  They're virtually hanging out with their friends instead of doing what they're paid to do.  While I view this largely as a supervision issue rather than something inherent in social networking (anything can distract people if we're not careful, not only social networking), I am genuinely concerned about something found in an IBM study mentioned in another article by Mr. Nerney.  It turns out that many organizations are using social networking incorrectly, and they are suffering for it.  As Mr. Nerney put it, they're "botching" it.  The IBM study pointed out how they are doing so, and the issues ranged from incorrect assumptions to poor motives to improper execution.

According to that study, it turns out that people don't network with a company because they want to be its friend.  They want something tangible from their involvement.  And 60% of them say they need to believe a company is communicating honestly before they'll interact with that organization.  So if we use social networks as just one more boring form of billboard, with a thinly veiled sales pitch as its main message, hang it up.  Unless you are willing to give something that people want, don't bother with social networking.  But if you are interested in real and real-time exchange with people, learning about your market, and potentially forming a constituency through open and honest dialog, then go ahead - set up that Facebook page and Twitter account.

EJT
Management in the Not for Profit Organization

Today's article: They Loved You Once, They Can Love You Again: How to Win Back Lapsed Donors

The article posted on Management in the Not for Profit Organization today was provided by Sumac.com.  It provides good advice about restarting donations from those who have been supportive in the past, but who have let that support lapse.  I plan to put the knowledge I gained from reading it to good use.

EJT
www.npmanagement.org

Results of Our Survey

The report on the NPManagement.org survey conducted in late 2010/early 2011 is complete.
The report has been placed on the site here:
http://www.npmanagement.org/Article_List/Articles/Survey_Report_2010-Fall_Survey.htm

EJT
Management in the Not for Profit Organization

Nice guys finish last?

Sometimes it appears the old saying "nice guys finish last" is true.  The reasons for that mantra are easy to understand.  Nice people seem to advocate for themselves less, and might not appear to have that aggressive edge that some employers look for when offering promotions.  They can even be viewed as boring.

However, in these times of lessened civility in some settings (politics springs to mind) I've noticed a new appreciation for nice people.  It seems that things like fairness, honesty, respect for others, and simple politeness are at a premium.  What used to be boring is now a breath of fresh air.

It's nice to see.

EJT
Management in the Not for Profit Organization

Leader or Manager?

Are you managing people or leading them?

If they are set out before you, and you need to push them where you want them to go, you're managing them.

But look behind you.  If you're being followed, you're a leader.

www.npmanagement.org

The U.S. Budget Debacle

There is comedic value in the current budget arguments.  Leno, John Stewart, et al. are being fed more material than they know what to do with.
Unfortunately, there is much more tragedy than comedy.  Lots of nonprofit organizations depend on government funds to deliver their services.  When those services are decreased, the poor and the vulnerable will suffer most of all.

As a people, we have short memories.
Have we forgotten that every person in the know, including fiscal conservatives, said that a bailout was necessary to keep the U.S. economy from collapsing?  Have we also forgotten that the president at the time of that initial bailout was a member of the Republican party and an espoused conservative?

Have we blocked the fact from our memories that virtually every responsible economist consulted said we needed the large stimulus efforts, and that some experts argued that the stimuli should have been greater?

So now, with the recovery in its infancy and still quite tenuous, bullies in Congress are talking about the U.S. government and shouting "Shut it down!".  They forget that if it were not for that large, strong federal government, many of that wealthy thin slice of the U.S. populace they fight for might have joined the ever increasing percentage of the country that is the financial lower (not middle) class.
Perhaps they would have been happier if Hoovervilles made a comeback.  Or maybe they have forgotten their U.S. History lessons regarding the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover, his arguments on small government, and how so many Republicans fought tooth and nail to stop FDR's federal intervention.  As it has been said: "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".

It is hilarious, and truly tragic.

Ed Thomas
Management in the Not for Profit Organization
www.npmanagement.org

Management Misnomers

To a few of my fellow managers,
Please stop twisting terms to suit your needs.  For example:

• "Lean" does not mean cutting every ounce of fat in your organization, then cutting the muscle, followed by cutting off pieces of the skeleton.  A skeleton isn't lean, it's dead.
• "Reducing variation" as used in Six Sigma does not mean you tell your customers or your employees "It's my way or the highway".
• When Jim Collins wrote "From Good to Great" and referred to getting people "off the bus", he didn't mean the only people left on the bus should be sycophants.  
• Your "value stream" does not mean doing exactly what the people with the most money want you to do at any given moment.  You can't look at your "value stream" until you realize who must value what you're doing. Start by doing an honest stakeholder assessment or any analysis of a value stream is meaningless.  And by the way, your end users and your employees are stakeholders.
• "Transformative Culture" is not the boss standing at a podium and telling people they have to do everything differently, and it has to be exactly what the boss wants.  The boss can certainly tell people what to do, but that's top-down hierarchical leadership - not a transformative culture.  Call it what it is.

OK, now I feel a little better.

Ed Thomas
www.npmanagement.org