In addition, the border between internal and external corporate communications is increasingly breaking away. Companies must react and develop new strategies.
Classic and new channels
The days of classic marketing are over. Modern companies today enter into a real dialogue with existing or potential customers via social media. This is emphasized by most marketing and communication experts. And they promise the responsible people in the company: "Cleverly organized and controlled, you can build up a fan base in the social networks, which not only purchases loyal products, but also advertises you for non-customers."
Promoting Participation
These statements are supported by numerous - more or less scientific - studies and case studies by companies who have succeeded in launching new products in the market via Facebook and Co. or becoming a trend provider. It is noticeable that almost all publications focus on the aspect of how social media changes the relationship between companies and their (potential) customers. On the other hand, the extent to which social media is omnipresent makes little difference to the extent to which the relationship between enterprises and their employees is changing.
The feeling of being important
Looking at this question, it becomes clear that social media are a two-edged "sword" for companies, regardless of whether they are networks such as Facebook and XING, employer evaluation portals like Kununu or short news services like Twitter
The boundaries blur
Prior to the spread of the social media, employees who, for whatever reasons, wanted to communicate a message to a more or less large public, had actually only two possibilities
In the latter case as well, the opportunity for the employees to be more resonant with their messages was rather low. Most of the employees did not have the necessary contacts or media experience. Moreover, most of the information that is widely disseminated through social media today is not a relevant "news" for almost all representatives of the classical media, since they were merely personal opinions or individual experiences that were not verifiable Code>
That is why they looked down on a publication, either because they did not classify personal opinions as "of general interest", or because they knew that when I published these unauthorized statements, I would also legally go into slippery ice
Accordingly, before the advent of social media, the possibilities of "normal" workers were to allow a broader public to share their bad experiences with their (ex-) employers - especially as they were almost exclusively available to the readers' columns of the newspapers .
Added to this was another natural filter: writing and sending a reader letter cost time (and money). And the call to a newspaper or radio or television station to make it a topic of interest required a certain overcoming. In the past, there was a danger that an employee, following a spontaneous impulse, could either discrepate company secrets or raise his current anger in such a way that a wider public could be heard of them.
This situation has radically changed through the triumph of social media. Today, employees can send to the world of God and the world through portals such as Facebook and services like Twitter, which "burns their nails". In addition, they can make more or less sensitive information accessible to a broader (specialist) public via expert portals (unreflected). And in portals like Kununu, workers can anonymously publish their experiences with their (ex) employers and evaluate them.
And something else has changed as a result of the triumph of the social media: employees are not only more channels available to share their thoughts and share their knowledge with others, they are even regulated by the operators of these media as well as their "users" Encouraged to participate, and encouraged them to communicate what they moved to other people - for example, in expert or industry forums.
And not only there, the classical media also increasingly rely on interaction. For example, it is common in many talkshows and magazines on radio and television that the moderators demand the viewers or listeners to actively participate in the discussion in the corresponding chatroom of the sender.
And often during the broadcast, "live" is reported on the discussion process in the chat and some selected chat contributions are read, which naturally flatters their authors. Correspondingly, the temptation to profile itself in such chats through pointed statements - especially when this is done anonymously and thus (seemingly) without danger.
The communication power of employees
The same is true when employees of a company participate in an expert chat on the web. If there is a response like "very interesting, what you write - this is proof of a high professional competence. Can you provide me with more information?", Then the danger is that the so praised employee does this without first questioning
Frequently there is also no bad intention behind it, if company internals or even secrets are made via Mitmach-web public. Often, "behind" a coworker, who feels unjustly treated and lends his resentment. Or an employee who has only neglected to think about the consequences of his actions. Or an employee whose little ego is doing well if he can communicate something seemingly important to other people.
Publish without Publicist
It does not matter what motives (ex) employees spill out company internals or secrets. Fact is: Not only because of the existence of social media is the boundary between internal and external communication increasingly visible. Previously the internal communication departments were the "Grailhüter" about which information comes to the outside. Today, they can only fulfill this function.
This experience had to make, for example, in January 2012 Apple CEO Tim Cook. After his company had been critically criticized in several print and online media for producing his products (and his competitors) under questionable working conditions in the Far East, he wrote an email to his employees, which included "Everyone Accident affects us deeply and the working conditions deserve our attention, and any assumption, which is different, is wrong and hurtful. "
As soon as he had sent this mail to the staff, she appeared in numerous online portals and blogs, and Cook was critically criticized. His statements are hypocritical. Apple had known the working conditions for years at its supplier Foxconn. However, the company did not object.
Companies need to rethink
View
Apple's indignation in the Internet did not cause any damage at all - among other things, because the company has a very large and loyal fan base, which ultimately leaves little to be worried about how the latest iPhone is produced. The example, however, shows how quickly today company internals often find their way out and which rebellion wave (in New German: Shitstorm) can build up thereby. This can have serious consequences for companies and, in the worst case, the business out.
Even higher was the wave of indignation, as an ex-employee of Goldman Sachs publicly announced in a guest contest in the New York Times in March 2012 that employees of the investment bank in internal communication always call customers "muppets" (idiots) Bragging about how they crossed the table.
Just a few years ago this article would probably have been noted by the readers of this newspaper, and they would have commented on it with a shaking head, "We've always thought of it." And perhaps he would have been haunted in some expert circles. "
Unlike the social media age, several bloggers around the world tackled the topic around the world, and invented dialogues between Goldman Sachs employees, for example, in which they criticized their customers. As a result, a growing wave of rebellion arose in the network. This, in turn, caused almost all the classic media around the world to pick up on the subject, so that the wave of indignation became a tsunami - especially since the issue confirmed all the (pre) judgments which are in the general public about the unscrupulous investment bankers
The company Goldman Sachs (or its communications department) tried to counter this development, but failed. The company created an image damage, the extent of which can not yet be foreseen - among other things, because service companies such as investment banks are largely dependent on their reputation to be a serious supplier. And what customer hears like he is a "muppet" (even if he knows that some sellers secretly thinks at times)?
The examples show: Employees are increasingly developing into a new communications hub with the "outside world" and now have more communication power than before. And some of the hard-working (ex) employees will also use this power in the future. The consequences of this are hardly reflected in a company.
Experienced business editors can tell a few stories about how a company leader is really tapped into fat. However, they would never publish these stories in their magazines, for example. For they were told by a company representative in the evening with a glass of wine. And they know: when they publish these explosive messages, the trust relationship is destroyed once and for all.
In the future, such stories will be much more common in the public, as larger companies always have an (ex) employee who "wants to wipe out" those up there. The same applies to projects that have gone wrong. Today, much more and more information is already being sent to the public as a few years ago.
This is not only due to the fact that companies are now cooperating more closely with other companies, for example in research and development, but also in the fact that employees often unconsciously divulge internal corporate interactions with their "friends" on the Internet. Frequently the digital acquaintance suffices two or three details, so that, if they are of the subject, they can draw the necessary conclusions from this. And the employee thinks: "I did not say anything."
How they should deal with this changed communication situation, most companies have so far hardly thought about it. One of the reasons for this is that their leaders and the experts in their communications centers are sometimes not yet aware of the fundamental paradigm shift in the area of corporate communications.
For this reason, the responsible persons in the companies react to the changed communication situation in many cases using the old means. They extend, for example, the existing company-internal communication codes, which states who can get which information and to whom they are allowed to pass on to the social media and overlook the fact that the greatest danger arises from the online communication, which the employees as Private individuals and often under a pseudonym.
Or they block certain websites and online platforms for the employees, ignoring the fact that most employees now have a smartphone in their pockets that they can use at any time. And they suspect primarily ex-employees who want to avenge themselves at the company. This is where the greatest danger comes from actually loyal employees, who, for example, exchange with their "friends" in expert portals and give them the missing info-puzzle pieces.
Sophisticated concepts on how companies should deal with the changed communication situation are not yet available - not only because the social media are quite new media, but also because the communication framework conditions are currently changing a lot again due to mobile data communication Br>
What is clear, however, is that awareness-raising and awareness-raising must take place in companies - initially at the level of corporate management. Their top managers must be aware that the boundaries between internal and external communication are increasingly dissolving, and then consider what conclusions can be drawn from the communication and leadership culture.
However, companies must also understand that their employees today have a greater communication power than before - often without being aware of it because they do not overlook the potential consequences of their actions. In a second step, it is important to make the employees aware of the influence they have today and how exactly they have to analyze, communicate with, and communicate with each other Br>
To deal with this issue is not only necessary to avert damage to companies, but also to prevent them becoming increasingly blackmail - for example, by disappointed (former) employees. It does not have to be the classic "secret" carriers.
At least as great a potential threat is the employees, who have known their "weak spots" (for example, in the area of quality management) for the company, as well as a sufficient number of anecdotes from the company day, in order to trigger an indignation wave not only in the digital world, Be it consciously or out of naivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment