The Google+ musings of

Jeff Jockisch

Digital Strategy | Content Marketing | Question & Answer Systems

[Reshare] I say non-social organizations are going to lose

April 06, 2012 7 comments 2 shares 11 plus ones
View comments
View post on Google+

Non-social orgs will be at a large disadvantage in the marketplace of ideas, educators, students.

via +Joanne Manaster

#glia cc\ +Gregory Esau +Jason Hurtado Daniels +Laura Gibbs +Meg Tufano +Gideon Rosenblatt

Original post by +Lorna Salgado

Chicago State to faculty: Don't talk to press

The publicly funded Chicago State University has instructed its faculty and staff that only authorized university representatives can share information with the media and that everything from opinion ...


Join the discussion
Justin White April 08, 2012

"social media communications could require prior approval"

Really? They are telling their staff they can't use Facebook or Google+? That's a little extreme.

Meg Tufano April 07, 2012

It's a last ditch effort to go back. Sorry, no going back . But knock yourselves out trying!

Lyndon NA April 06, 2012

It's a nightmare situation to find yourself in.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Gideon Rosenblatt April 06, 2012

After reading the piece, it sounds like an organization that's been under siege with criticism for some time now and that this is part of trying to "turn things around."

My guess is that the policy will simply not hold, as it will ultimately prove debilitating and unenforceable. It's not just speaking engagements that will be affected, various forms of collaboration and feedback for professors.

The marketing and administrative staff will face enormous internal pressure, but also pressure from peer schools, worried about the potential setting precedent.

Interesting case. Thanks for sharing, +Jeff Jockisch.

Lyndon NA April 06, 2012

I'll play devils advocate.

You are in charge of hundreds/thousands of people.
You have an institutional reputation to monitor and protect.
You have a number of malcontents, discontents and plain old stupid idiots who may shoot their mouths off.

What choices do you have?
Let them bad mouth you, say stupid things to make everyone look bad, let slip about sometign they should be quiet about ....
... or do you try to introduce a policy (and enforce it) that will limit such actions and reduce such risks?

You cannot fire someone for saying something stupid ... unless you have already warned them that it is a fireable offence.
This does exactly that.

I know - it's sucky.
But there is a massive difference between "social" and "blabbering away" or "saying something stoopide that will forever remain on the net" etc.

So long as it only pertains to "professional" content - then I don't see too much of a problem with it.
Many companies hold to similar tenets.

Look at the two Googles who opened their mouths (actually there are numerous, but 2 in mind for this).
1) Sits there and explains his dislike of g+, how some staff fought against it etc.
2) Some idiot sat there saying SEO was bad and G was out to get it.

Neither is good.
But the former is far better in many regards.
It's a personal view of a professional issue.
The latter was incorrect, illinformed and made things look bad.

Who wouldn't want to try and stop such things?

(note: I don't agree with the degree they have gone too ... but that's fear as a motivator for you)

Daniel Estrada April 06, 2012

Non-social "organizations" aren't actually organizations at all. They are just "ordered". This is a really subtle difference, but it is at the root of a lot of the problems of the old system.

Consider, for instance, the fact that speed limits have virtually no effect on traffic patterns. You can raise or lower the speed limit by up to 20mph and will see no statistically significant change in the overall speed of traffic. This has been shown in many studies, and is common knowledge among city planners.

Traffic is an organized behavior, composed of the independent, autonomous actions of individual drivers. If you want that traffic to flow smoothly, you want to make sure that the individuals are trained and skilled, and that the vehicles and the roads are safe and simple to navigate.

But instead, enforcement is structured not around the social organization, but rather around an imposed and arbitrary order to "follow the speed limit", which is basically useless in terms of making the traffic flow, but is politically expedient and profitable so we keep doing it.

This is just one example in a sea of examples; sorting out the difference between order and organization, and when we need which, is part of the fundamental social project of building the digital age.

Gregory Esau April 06, 2012

As +Lorna Salgado says, Seriously??