Engaging outside the inbox

Doing some email housekeeping earlier this morning, I got thinking about the futility of much of one’s day-to-day email.

Even though I’ve been using a nifty program called NEO Pro for the better part of the past decade that sits on top of Outlook, and which automates the essentials of email organization for me, I just asked myself: Why?

emaildroneI’m increasingly finding that the most useful, valuable and effective ways to exchange written thoughts, ideas and then make decisions involve the informality of connecting with people via social networks rather than email.

For me, that typically means – in order of preference – Twitter direct messages, Google+ private messages and, in distant third place, LinkedIn inmail or groups. I’m increasingly hearing how people are using Yammer or Salesforce’s Chatter within the enterprise to equal good effect.

Ah, but what about file attachments and other enterprise-essential items? you will ask. You still need email for that. Conventional thinking would agree with you. But just ask yourself: Why? Some enterprise tools like Chatter allow file sharing. I’m increasingly using tools like Dropbox for that rather than bloating up everyone’s Outlook PST databases or Exchange Server inboxes with attachments. I’ve not yet made a conventional jump to the cloud with tools like Google Docs, but that day may come. Or not: a combination of Twitter, Google+ and Dropbox is excellent so far.

Most people I know who work for large organizations say formal channels like email won’t change. I say: Why? If people like Luis Suarez – he works for IBM, lives (and works) in the Canary Islands and hasn’t done traditional email for more than three years – can dispense with email in a big-organization setting, why not you?

See what you think after watching this documentary-interview about Luis and email.

(If you don’t see the video embedded above, watch it at YouTube.)

Engaging outside the inbox makes sense. Don’t you think? Share your thoughts here. Or let Luis know what you think. (No, that’s not an email link.)

[Later] An article in yesterday’s Financial Times headlined The end of email? reminded me that what to do about email is a subject lots of people are thinking about. Indeed, taking concrete action, such as what’s happening at French-based global tech company Atos where its CEO has stated that his 74,000-employee company will ban email for internal communication by 2013. It’s not all email but it’s a huge start to kick-start a huge task of change moving towards team-based, collaborative social communication tools and channels.

On a smaller scale, there’s Canadian digital marketing agency Klick that has already banned all internal email use. Klick CEO Leerom Segal is quoted as saying:

While email makes for a decent communication tool with clients, internally it doesn’t facilitate collaboration and basic workflow. Email has no intelligent mechanisms for prioritization, lacks context, lacks a framework for knowledge management, and saps accountability.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way?

Related post:

What would your mother say?

There’s a serious point to think about when studying this tongue-in-cheek infographic on what to consider when posting your status update – or any other message – to popular online social networking services.

social_media_status_infographic

You might think about which service to post what to – I do, especially when checking in somewhere (so Foursquare is my primary choice) or when commenting on something that would benefit from more than the 140 characters Twitter allows me (so Google+ or LinkedIn depending on what it’s about, who’s in my community there and how I would like any potential conversation to develop).

But do you think of whether to post? That you could do it, but should you? I like how this amusing graphic makes that choice a central part of its message.

Rule of thumb: before you click or tap, just ask yourself – what would your boss (or your mother) say if she saw your update?

A poorly-judged click or tap can have unwelcome consequences.

Related post:

Future vision enabled

Watch how future technology will help people make better use of their time, focus their attention, and strengthen relationships while getting things done at work, home, and on the go, says Microsoft Office in this stylish 6-minute video.

(If you don’t see the video embedded above, watch it on YouTube.)

It’s certainly an imaginative picture, a credible and believable view of what a near tech-enhanced future could look like (but where’s the sex? asks David Philips).

There’s a lot of glass featured, bringing to my mind the vision of a future that Corning sees. Some parallel thinking here as hardware (Corning) enables software (Microsoft).

Posted last week, Microsoft’s video has over 1.6 million views so far and counting.

Related post:

Ruthlessly enforcing a code of silence

applestoreemployeesWould your employer fire you if you said anything about them in a post on Facebook? Or in a public tweet? Or in a blog post?

Much of course depends on what you might say, but one UK Apple employee with surname Crisp suffered the ultimate consequence after writing a comment on Facebook critical of his employer, as People Management reports.

[...] Crisp, who worked in an Apple Store, posted derogatory statements on Facebook about Apple and its products. The posts were made on a “private” Facebook page and outside of working hours. One of his colleagues, who happened to be a Facebook “friend”, saw the comments, printed the posts and passed them to the store manager. Crisp was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employment tribunal rejected Crisp’s claim for unfair dismissal. Key to the tribunal’s decision was the fact that Apple had a clear social media policy in place and had made it absolutely plain throughout the induction process that commentary on Apple products, or critical remarks about the brand, were strictly prohibited. Interestingly the tribunal took into account that such comments would be particularly damaging for Apple as image is so central to its success.

In fact, the story has received widespread media coverage, social and mainstream.

Two elements to this story stand out to me:

  1. Apple has a clear social media policy in place, says People Management’s report – it would be great to see it although I doubt it’s Apple’s style to publicly share it – and “had made it absolutely plain throughout the induction process that commentary on Apple products, or critical remarks about the brand, were strictly prohibited.”
  2. The employment tribunal cited that fact as central to its decision to reject a claim for unfair dismissal.

Equally interesting is use of the word “commentary.” It doesn’t say “negative commentary” or “critical commentary,” just “commentary.” So I presume that is literal: any commentary about Apple or its products is not allowed. I assume the social media policy sets out the consequences if an employee doesn’t abide by the policy which, I assume again, can mean dismissal as happened to employee Crisp.

Whatever you may think of any company that has such a forbidding policy in place, if it is in place, and explained and communicated to all employees, and an employee then goes and does something plainly against the policy, well, there are consequences. Should that surprise anyone?

In Apple’s case, it’s no secret that the company rigidly enforces control over who can say what publicly, certainly at Apple itself and clearly also in its retail store operations. This case reminds me of a report a few years ago that I wrote about quoting a feature about Steve Jobs and Apple written by Times journalist Bryan Appleyard, which included this text:

[...] secrecy is one of Apple’s signature products. A cult of corporate omerta – the mafia code of silence – is ruthlessly enforced, with employees sacked for leaks and careless talk. Executives feed deliberate misinformation into one part of the company so that any leak can be traced back to its source. Workers on sensitive projects have to pass through many layers of security. Once at their desks or benches, they are monitored by cameras and they must cover up devices with black cloaks and turn on red warning lights when they are uncovered.

It sounds extreme, doesn’t it? Yet wholly believable if you are an observer of Apple. Indeed, I’m reading Steve Jobs’ biography and such a story rings very true indeed as it is illustrative of Jobs’ control freakery and the iron grip over communication he wielded at the company and of which there’s no indication of any change since Jobs’ death last month.

What a difference in culture, style and more between Apple and Google – the former practicing corporate omerta, the latter encouraging criticism and constructive dissent by its employees.

Who’s to say which is right and which is wrong? Yet I know which kind of company I’d prefer to work for.

[Later] I posted this story on Google+. There are some insightful and interesting comments there.

Related posts:

Starting up The Social Media MBA

socialmediambabookEarlier this year, I was invited to contribute content for a new business book on social media. That book, The Social Media MBA, is now done and dusted as it were and will be in bookshops and online in January 2012 in the UK and in March 2012 in the US.

Not another book about social media, you may exclaim! Indeed, if you search the key phrase “social media” in Books on Amazon UK, you’ll get the ridiculous number of over 242,000 results. I stopped scrolling though the numbers after 80 pages of books that matched the search term, each page with 12 books.

So what makes The Social Media MBA different? Call me biased, but I think it’s largely how project creator and book editor Christer Holloman – Chairman of First Tuesday, published author, public speaker and blogger for Sky News – approached it from the outset and the result he got: essentially, he crowd-sourced the content by finding through a mix of research and requests for recommendations who would be credible creators of the content he was seeking.

From the description on the publisher’s page:

[...] Whatever continent, industry, company size, current degree of social media adoption or your job title, the purpose of this book is to inspire you to see how you can raise the bar further to reap new rewards. It will give you the tools to make a difference to your organisation’s social media strategy development and delivery going forward.

In addition it will also give you more intellectual support and confidence to discuss social media on a higher level with peers, inspire colleagues or negotiate and create support for increased investments from your leadership team.

In The Social Media MBA editor Christer Holloman has crowd sourced 15 thought leaders from 4 continents to offer an exceptional educational programme written for experienced social media professionals just like you.

The book also includes case study examples from the likes of Dell, Kodak, GlaxoSmithKline, Phillips and more.

In addition, online communities are springing up. There’s The Social Media MBA Alumni group on LinkedIn. There’s a Twitter hashtag #socialmedia_mba. A book website is in development (it currently redirects to the LinkedIn group) that will include details about each of the content contributors. And Christer plans to interview each of those contributors for feature blog posts for Sky News Tech Talk.

All great startups. Meanwhile, you can pre-order your copy now (lower price at Amazon).

The Social Media MBA: Your Competitive Edge in Social Media Strategy Development and Delivery by Christer Holloman.

Publisher: Wiley
Hardcover, 272 pages
Published January 2012 (UK), March 2012 (USA)
ISBN: 978-1-1199-6323-3

Also purchase (pre-order) online at Amazon US, Amazon Canada (published in February 2012), or Amazon UK. Unfortunately, there are no Kindle editions.