Winning strategies for internal networks

In last week’s blog, I wrote about Pitney Bowes and internal social networks being a great catalyst for creating greater engagement and communication within the company.

That leads to better teamwork, and retention, since the employer is building stronger relationships. Being the CEO of an HR technology company that builds internal networks for the purpose of engaging employees to recruit via referrals, and the author of Social HR, I have seen great case studies on how companies build winning strategies for internal networks.

It’s best to pilot an internal social network with a sample group of employees to see if it’s a good fit for your culture, like Pitney Bowes did with IdeaNet, before rolling it out to the entire organization. However, you should use a combination of computer savvy and non-computer savvy employees as a test group to attain an informed dataset that measures both ends of the spectrum.

If you get good participation rates and quality ideas coming out of the network, then gradually expand it to more employees. It’s also important to get support from the executive level and, for most large organizations, set an agenda for the network.

Organic growth versus systematic approach

Facebook started out as a social network for college students in the United States. It went through organic growth, where users dictated how they wanted to use it and what features it should have. Because of its sheer size, Facebook is now run in a systematic, top-down approach.This is also partly due to the various privacy laws around the world it has to adhere to.

Organic growth can be sustained for very small groups, where there are no defined agendas for the internal social network. In order to create organic growth, you need to engage employees with intrinsic factors. For example, Wikipedia wouldn’t be the successful user-created encyclopaedia it is today if users had been paid to participate. Instead, Wikipedia engaged users to create and edit content because they wanted to share knowledge with other users and learn from each other.

However, for larger organizations, a more systematic approach that sets the agenda for how employees should be using the network works better. You can still have employee feedback, but the goals, guidelines and parameters of the tool need to be set by the executive team. IdeaNet is very systematic in its approach, with business unit leaders posting specific challenges and the managers responsible for the tool collecting ideas for review. However, there is flexibility in how employees can submit ideas, either posting ideas on their own or working in small groups first and then submitting an idea.

Executive support and participation

As with any initiative, it is imperative for the executive team to support and be involved with the internal social network. Their use of the tool shows employees it is a priority and will lead to faster adoption of the network.

Rewards and recognition system

An internal social network should have some sort of recognition system, whether it is designating specific employees as experts in a particular area or thanking employees publicly for their contributions.

However, monetary rewards may not be the best way to inspire employee participation. This is entirely dependent on the end users you are trying to engage. Nonetheless, building a system that awards employees through competitions and challenges may be more engaging and successful.

Rating system

Not everyone is comfortable posting their own ideas in a public forum for fear of criticism, but that doesn’t mean they can’t make a valuable contribution to problem solving.

To engage these users, you can create a rating system where employees can comment on other users’ ideas or, if even that is too scary, give an anonymous “thumbs up” (agree) to ideas they like. It’s best not to allow a negative “thumbs down” (disagree) option because this can discourage employees from offering their ideas. Deloitte, which had employees create videos about why they loved working at the company, used an internal rating system where employees voted on their favourite videos.

Opening collaboration to external stakeholders

There is value in asking the general public for ideas, as seen in Proctor & Gamble’s Connect + Develop initiative.

However, sometimes companies are dealing with an issue that involves proprietary information. But an organization can still solicit collaboration from external stakeholders in a limited capacity. This could include having customers offer ideas for product improvements or asking candidates for feedback on the organization’s employment brand. There are many opportunities to collaborate with people other than employees to increase diversity of thought and innovation.

Hopefully this gives you a bit of insight on winning strategies in building internal social tools. This is just the tip of the iceberg in building a vibrant internal network where end users such as employees, candidates and/or alumni may interact with your organization. What were some ways you attracted engagement, whether it is from a recruitment, communication or collaboration point of view? What are some issues you are currently facing?

Harpaul Sambhi is the CEO of Careerify, a company that develops social recruiting tools focused on employee referral programs with offices in Toronto and San Francisco. He is the author of Social HR, published by Carswell, which sheds insights in how social media is impacting human resources. He can be reached at hsambhi@careerify.net, (416) 840-6216 or visit www.careerify.net for more information.  

Internal social networks can drive new ways of thinking

When talk turns to social media, many people overlook internal social and collaboration tools such as Chatter, Jive and, in certain cases, Sharepoint (it can be morphed into a social site.)

Yet, internal social networks and collaboration tools are fueling innovation, linking employees closer together, allowing employees at the bottom of the corporate ladder to have their voices and ideas heard and crossing departments and disciplines to create a new way of thinking.

Case Study: Pitney Bowes’ IdeaNet

Pitney Bowes, a mail and document mailstream technology company, has 33,000 employees in 130 countries. Connecting all of these employees, and their specialized knowledge and experience, is key to the organization’s success.

Murray Martin, CEO at Pitney Bowes, realized this and challenged his team to “include the entire workforce in innovative thinking around product, service, process and customer experience to generate organic growth.”
In April 2009, Pitney Bowes piloted IdeaNet, an internal collaboration tool where employees can connect with each other, communicate and develop ideas. Business unit leaders post challenges to IdeaNet and each member of the network can offer a solution or contribute to a peer’s suggestion. Members can also voice their support of an idea by voting for it to be the challenge solution.

Management then gathers the top ideas for each challenge and submits them to a review committee, which includes the leader who posted the challenge in the first place. IdeaNet brings together employees from different countries and different business units to work together on the same challenge, creating thought diversity and boosting innovation.

“We piloted IdeaNet to ensure our culture would embrace idea generation. After seeing success, we ran our first company-wide challenge and were amazed to see employees from all parts of (the company) interact with each other,” says Jill Lawrence, director of accelerated innovation at Pitney Bowes.

Employees participate because they are passionate about their work and the future of the company, they enjoy making connections across the organization and collaborating with other employees, and they feel like they are being heard and making a contribution, she says.

A challenge on IdeaNet asking employees how they want to be recognized at the company found the majority of employees simply want a “thank you” and acknowledgement from their managers, says Lawrence.

Nearly 6,000 employees became members of IdeaNet within the first few months. In the first year, there were 32 challenges and more than 650 ideas. Some ideas will lead to new products while others will lead to process improvements.

Benefits of internal social media networks

Multi-way communication: Like all social HR initiatives, internal social networks will enable two-way or, in some cases, multi-way conversations. Internal networks enable active and engaging conversations from all levels of the organization, from the C-suite to frontline employees.

24-hour brainstorming: Internal networks enable brainstorming on a continuous basis instead of only during a planned session. People are creative at different times of the day, and some need a particular environment to be creative. Some employees may be early birds, with their best ideas coming to them at the crack of dawn, while others may be night owls, at their most creative after the sun sets.

Some employees get their best ideas at a coffee shop while others need the formal structure of an office environment to think clearly. Internal networks allow employees to participate when and where they are at their best.

Giving a voice to the shy: Some people are intimidated by the presence of leaders or executives in a brainstorming session and are too afraid to speak up. An internal network can give employees a safer environment in which to speak their mind. Also, if employees aren’t comfortable offering their own ideas, they can contribute to or rate another idea. This kind of participation is just as valuable as suggesting new ideas.

Crowdsourcing: It’s not possible to have all employees participate in an in-person brainstorming session, so these sessions have to be limited to one department or only a select group of employees. Internal social networks, on the other hand, expose challenges to the entire company and generate more diversity of thought than an in-person session can.

This is, in essence, crowdsourcing the challenge to all of your employees. You are creating a cross-functional team that spans multiple business units, geographic areas and hierarchical levels.

These are only a few examples of how internal social tools can help the organization build better communication, collaboration and engagement. Where have you hear organizations utilize social internal tools to really boost engagement within an organization? I welcome your comments.

The Conundrum that is Social Media

This blog post was original posted on Canadian HR Reporter by Harpaul Sambhi, CEO of Careerify

Ten months ago I attended a potential client meeting. The senior vice-president of human resources, whom I had just met, wished me a happy belated birthday and told me my blog on goal-oriented rewards was very interesting. A simple Google search of my name had led her to my Facebook page and my blog, giving her insight to both my personal and professional lives.

Social media is blurring the line between the professional and personal for many people and it can either help or hinder an individual’s career. In my case, while my Facebook page and blog posts revealed some personal information, there was no offensive or inappropriate content that could turn a potential client against me. How do individuals and organizations draw the line between the professional and personal worlds on the Internet? How do we decide what content is appropriate for which audience and control who has access to it?

While there are privacy controls on social media websites that give users some control over who can see the content they post, the reality is there is no guarantee of privacy on the Internet. An individual’s off-hand comment on a news article, review of a restaurant or a photo uploaded by someone else can all easily be found online and connected back to the individual’s employer. Depending on the content, and the individual’s position in the organization, it could harm the employer’s reputation.

Fewer North Americans are happy in their jobs compared to 20 years ago, with a Conference Board survey of 5,000 households showing 45 per cent of respondents were satisfied with their jobs in 2009 compared to 61.1 per cent in 1987. Workers under 25 and those over the age of 65 experienced the biggest drop in satisfaction. With more employees dissatisfied with their jobs, it’s not surprising people would complain about their work to friends and family. The introduction of social media has provided another means of communication, like the telephones and email. But when does harmless complaining go too far?

If social networks are simply another medium to communicate your thoughts to a personal network, do organizations have the right to access this personal information and use it against them? While some cases that involve derogatory remarks, including to a peers race, sexual orientation and gender definitely warrant some kind of disciplinary action, what about the employee who vents “I’m hating my job!! Someone save me!” on Twitter?

One argument, often put forward by avid social media users, is social networks like Facebook are personal and an employer has no right to use what an employee does in her personal life as a reason to dismiss her. The counter argument, often put forward by executives, is social networks are in the public domain and each and every employee should be an ambassador of the organization at all times. These two paths seem to intersect at the crossroads leaving HR and many other executives confused about this conundrum. As in most things, the issue isn’t black and white. Do you shun your organization from the utilization of social media, preventing sales opportunities and collaboration between employees, suppliers and customers to occur or run the risk seeing what you don’t want to see?

What are your thoughts on this issue? Does your workplace view this differently?

NO! My employment brand is being damaged on Social Media!

A disgruntled former employee wouldn’t normally be considered news worthy and wouldn’t get any coverage in traditional news outlets but social media gives him a forum to voice his opinion, potentially attracting similarly disgruntled employees. Together, they form a community with the sole purpose of bringing down the organization, whether by warning prospective employees against joining the organization on employer-review forums like Glassdoor or forming Facebook groups protesting against the organization.

As other users begin to take notice, the complaints and warnings will compete with the polished corporate message. The organization’s job of controlling its brand image becomes increasingly harder as the online community grows and becomes more vocal. While it can take legal action to have the website shut the group down or remove libelous content, including videos, such action will most likely backfire against the organization by drawing even more attention to the group and its message. 

Nestlé discovered this in 2010 when Greenpeace’s YouTube video linking the candy giant to palm-oil-related deforestation and orangutan deaths in rainforests went viral. Nestlé’s legal action to have the video banned from YouTube and replaced with the statement “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Société des Produits S.A.” only drew more attention to the environmental group’s campaign. The video spread to Twitter, Facebook and Reddit among other social media sites. The story was also picked up by the  traditional news media. Eventually Nestlé bowed to public pressure and cut ties with Sinar Mas and other palm oil producers linked to deforestation in Indonesia.

Social media is a paradigm shift in who controls corporate information. Careerify’s survey of 2,304 HR professionals in 2010 found 73.2 per cent view losing control as a negative consequence of social media. But if managed well, social media can be a powerful way to market the organization’s brand. For example, there are more than 13 million fans on Starbucks’ Facebook fan page. While some Facebook users might comment they prefer Tim Horton’s or Second Cup, the fan page gives those who can’t live without their venti non-fat lattes a forum where they can come together and talk about what they love about the coffee chain and potentially convert other coffee-shop aficionados to Starbucks.

An organization must weigh the risks and benefits of social media to determine if a Social HR initiative is a good fit. If the organization decides to create a Social HR initiative, it needs to accept all user feedback, including criticism. From a marketing perspective, Apple is a good example of this. As long as customer reviews don’t contain any profanity, the computer company leaves all product reviews on its website, unaltered, whether they’re positive or negative. This gives other customers an accurate perception of products and the company’s transparency builds trust and brand loyalty.

From an HR perspective, while negative posts might take some of the polish off your company’s corporate message as an employer of choice, they provide other users with a realistic view of the organization and in turn give the organization more credibility because everyone knows perfection is impossible. More and more people are turning to user reviews to uncover the truth about products, services and employers. They want the whole, unvarnished truth. And by being completely truthful about the kind of employer your organization is, you will attract candidates who like the “real” organization and are thus more likely to fit in than candidates attracted to the polished image.

Concerns raised by current and former employees also give you insight into needed areas of improvement. If you act on that feedback, you can improve your organization’s employment brand and show prospective employees the organization cares about workers, a very attractive quality in a potential employer. And if you act quickly to address concerns, you can prevent negative content about your organization from going viral and spreading across the Internet and into the mainstream media.

SOCIAL STRATEGY FOR SOCIAL HR INITIATIVES (Part 4)

This is the final segment of social strategies for your Social HR initiative, irrespective if it’s for recruitment, organizational effectiveness, leadership development, or total rewards.

Internal social strategy

The same general principles for external social strategies apply to internal social strategies, with two exceptions. Leadership buy-in is absolutely essential to the success of an internal Social HR initiative, while an external social strategy can survive without CEO support. Also, since your intended audience is your workforce and not the general public, a systematic, or top-down, approach to initiatives will be more effective than the grassroots, or user-driven, approach that works for external initiatives.

Executive buy-in and commitment

When I was a university student, I interned at a technology company. During our spare time, a colleague and I created a blog-like system where developers could work together on projects. The blog became very popular with most front-line employees. Customer service agents wanted access so they could log customer complaints, which developers could then find solutions to. Sales employees wanted access to find out what developers were working on so they could begin marketing new products to clients. However, executives didn’t want to participate in the blog, preferring to communicate via email. Eventually the internal tool became an afterthought, used by only a few select people.

Regardless of the idea, if you don’t get executive support and involvement, your Social HR strategy may become an afterthought. People follow the leaders, so if leaders support the strategy and contribute to it on a regular basis, it will be easier to get employees involved with the initiative as well.

To get executive support, you have to talk return on investment. For example, if you’re building an internal social network where employees across the company can submit, view and collaborate on ideas, the benefits for the company will be increased productivity and innovation, reduced inefficiencies and increased diversity of thought as employees from different departments and backgrounds work together. Once you have executive support, you need to get them contributing to the workflow. Once employees see executives using the social network and soliciting feedback from all employees, they will gladly begin contributing as well.

To give executives some measurable ROIs, you can incorporate questions about social media into employee engagement surveys to find out which initiatives employees find most valuable, or through performance evaluations to find out which initiatives your highest performing employees are using. Then you can show the CEO and CFO exactly which social media initiatives work and which ones don’t.

Grassroots versus systematic approach

Many social media applications and websites were created through a grassroots approach. Social media websites usually start out small, with a simple purpose, and then as more users join and offer feedback, features are added to meet users’ needs. The social media’s purpose emerges from users’ wants and needs. For example, nothing is more simple than Twitter’s original purpose, to ask people “What are you doing right now?” and have them answer in 140 characters or less. As the site’s popularity grew, so too did Twitter’s functionality, such as direct messaging between users and analysis that could show which topics are the most popular in which geographic locations. Users are also encouraged to create their own applications for Twitter.

The systematic approach is the exact opposite. The technology is created with a specific purpose and goal in mind and users don’t have much say. Most organizations are systematic in all their initiatives, whether they involve social media or not. The executive team sets the organizational agendas, goals and plans, while employees execute these plans. While there’s not a lot of individual freedom in the systematic approach, it has its benefits. People need direction, and in some cases, may not have the capacity to create something through a grassroots effort.

Therefore, you must evaluate how you want to set up your Social HR strategy. A grassroots initiative might take longer, but will likely yield a higher engagement rate than a systematic approach. A systematic approach will give you a quick return on investment since you are setting the objective, but it may not be as flexible as a grassroots initiative is in meeting users’ needs.

This doesn’t mean you can’t have a cross between the two. You may want to start with a systematic approach but become fluid enough to support organic growth. While LinkedIn started out with a systematic approach, it has realized people want to develop their own particular applications and the site has opened its technological platform so users can do just that.

Intended audience

Internal social networks are usually aimed at the organization’s employees. However, you may want to include customers and qualified candidates as well. You can use the internal social network to connect qualified candidates with employees so they can build relationships and learn about the organization from the inside. This connection may be the deciding factor in whether or not a candidate accepts a job offer. External stakeholders, such as candidates and customers, can also give you insight into how others perceive the organization’s brand and culture.

Whether you’re developing an internal or an external Social HR initiative, once you know who your audience is, you can choose specific engagement factors to drive their involvement with your initiative.