Shut Up- You’re Helping the Customer!

November 14, 2008 · Comments

tractor Imagine your company is a Fortune 500 company that sells a product, an expensive product, the kind of thing that makes an Mercedes look like a value meal. And imagine that your company is making a huge investment in a direct mail piece. This kind of effort will cost a lot, but it will net more interest in the product, and that might lead to a very rewarding sale.

What if you’re a social media enthusiast? What if you start listening online and find that people are actually talking about the campaign? What if they’re asking how to get involved? That’s just what landed in front of “Bob” (not nearly his real name) recently, but it’s what happened after he got permission to engage with these people on a popular online forum around his products that Bob ran into trouble.

Not too long after that, another manager from a different division of our company sent a note saying that he highly advised that no one from the company should be inteacting with customers online and it was a slippery slope to do this. His words were that we should not be talking to people online and representing ourselves as being from our company when doing this. What! My boss at this point told me to stop what I was doing and to not further engage with them anymore.

What comes next is that Bob, being raised to be helpful, kept engaging with the customer base. He answered some questions, got into some conversations, and brought the company’s story to these people. Of course, someone was bound to find out.

All of this leads me to what happened next. My boss was sent a nasty email from the manager from the other division who originally recommended that we do not engage with these customers. By the way, this manager never ever gave a valid reason why we should not other than saying it was a slippery slope. The nasty note basically said he was “disturbed” and very upset that I had continued to talk with these customers (remember, all I was doing at this time was asking for feedback and not giving away trade secrets, etc.). At this point, my boss called me into a room for a meeting with him and asked why I was continuing to disobey orders and talk to these customers. I tried explaining that I was only trying to put a face to our company and help these customers with their needs and desires to be heard.

I was told that what I did was very wrong and that I would be facing consequences now. My manager’s boss got a note also which only ticked him off and he told my boss to take whatever corrective actions he felt were necessary. I will admit that I am very grateful to this point that my boss did not fire me right then, but that is when he told me that he was told to put together a “performance improvement plan” that would put restrictions on me, etc.

Also, a meeting with HR was set up and that is where I will be going on Monday. I will learn at this meeting what they plan to do and what type of restrictions, corrective actions will be taken to make sure I do not overstep my job description boundaries again and do what I am told.

Just to throw a little more fire onto it all, Bob’s bosses found out that he’s going to an entrepreneur conference, the kind that talks about social media and gets everyone all excitable. They can’t say much about it, because Bob’s taken a vacation day for this, and they can’t block it outright. Instead, the boss comes to him again.

But, the day before the event, he called me and said when I get back, it was an order that I had to pass by him any communication I planned to send out to others about what I learned at this event. He had to approve what I would send out to others first. Needless to say, I decided this was not true to who I am in willing to share information with others, so I just did not send anything out at all so I would stay out of trouble.

One more point: the online community where Bob was trying to share this information went crazy when they heard Bob was there. They were thrilled that the company was taking a direct interest in their conversations around their products. In short, the customers, the ones with the money and the interest in buying all this stuff, were clamoring for Bob.

No Happy Ending

I don’t think this will end well for Bob directly at the place where he works today. I’m not guessing that company has a miraculous turnaround. I don’t think they’ll find themselves suddenly enamored with jumping into a community and talking. And Bob? If that had happened to me, I’d already have my feelers out.

There is no moral to this. There is no sweet ending. Simply, some companies won’t get on board. They won’t move forward. At least not until it hurts, and even then, it might not be the way they dig their way out.

Shiny social media pie all around, but some aren’t eating.

What do you think?

Photo credit, KM Photography

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Tagged as: , ,

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Thesis Theme for WordPress

Thesis WordPress theme

Thesis is the search engine optimized WordPress theme of choice for serious online publishers. If you’re a blogger who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Thesis will give a ton of functionality without having to alter any code. For the advanced, Thesis has incredible customization possibilities via Thesis hooks.

With so many design options, you can use the template over and over and never have it look like the same site. The theme is robust and flexible enough not only to accommodate a site like ChrisBrogan.com, but also to enable the site to run far more efficiently than it ever has before.

  • Wow...this reminds me of a comment from Social Media Jungle '08 last night from @podcaststeve "if you aren't getting fired at least once a day you aren't doing your job!".
  • In corporate America, this seems sadly to be the standard. There are too many lines crossed with social media, too many territories it envades. It's part marketing, part communications, part PR, part customer serivce. No neat little job descriptions. It's messy.

    Does this mean that organizations don't trust their employees with their message? Maybe. But I think also, something you bring out in this story also terrifies these companies: the customers were clamoring for --- Bob.

    Employees with strong personal brands are too often viewed as a threat to the company brand rather than harnessed as a resource and an asset.
  • Actually Chris I do think there is a moral to this: This company isn't ready to have someone with Bob's vision working for them. Bob is clearly misplaced and could probably use our help in connecting with a Fortune 500 company that actually cares what it's customers think.
  • If Bob was told not to interact with customers, he should have stopped interacting with customers. And if he didn't want to do that, he should still have stopped, and he should also have started trying to educate and engage others within the company about what a great opportunity the company was missing.

    If he was required to stop educating and engaging within the company, then he should have started looking for a new company that suits his worldview better.

    It's a great shame that the company doesn't want to engage with customers, but every company responds to change in different ways. I think they're making a wrong choice, but I recognize that I don't know their organizational culture -- maybe they are not as wrong as I think.
  • I agree there probably won't be a happy ending to this story, but i also agree that bob has more going for him than virtually everyone else at his soon-to-be-old company. i think he will be fine. once the mind is corrupted with the sweet taste of freedom, very hard to let the censors take over. i am certain we will hear from from bob in his next, successful, SM-based endeavor.

    hard to keep a good man down.
  • That was a sad story. From my perspective Bob did everything correctly. In fact, it sounds to me that he went above and beyond his responsibilities to his company. As an employee of an interactive agency in Honolulu, I truly believe to be an extension of my brand. I think about that every time I Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, whatever. That mentality has given me the fortune of bringing in new business through these methods, and even given me the opportunity to speak to other organizations about these practices. Employers need to change their thinking, accept that this is a new way of communication, and hire folks who they can trust to understand their company's brand, code of ethics, etc. It evens the playing field in my mind, both for the customer perspective and the employee/employer relationship. It’s so easy to spread information these days that folks need to stop being nervous and fearful, and start getting respectful and educated.
  • gerardmclean
    Sounds way too familiar.

    At least Bob's boss was upfront and confronted him, instead of trying to beat Bob to the online community and sabotage his conversations.... ultimately sabotaging the company and the product, but with egos that big, doesn't really matter.
  • As Southwest's Herb Kelleher put it, "The way you treat your employees is the way your employees treat your customers."

    A company that does not appreciate and encourage innovation from within its ranks is basically shooting itself in the foot.
  • Mary
    Sounds like Bob should start looking for a new job.

    First, does his company have anything in writing - a policy - other than what was told to him regarding the slippery slope? If not, then I don't see how they can really reprimand him. But, businesses will do as they like.

    Maybe what he should have done before reaching out to customers would have been to try to get buy in and used reverse psychology to try and get management on his side of things. Let them think it was their idea.

    But, the bigger picture would seem that the higher-ups don't get it and wont get it and it's a matter of time before it bites them in the ass.
  • God bless creative destruction! ...That force that makes the world end, not with a bang but a whimper.. as new ages are born.

    Putting out feelers seems like a bit of an understatement.. but then I'm a stubborn bastard.. never been too good with authority.. I mean isn't this kind of a twisted sister moment?

    I suppose maybe my stubborn streak is might be nieve.. but.. what motivates you? What's getting you out of bed in the morning? If you're company kills that, and they're own sense of self interest is... well heads stuck up certain nether regions.. I mean how can you even stand that?

    Grrr
  • Bob Wilson
    I feel for this person. While I didn't get into this situation at a former employer, I'm sure my opinions (similar to Bob's) would have me there in due time.

    I left that employer partially due to their lack of willingness to engage the customer. They wanted to talk TO them, not WITH them.

    My parting words were, "I want to do things this organization is not capable of." Their lack of response confirmed my decision.

    To all the Bobs out there - start looking for employers that "get it". It will save your sanity and in the long run, your job.
  • Unfortunately, one can't necessarily take the reins when one is an employee - and that's where Bob went wrong. Yes, what he was doing could have been helpful to the company's brand, yes, it would be nice if the company woke up to the possibilities of social media marketing.

    But Bob may not have been qualified to speak on the product. The company may already have another division developing a social media strategy. They might just be afraid - since Bob *does* seem to be a bit of a loose cannon in terms of following orders - that Bob isn't the guy to do it.

    And, they just might not like the idea of social media marketing.

    The "why" is irrelevant because Bob IS an employee and needs to do what the company says.

    And Bob has the choice to move to another company if he doesn't like their policy.
  • I'm in a fortune 1000 company. One person (senior level)also questioned why I had started a blog and questioned the company's policy. Since I was the one who drove a team to write them, I was able to send the policy his way. I also signed my company up with the "blog council", http://blogcouncil.org/ They have great guidelines that corporations can use to guide employee participation in the various forums available.

    I guess I am lucky to work for a progressive company. Not all companies are this way, just some misguided managers who don't "get-it" and most likely never will.

    My recommendation to Bob is to decide if he is going to change the world at his company or get out. Pointing management to this blog council might help.
  • I can't help but wonder if there's more to this story.

    Bob was wrong for continuing to interact with customers online after explicitly being told to stop. If he wanted to continue, he should have put together a report of information he gathered and a formal proposal showing benefits to the company. It may very well be that his managers were not averse to social media specifically, but were (understandably) averse to approving of public-facing actions that they did not fully understand and could not control.

    I see a lot of people tout the benefits of employees tweeting, blogging, etc. but there is a huge amount of risk inherent in those suggestions. What if your employee shares wrong information? What if that information causes injury? People sue over just about anything these days. Is the company hierarchy clear - does someone asking a question know that Joe is entry-level with six months of experience and John has been there for 15 years? Social media interaction by employees should be treated like any other form of public-facing communication. No one would let their employees mail out letters to customers without some approval process.

    If social media wants to be taken seriously, it needs to act seriously and be approached in a serious way.
  • Wow. Unbelievable. Makes me appreciate being my own boss all the more.

    Chris, I hope you chatted with this guy about online business opportunities; sounds like he'd be awesome for that.
  • Two words: death spiral. It may take time, but companies that stupid will always end up on the cutting room floor.
  • sometimes, bigger companies MUST flow all outbound communications thru legal...

    Did you know.. that an employee setting up a blog can cost the company it's liability insurance?

    yes.. this is true.. in 2004 when i first started at the ad agency/pr firm i am currently at.. i almost got our insurance policy cancelled by setting up a blog for the company...

    So while.. yes.. the company should rally behind bob, give him professional media training and also have everything he has posted reviewed by legal to teach him if he made any little mistakes.. it is in their best interest NOT to have Bob doing what he is doing until the appropriate insurance has been set up.

    p.s. @djpaisley - chris, u should be following me so you can hear me talk about you on twitter.
  • Companies are afraid. I was an extremely successful mystery shoppers about 10 years ago. I learned very quickly to never say anything negative about the companies employees, and if I had to say something negative--like the time the employee threw a shake at a customer--to make sure that I said it in away that kept responsibility away from the company--the customer was being unreasonable--she changed her order once after already ordering. I was paid, to tell the company what they wanted to believe. Mystery shoppers that believed differently were constantly challenged, and did not last very long. The threat is the customer will tell you something you don't want to hear, and then you may have to change. Nobody appreciates having to change...even if it makes them more money.
  • I agree that Bob probably has an excellent future at a more forward-looking company with a little Social Media savvy. I can't wait to find out where Bob ends up on Tuesday.
  • The frightening thing about this is, that people justify it by using size of an organization as an excuse. "Corporate America" a term about as useful as "They". There is no "Corporate America" there hasnt been for a long time. America no longer leads the world in anything. The city with the most Billionaires living there - Moscow. The city with the largest amount of spend for Casino's - Dubai, top 5 richest people only one is American. This type of insular thinking is the downward spiral. Lack of recognition that the world is changing at an ever increasing pace and an inability and unwillingness to even attempt to keep up is what will eventually cause the downfall of these monoliths. Thankfully there are enough people here in the States that recognize the change and are embracing it, hopefully enough of them to shore up the economy long enough for the rest to wake up and smell the Social Media pie thats going around (total credit to Chris for the analogy).
  • My short take: Bob's company fully deserves to lose the current and potential future customers it *will* lose for being so obtuse. I'll read the other comments & weigh in again if I have more to add.

    Thanks for sharing this story, Chris. As bad as I feel for Bob, it reminds me to be grateful for working at a company where customer interaction and satisfaction is not simply welcomed, but a major area for sustained investment of $$ and the personal engagement of senior management.
  • It's going to take awhile it seems before corporate America gets a clue as to what's really going on in the SM Universe.
    I am fortunate that my small charity is on-board 100%, and created a position for me, I used to be their donations call center supervisor.
    I am now the Social Media Coordinator for the co.

    "Bob" is in a no-win situation, and better be polishing his resume, but he obviously has learned an important lesson in this debacle that will serve him well in the next position. Good Luck Bob!
  • Having worked in communications for large corporations in the past, I know that the tough reality is that your average publicly traded company will get its back up the minute employees start having un-vetted communications with anyone outside the company. Corporations are paranoid that one false move will send shareholders into a tizzy and the damage control on that makes it much too risky for the comfort and satisfaction of the execs.

    I too, hope that things begin to change, but I'm afraid it's going to be an uphill battle. The best thing we can do as the advocates of this medium is to try to educate our colleagues and management as best we can. It's a delicate balance between rocking the boat too hard and tipping it, but ultimately Bob has a choice here - stay on and fight the fight or find an opportunity that better fits with his strengths.

    Love these case studies - more, more! :)
  • You know when you read something and it sounds very similar to a situation and person you know and all you find yourself thinking is "is Bob the guy I know?"
    Yeah, that.

    All I can think is that if Bob is the guy I know, then the company is obtuse beyond reason and needs to wake up and smell the 21st century. If Bob isn't the guy I know? then the company is obtuse beyond reason and needs to wake up and smell the 21st century.

    Huh...

    Bob will continue to be visionary, but will probably have to move on to a company that "gets it" - Bob's company will eventually pay a price for it, but since they're obtuse beyond reason, won't realize that supporting Bob could've saved them.

    Ah well.
  • Jay Wasack
    If we wish for companies to be open-minded, then we should apply the same principles.

    From Bob's perspective, it is very frustrating for a visionary to be "held back." From the company's perspective, they don't know what Bob is saying and might want to control the message. As such, if they are unfamiliar with the medium, surely they are going to ask Bob to back off.

    We don't know Bob and we don't know the company's policy (other than what Bob has told us.)

    Bottom line: Bob is an employee for the company. If the company asks him to stop: then he should stop. If that "is not who he is" then he should be working for another company.
  • The fact that Bob ignored a direct order to stop engaging in public dialog tells me more about him than it does about the company. I have clients in sectors where public discussion on certain topics engaged in by anyone under the corporate banner presents significant legal and regulatory liabilities, which Fortune 500s try to carefully manage. Bobs actions fit the profile of an ambitious junior employee diving in over his head to be "helpful". Without knowing what the product was, or what kind of dialog Bob was engaging in, it's premature to slam the company as a social media dinosaur. That's not to say many F500 aren't dinosaurs, but taking the one-sided point-of-view of someone who admitted he couldn't follow an order doesn't seem reasonable.
  • Gee, reminds me of working for the Roman Catholic church!
  • Maybe Bob should apply to be President-elect Obama's Chief Technology Officer? Or at least part of the staff?
  • While Bob seemed to have some good ideas, the fact that he continued with these actions after being directly told not to would put him, in my non-lawyer opinion, of soon having a pink incentive to "explore new opportunities". If you are going to work "the j-o-b" and take the paycheck you are ethically, if not legally, obligated to follow the company's rules, no matter how ridiculous. If you cannot, or will not, then be honest and go somewhere else. This is one of the main reasons that I never went into the military and spent most of my career so far working for myself and my clients. Clients I understand (usually-I have "fired" a few that got too difficult) but managers-not so much. At least when I made a deal with a client there was no doubt, at least on my side, that everything was honest and above-board.
  • Wow - what a fascinating case-study, real-time. This is exactly why I started the blog (linked to my nom de plume above). I too am struggling with some of these issues.

    http://oxidation.wordpress.com

    While I have not yet been "ordered" to stop blogging (at another, unnamed, site), I have faced some hurtful, threatening feedback.

    A couple of posts above sparked some thoughts in my head:

    @Cynthia Closkey is absolutely right (as were others making the same point). Employees have a duty to respond to authority, whether they like it or not. If the educational process fails, the employee needs to find other outlets for their vision and creativity. That may be an off-duty hobby or another employer/career field.

    @Katybeth spoke great words of wisdom from the lessons learned as a mystery shopper. "The company didn't want to hear anything negative, even if it cost them money and customers."

    In my few short years on this planet, 50, I've learned a few things. And though I know this lesson intellectually, my idealism and morality, not to mention my pathological need to do the right thing, won't let me stop pointing out that the emperor is naked!

    This is going to give me some pause as I seek to survive the last 15+ years of my working years, and still find financial security for my family.

    I hope that "Bob," obviously reading this conversation, will stop disobeying his superior's direction. You can't fight "the law." The law always wins - or you get shot in the crossfire.

    On the other hand, Bob, you are right to pursue this. But let it go until you can find an employer who values your strengths.

    Recently a physician friend of mine wanted to start a new kind of medical clinic. One that didn't just prescribe medications and rush people out the door. He wanted to incorporate holistic practices that would deal with the social, emotional, and spiritual, as well as the medical/physical needs.

    I recommended that he start a social network that would allow people to interact online, as well as offline, in his office. After hours of phone conversations, he rejected the prototype I created on Ning, and put up a site that included a moderated forum.

    For lack of options, I pulled out of the project. I choose my new projects carefully, and it was obvious we weren't in alignment.

    Bob is clearly not in alignment with his superiors. Given that we can't change others, only ourselves, there are two options:

    1) submit to authority
    2) find other employment
  • You can tell by the comments to this article who has worked for large companies and who has not. Large companies will eventually get on board with SM, but in the meantime, employees need to work within their organization's structure. We have no idea how qualified Bob was to be interacting with customers or how well he represented the company.

    If Bob wants to have a job that provides this type of contact with customers, he should go find one. However, I do not assume that he is a hero for pursuing the course of action described in this post. He works within an organization and he needs to respect the direction that he is given by his boss or face the consequences.

    Large organizations would be well served to address these issues by giving clear responsibility to individual(s) they trust to create, manage and maintain an SM strategy. They'll get there in their own large, lumbering way. It reminds me of Internet Strategies not that long ago.
  • The company needs a name. When Target or Dell got into social media trouble, their names were out there and they adapted. Let Bob's (hopefully soon to be former) employer learn what it means to keep the Bobs of the world from doing their jobs. Of course, Bob needs a new job first. Good luck, Bob!
  • Hey Chris -- Back in the day, a lot of companies had strict limits about who interacted with customers and who didn't --and this predates social media. Remember, bulletin boards and listservs are nothing new. It was sad then and it is sad now but these companies have made these decisions for better or worse (mostly worse but in some cases there is a good reason.) You can try to change the policy or you can change your employer. Meanwhile, from a marketing/communications POV, I stand by my advice from the New Marketing Summit -- communicators, let go. Empower your team and your partners to take your messages to the market. Give them the resources they need to do that in a consistent and effective manner and everyone wins.
  • As Tim Walker commented above, Bob should share this blog post with his social media tribe of customers.

    Let the tribe decide what to do with their leader. My guess is the tribe will shift wherever Bob shifts.
  • Poor Bob; to be so enthusiastic about your company and product, to be savvy with social media and know in your heart that what you're doing is ultimately of benefit to your employer, but then to not have that employer's backing is unfortunate. However, I don't think any employee should, on their own, make their employer's communication strategies for them and act on them without knowing the ramifications. Should companies be adopting and using social media...that isn't even a question anymore. But until they do, employees shouldn't make executive decisions that aren't theirs to make. There really are legal consequences...information put online stays online. I hope Bob, who showed awesome initiative, finds a company that rewards such initiative. I hope Bob will communicate his ideas with his employer before acting on them independently. Or, Bob should start his own business.
  • I really am loving this conversation...

    I didn't really weigh in on it intelligently so much as emotionally.

    One of the things I'm noticing is that there are those who understand the concept of the Groundswell and those who have yet to be exposed to it.

    Yes, the company can fire Bob over this - what they don't understand is that they can't stop their customers from continuing to discuss their company on the internet. Getting rid of someone who is trying to improve the company's response to customers will send a message to those people that this company is not listening to them nor does it have a plan to engage them in dialog.

    Sadly, there's still a pervasive "well this is the way things have always been done" attitude that is very strong at larger corporations. The ones that are 'getting' that business as usual is no longer an option will thrive. The ones that keep thinking that just saying "don't do that" will stop the online conversation about them won't.

    Bob probably shouldn't have disobeyed a "direct order" but that's also the point he should've started looking for a company that would benefit from his desire to help... after all, the company he works for clearly doesn't get how much letting him go will contribute to a negative ripple in the groundswell.

    Ah well.
  • Unfortunate many companies take this type of stand against new media and actually talking with consumers. I wonder if Bob took more of an educational standpoint and sat down with both managers and talked to them and explained the medium and how it could benefit the company and the new campaign, would they have reacted differently.
  • I want to comment on some of the criticism of Bob here..

    One of the biggest challenges business face in our modern age is how you manage change.. An answer to this is to empower your employes.. Management, as we inherit it, is to often based on ideas that.. it's all about this kind of command and control of making x happen by applying why force.. like its all this big mechanical system.. this system of managing things.. means that the folks doing the command and control have multiple layers between them an the market place.. between them and whatever it is that are the external market forces that they are operating in.. which is a big problem if you're dealing with a situation that's changing fast..

    So you need to empower your employees to take initiative. Now we don't know that much of the larger context of Bob's plight in the company.. but it doesn't sound like they treated Bob terribly well. Did they bother to talk to him about what he thought he was doing, why he thought he was bringing value to the company? Or did they just shut him down without even even bothering to be open to what where he was coming from?

    Yeah.. I think the right course of action for Bob would be to have tried to educate people in the company about what he was up to.. No question about that..

    I also think.. there's certainly best ways of doing social media.. and some of the criticisms of Bob is.. sorta not understanding that part of the equation. I mean there are often issues to be cognizant of.. as far as what you can talk about.. and blah blah blah, that has to do with the particulars of your company.. but that doesn't mean there's no roll for this kind of communications...

    My feeling about the future of business.. social media needs to be incorporated into businesses DNA.. There are huge changes that need to be made if you want to stay competitive..

    If we look at Bob from the stand point of... someone not doing what "he was supposed to be doing," I think that's a kind of command and control centric view point.. I think.. well.. what are your values? It's not a black and white world.. its not one value at the expense of all else.. I think ultimately you have a kind of hierarchy of values... We don't really have enough to go on to evaluate how Bob relates to these values...

    Values... and there hierarchies is a complex subject though... I think there's a way we can look at one person and say "bad person" and another as "good person" but I think this often obscures certain things.. like isn't Bob, in a certain sense, an expression of certain systemic forces that are forcing change at Bob's company? And perhaps the people making Bob's life difficult is the same sorta thing.. If you view it from this point of view.. I think Bob is a hero in so far as he is a force working for the companies survival..

    I mean basically
  • I would not want Bob as an employee. As an employee, you don't have the right to obey only those orders that you feel make sense. If someone higher up the food chain tells you to do something, you do it or you quit. Willful disobedience demands a serious response.

    I'm all for companies engaging customers online. But not all companies agree -- and that's their prerogative.
  • rcjordan
    Off and on over the past 10 years I've had a fair amount of experience with company reps engaging social media (large, active forums). Sometimes it was on their own time, but more often than not it was approved by corporate. Though I agree in theory that the interaction could be positive, if I were pressed I'd have to say that the usual outcome, from the company's perspective, ended either blandly neutral, branded as FUD, or blisteringly negative. In the cases where the interaction remained on a positive note, the positive aspects seemed to be attributed to, and remained with, the individual rep and wasn't automatically transferred to the company.

    What the social media proponents fail to point out when they say that companies should engage their customers is that some of these customers are incredibly sharp individuals. Some may even be competitors. To think that entering a forum related to your company or its products/services is going to even remotely resemble a friendly marketing session is sheer folly.
  • @rcjordan You bring up and interesting point. "some of these customers are incredibly sharp individuals. Some may even be competitors." On the internet, nobody really, really knows you are a dog. (well except me.. I AM a dog)

    @Chip neither would I, unless it was Bob's job to engage the customer... "going rogue" didn't work for Sarah either :-)

    @Ari Quit reading Seth Godin without really reading Seth Godin. Bob has no "tribe" He has customers of a high-end product that his company paid a lot of money to get. They will stick with the brand, not Bob. Really.

    @paisley as few as four years ago, my firm's insurance premiums were incredibly high because we did "Internet work" and "took credit cards over the Internet." On in the last few when folks understood the real risk of us developing web-based software did rates come down dramatically. It's a real concern for larger companies who are a bigger target.

    Bob really needs to risk his own skin and not his employer's. If he feels that strongly about social networking, strike out on his own or get another job where that is what he does. Otherwise, follow the Golden Rule-- he who has the gold makes the rules. For better or worse.
  • I think Bob should polish up his resume. His days at this company are numbered.

    If he does nothing he'll likely end up getting fired or frustrated and quit. And having changed jobs a number of times myself I've seen that it is much easier to get a job when you have a job.

    Besides Bob should look for a company that is more inline with his passion and beliefs. He'll be happier there and more productive. Everyone wins if he moves on.
  • As an employee, he should have followed the manager's instructions, whether or not he disagreed with them. The best path would have been to show the manager why what he was doing was a positive thing.
  • Is there more to this story, perchance? I would like to hear the company's side of things, not just Bob's. There are always two if not three sides to every story. Anyway...

    When you work for a company you agree to abide by their policies, whatever they are. That's the contract. Don't like it, resign, end your contract and work somewhere you can do what you like.

    If he was told by his manager not to engage then he should have ceased. For many companies, especially large corporations (particularly heavily regulated or publicly traded) there are clear guidelines as to what is and isn't permitted and usually legal, financial compliance and reputational risks.

    Everything has to be vetted by corporate communications - and usually there is reason. If they end up having to defend themselves in court it really shouldn't be because of what an employee inadvertently said when bypassing proper communication channels.

    When Bob ignored a direct instruction from his Boss no less - whom I might add will probably be held with some responsibility for their employee actions - and chose to represent his company against his bosses wishes - he should have been prepared for the consequences.

    I am all for encouraging Social Media in enterprises,but reaming companies out simply because they "don't get it" or don't jump on board and let their employees do any old thing or "don't see things our way" doesn't present our Social Media approach in the best possible light.

    To win companies over you need to allay their fears and limitations (however silly and irrational we may perceive them to be) particularly now and understand the risks they face and try to mitigate them, if possible. And it may not be possible right now. It may be possible later when all parties discuss what's at stake. Some companies are testing the waters and dedicate staff to doing so, others may not for a long while. Bob could probably be dismissed (depending on what his contract says... but even if he is not, he has lost trust and integrity which, not good if he wants to stay or be employed elsewhere.
  • Jay Wasack
    @Ari - I think it is irresponsible to suggest that Bob take matters in his own hands. Perhaps I missed something; is he a partner or owner that might grant him that right? If not, he'd be it a load of legal hot water to go directly to the company customers.

    Just because Bob shares a philosophy with which most here would agree doesn't give him the right to handle it any way he wishes. His heart (and head) is in the right spot; his job is at the wrong company.
  • As someone who owns my own company, yet also has almost 15 years background in corporate as well, I'd like to offer "both sides", if I may?

    1. Scenario One. Bob is connecting with customers and enhancing the perception of his employers (me) at the same time. This (as a boss) should be encouraged. I f I have someone that "gets" social media willing to engage my clients and build brand loyalty, let me be the first to say "Keep doing what you're doing!"

    2. Scenario Two. Bob is connecting with customers and enhancing the perception of his employers (me) at the same time. This (as a boss) should be encouraged.

    Where's the problem?
  • The lesson from this should be that every company, regardless of whether it has a formal social media marketing campaign or not, needs to have clear guidelines on employees communicating via blogs and social networks etc.

    I'd suggest somewhere like the BBC guidelines to be a good start.

    This is just one example from a company which doubtless has 100 other employees chatting happily on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter etc.

    As I recently said in answer to the question 'Should a brand use social media?', it's a pointless question, because your employees and customers already are.
  • Don
    Bob didn't do anything wrong!

    Except believe in and care for the company he worked for so much that he wanted to put his skills to work for the company.

    Bob's boss and the tattle tail who was trying to score brownie points should read Seth Godins "Tribes" Seth speaks about this sort of mentality specifically.

    If I were Bob I'd tell the Boss and the HR what to do, where to go, and then go home and blog it.
  • Jay Wasack
    @Danny Brown: The problem is you are not Bob's boss! Give him a job!!!
  • @ Jay Wasack. Now there's an idea...! ;-)

    If he's ever in Toronto, then there will always be a job waiting for him in a company that wants employees like him. :)
  • Jay Wasack
    @Danny Brown - Now, THAT's the spirit!!
  • There IS a moral. When the boss says no, the boss is right, even when he's (or she's) wrong.
  • @David H - seriously?

    So, it's better to let the 'boss' tank a company and have RIFs and layoffs and potentially impact tons of people negatively than it is to say "hey, wait, you know - you might want to rethink that a bit... let me explain to you why I'm doing what I'm doing."

    Sounds like megalomania run rampant and a good way to make sure that a company goes under. Even in the armed forces, when an order is irrational it is a soldier's duty to question it.
    Bob's problem was not seeking a way to do what he was doing *with* permission rather than without.
  • If there's one thing social media COMMENTS have taught me, it's that we should always listen to authority.

    When Brian Conley protested Tibet in China and got arrested, the commentsphere decided that he got what he deserved -- you don't protest China *in* China.

    When "Bob" tried to improve his company's standing among their existing customer bases, he got reprimanded -- you don't defy your bosses in order to improve the company.

    When Hitler told people to gas the -- wait, where was I?

    Oh yes: authority is always right. And if you don't like it, move to Canada. (They don't have any authority there, and everyone is always equally right.)
  • What happens if we take out the phrase "social media" and replace it with "Customer Engagement". Chris uses essentially this terminology within the description, but then ends the piece with "Shiny social media pie all around." Does it make a difference? Can these terms be used interchangeably?

    As shocking as it is to me and others here, the word "blog" is still a four-letter word in certain circles. (I know, I know, hard to believe, but true.) However, if the same concept is framed as an easy-to-update web page, all of a sudden it seems like the most natural thing to do. So if instead of framing it as "social media", we framed it as "customer engagement" would that work or help to get better buy-in from the rest of the organization?

    I don't have the answer, just throwing the question out there.

    One other question not clear from the description: Were the customers clamoring for Bob because he was Bob or because he was *any* representative from the company that they were curious about? No matter which is the answer, the company should be beyond thrilled that they have customers who are this interested in them and their products.
  • There are always some people who don't get it:
    - "Xerox will never sell anything called 'a mouse'."
    - dooced: "I got fired for this blog" http://tinyurl.com/5qf5lb

    But even if you have the right of way, it's just as well to check traffic before stepping into the cross-walk.
  • I've been reading this thread of comments with interest. I'd like to pick up on Lucretia's analogy -- maybe the most salient one here -- that "when an order is irrational it is a soldier’s duty to question it."

    Chris has rightly obscured Bob's real identity, and we're hearing the story from Bob's perspective. So, for example, we don't know whether he's a model employee or a steady source of problems for his managers, whether the organization is generally functional or dysfunctional, whether Bob handled these situations with high or low emotional intelligence, et cetera.

    In particular, we DON'T know whether there are liability or regulatory issues attached to his communications -- and this has given many of us (including myself in my earlier comment) the opportunity to stray into unfounded speculation.

    For those who, like me in my earlier comment, come down so strongly on Bob's side: IF there are clear liability issues, Bob SHOULD NOT have proceeded as he did, because he might put the company in real-life danger of lawsuits or compliance violations.

    Listen, I love social media, I work in it every day, and I'm fortunate to do it for a company that embraces it. But no employee is justified in subjecting a company to that sort of risk, regardless of how ardently he/she/we believe in the magical healing power of social media.

    But for those of you counseling obedience above all for Bob: NO. Lucretia's point is completely apt here. If there's NOT a liability issue, and if the manager in the other department is trying to block Bob's efforts out of spite, ignorance, pissiness, or the like, that manager SHOULD be opposed. And especially if Bob continued his social-media efforts by, for example, speaking only when spoken to -- contributing only when customers reached out to him -- there's no way he should suffer for this.

    Now, should he / could he have done it better? Could he better communicate the benefits of his actions for the company? From the sound of Chris's story, probably. Should Bob be prepared to pay the piper for disobeying orders? Of course. Any grown-up in the business world ought to be able to trace the connections between cause and effect.

    But I reject the notion that Bob must "ethically" go along with stupidity, regardless of where it comes from. The Hitler analogy given above is overblown (and runs afoul of Godwin's Law, anyway), but the moral of the story is clear: people of conviction who have the truth on their side don't just lie down and take it when authority tells them to do something stupid.
  • Tim, no matter how ignorant, stupid, spiteful, or short-sighted the manager's instruction may have been, it was Bob's obligation to obey it. Argue against it, sure. Try to change it, of course. But to simply ignore it is wrong.
  • Chip, I take your point. Bob's a grown-up and shouldn't be surprised if he gets fired. I think we can all agree that that's the way the business world works, regardless of who actually has the wisest view of what's best for the company.

    But bear with me a minute while I play Devil's advocate to what you just said: if I'm Bob, I ought to bring the best of myself to promoting the company's interests, period.

    Hopefully, this means I will bring passionate internal advocacy, I'll go to great lengths to explain my point of view and recruit others to it, and so on. The wise employee picks battles carefully, weighs the long-term against the short-term, etc.

    But no, I'm not serving the company well if I go along with something that I know to be ignorant or stupid. If a customer asks me a question via e-mail or Twitter instead of the phone or in person, am I supposed to stonewall them? No.

    Now, we don't know whether Bob "ignored" the instruction. Maybe he tried to communicate his intent to answer direct questions from the customer base. Maybe there was simple miscommunication between Bob and his boss. (Think of how many times in your own career something has *seemed* clear to both parties in a conversation . . . but they "clearly" understood two different things.) Maybe, maybe, maybe -- we don't have dispositive evidence one way or another here.

    My larger Devil's-advocate point is this: assuming you're ready to be fired for doing the right thing, and assuming you're not violating some clearly stated sensible policy (e.g. for regulatory reasons), you should move forward in doing the right thing for the company and its customers.

    Shouldn't you?

    Maybe I'm just feeling my oats today, or maybe I'm drawing too heavily on many years spent at a progressive company where impasses like this are virtually inconceivable, but I'm having a hard time getting behind the idea that someone passionately devoted to the best interests of the company should submit to the ignorance or timidity of middle-management. But I welcome your response.
  • Tim, here's my problem. Bob wrote that "My boss at this point told me to stop what I was doing and to not further engage with them anymore." There's no ambiguity there and Bob apparently understood it since this is HIS side of the story.

    I have no problem with Bob advocating for a change of policy -- even vociferously. But there's a huge difference between arguing for change and making a unilateral decision.
  • Chip, you raise important points here and in your rebuttal article. (Everybody else: if you haven't already, check out Chip's article: http://is.gd/7EhE )

    In fact, what you wrote got me thinking about this enough to write a longish post of my own on the subject -- linked to my name here or from the pingback link above. I welcome further thoughts from you, Chris, and anyone else following the conversation either here or on my own post.

    Cheers!
  • @Chris ... thanks for the post. it's definitely eye opening to read something like this. i can't imagine working for a company that was this closed minded about new media and it's potential to impact customers.

    it would be really cool to hear that this guy figured out a plan to show the power and convinced the 'bosses' ... :)

    --
    http://twitter.com/franswaa
  • Mark
    This has been a very interesting viewpoint into what Bob did and what has happened so far. I propose that Chris potentially continue this "case study" and ask if Bob would be interested in continuing to share what happens and how things go. Who would be interested in following that dialog?
  • Sue Marks
    I would hire Bob in a minute! He is the kind of employee all great companies need. Oh, BTW, fire the managers :)
  • Hellooooo, Corporate America. Ever heard of the world-wide-web?

    You can't hide anymore - not for long, anyway.
  • Jump ship, "Bob." An iceberg approacheth, and the captain just yelled full steam ahead.

    Besides, I'm pretty certain there's a one-person pirate ship with your name on it nearby.
  • Great post, sad story as it is now. I love the comments. And this story isn't going to end well unless Bob realizes it's time to change. He's a dedicated employee, dedicated to customers and his colleagues. And this company doesn't want dedicated employees.

    Like Guy Rosen said, How you treat your employees is how they'll treat customers.

    "[Listening] to [employees] is a slippery slope". I guarantee this or a similar sentence/sentiment has been shared for a long time in the offices of managers and execs at Bob's company.
  • Wow. Comparing working for a corporation to Hitler’s Germany? Really? Unlike Hitler’s Germany, Bob has a choice to work at his company. He accepts the security of a paycheck and benefits, and he will certainly use the experience and the company’s name on his resume to get ahead. In return, he has a responsibility to fulfill his responsibilities within whatever direction his management determines is appropriate. That’s why there’s management, and that’s why there are, or should be, clear policies for things like social media—without them, everyone would be free to serve customers however they see fit, and as someone who has managed a lot of people, I can say from experience that not everyone’s judgment is equal. Ideally, the company is progressive and innovative, and gives Bob opportunities to maximize his skills and exercise his passion for social media. If not, direct disobedience doesn’t help the cause—it simply brands Bob as someone who thinks he knows better than anyone else, and confirms the company’s fears about social media.

    If you make the choice to work for a corporation, you better learn quickly that getting your boss reprimanded by his or her own boss is not an effective way to foster innovation. If your ideas and initiative aren’t valued, and if you can’t subjugate them to the will of management, then you either find constructive ways to work within the system, or you leave and find a company that values you. If you’re taking a paycheck, you don’t have any justification for breaking the rules.
  • I adore Bob
  • Bob's story is about social rank behaviour. He went directly to the source (customer = revenue) without passing the people who engage his services. If they pay his wage they deserve more than a blind eye.

    Large ships turn slowly because of their mass. I think there is no doubt however, the big ships will arrive.In the mean time perhaps Bob belongs in a more flexible company.
  • At our company I've instituted a written policy regarding Internet access at work AND representing the company on Internet sites.

    Does Bob's company have a written policy? If so, Bob should be following it. Unfortunately Bob is an employee in a large company. He can't change the ballgame, he can only change what field he plays in. Companies have a right to control how and when employees represent them online. I bet if Bob was trying to do TV interviews representing the company, nobody would be upset if the company didn't want him doing it...

    The problem is that Bob has represented himself as the company, and his primary job is obviously not PR. The company SHOULD hire a small division to do what Bob took on himself to do.
  • Epic fail.
  • While disheartening, it's pretty clear from the comments that this example is far from unusual. As the saying goes though, "in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." In this case, the opportunity exists for small and mid-size businesses. Most large companies aren't really going to embrace social media until they absolutely have to because their cultures and infrastructures are designed to support the exact opposite behavior...i.e., org structures designed for deliberate, structured decision-making, and optimized to prevent bad decisions from being made. This doesn't work when the name of the game is speed and individual empowerment. From a small business perspective, this is a major competitive advantage.
  • Bob's instincts are right, even though his non-conforming actions may be wrong. The company has a right to do things however it wishes, and Bob is bound to do what he's told - even if the instincts of the leadership are (in the larger scheme of things) wrong or misguided (&, of course, maybe they're NOT in this case - we don't know enough). So Bob should just leave - both he and and the present company will be better off.
  • Jay Wasack
    First we had Bob the Plumber.
    Now we have Bob the Social Media Victim, LOL
  • I keep reading "Bob disobeyed a direct order." I'm sorry. I don't see anything here that indicates that Bob is in the Military. Bob works at a Company.

    A manager _in another division_, someone who has no direct influence over Bob's reviews and pay increases, complained and Bob's manager caved. Bob's manager is a fool. Bob needs a new job.

    Command and Control works in the military, where your life and the lives of your group depend on following orders without question (unless the orders are bad and then, well,...)

    This is not the military and, as Lucretia says, these people need to wake up and smell the 21st century.

    Go Bob. You don't want to work here. And after you leave and the customers find out why? Maybe your boss will realize he wasn't doing His Job - which is to protect you and let you do Your Job.

    Bob's manager screwed up here.
  • Jay Wasack
    @vicki
    Have you owned your own business?

    Bob tried to do the right thing. That does not entitle him to act outside the wishes of the company as distasteful as iot may seem to most of us.
  • Aurelio Montemayor
    Amazing reactions to the blog. So many sides and shades to the situation.
    I think it's important that all companies, even after considering all the legal implications, listen to customers, communicate with customers and value what customers say. The risks involved I think are outweighed by the overwhelming feeling we consumers have about being at the mercy of the market, have to take whatever is offered and be happy with what we get.
    If customer service results in economic benefits to the company, and online communication with potential and actual clients becomes a common tool to provide it, then companies should read the original blog and all the give and take that followed in the comments.
    I would have to actually meet Bob and be in his work situation to make any judgement about it. I'm not defending Bob, because he could be a naive whiner or one of those passive-agressives that are killers to work with.
    Nevertheless the market has to understand the value of communication with customers.
  • Michael R. Bernstein
    This sounds almost exactly like the 'Glove Girl' case study from Harvard Business Review (in 2003): A Blogger in Their Midst'.
  • I think was happened here was a missed opportunity. For Bob to be excited about the use of social media and to want to reach out to assist customers on line is a good thing, but Bob could have used a slightly different strategy to accomplish the same goal and possibly have a completely different outcome.

    Bob first did the right thing in getting permission to get involved with the customers on line, but I don't think he went high enough to do so. Had I been in Bob's shoes, I might have sent an email to someone even higher up in the company and invited them to respond to some of the comments, offering to post their response for them or show them how to get involved in the discussion. Giving corporate VIP's the opportunity to participate in social media might be a better spring board to opening up a discussion about how a company can use it to engage with their customers. Bob could then also offer himself as a resource of information as to how the company could benefit from using social media tools.

    If, the response from the corporate VIP's was an order to stay away from on line discussions, the Bob would know that this company is one that will not be very successful in coming years and now would be a good time for him to find one that held more promise. Bob would then be able to keep himself out of hot water in either case. Large corporations such as this can be fearful of change. Others are capable of making the Queen Mary turn on a dime.

    Bob could have tested the waters with the powers that be much higher up than his immediate supervisor to find out just how flexible his company is.
  • It is easy to draw simple black-and-white narratives from this case study. My sense is that the realities are a little more complex. I don't know Bob the Social Media Guy from Joe the Plumber so I will reserve judgment on his actions. What I will say is this:

    Companies of all sizes need to grok Social Media. But most don't and many institutions of significant size have reason to be wary of social media. This is new frontier for most current corporate leaders. Considering this. In the 'modern' age of marketing and advertisement, success has largely been defined by how well you 'create-and-control' your messages--marketing is about creating images/ideas that can be repeated consistently and predictably. We have mastered the art of industrializing corporate marketing where we count on a lot of repeated messages with a few actual messengers.

    Social media turns this entire exercise on its head. What corporations fear is not Bob but an army of Bobs who might run around ad-libbing stuff without professional supervision. Oh! Imagine the liabilities! Imagine the muddling of our brand!

    Should companies change and get with the social media program? Absolutely, and I can rattle off a dozen reasons, or you can scroll above for them. The advice I give to my clients is that the solution to their anxieties is not less social-media engagement but more. That said, the choice and prerogative to participate in social media is ultimately the company's to make, not an employee's.

    Now, I am not accusing Bob of insubordination. I am merely asserting that it is entirely reasonable that companies would make bad decisions and ignore good ideas; but it IS their right to do so. We may agree with Bob's instincts and even support his chutzpah, but like it or not, marketing strategy may be above his pay-grade (even if his company would be worser for it).

    What I say to employees is that social media is may be ground-breaking but it doesn't do away with professional responsibilities. Social media's success in a company is predicated on a great measure of trust. But to be trusted with your company's brand, you have to earn it, and you can't earn it by being a perceived bad corporate citizen. To be clear, I am not discouraging innovation or any efforts to challenge internal corporate dogma. I am saying that as employees, we would do well to differentiate between internal debates and public ones.
  • There’s definitely more to Bob’s story than we’re hearing. While it’s true that there are always two sides to everything, I can’t see a good reason why the company in question would want to stop him communicating with the customers.

    The only reason I can see (as a business owner) is if he was sharing confidential information - then there would be valid grounds for both a cease and desist as well as dismissal. But if it’s just for communicating in a positive manner? Seems a little bizarre.

    It’ll be interesting to see if there is any controlled and manufactured social media strategy in place at this company - they’ll soon be found out if there is.
  • This is a fascinating conversation - and one that is playing out all over.

    Recently while trying to convince someone to incorporate social networking in their web presence, I suddenly stopped and realized that anyone over 30, who has no experience in this, is going to have trouble getting it. (BTW, I'm 50). So, I pulled back and told my friend to do whatever he wants.

    His response was to tell me to quit my job and go start a Web2.0 company. Which are what many are saying here. However, this isn't as easy as one may think. Besides, I happen to like what I do, as Life Coach; why would I want to leave this, just because I understand online social networking.

    Meanwhile, I'm meeting with another corporate communications officer this week, to help him understand the value of these tools. First, I'm going to suggest he read Chris' post and the following conversation.

    Thanks everyone!!
  • jack Repenninh
    @Danny Brown: I can't see any GOOD reason, either, but I believe it. I know two major computer hardware/software manufacturers, who you'd think would be better in tune, who explicitly forbid employees to discuss business matters in email outside the company's closed network. Even with partners. In this case, Bob was not only "discussing business matters," but arguably representing the company in public.

    The moment you make someone responsible for security or corporate image, they discover that the surest way to prevent mistakes is to prevent anyone doing anything at all.

    Social Media pundits sometimes have a strident, rather put-upon tone. There's a reason.
  • @Gary Walter There is "getting it" and "getting sued." Once you get the latter, you are less inclined to do the former!
  • What Bob could have done differently:

    If a company doesn't "get it", it doens't mean they can't and never will. The job of the social media types like Bob is to help the company "get it" in a way that will work, vs. a way that scares them.

    1) Collect the customer feedback on the campaign or whatever is being talked about, and present it and say, "wow, this is great, people are talking about us"

    2) Say, "there could be a big benefit to us if we participated" in this conversation.

    3) Here is my proposal, I could jump into this stream, collect feedback, and answer questions. I would not mention any employees, or share any confidential information, just serve the customers.

    4)Why don't we have a customer service manager sponsor this project, and follow along, so the company learns more.

    5) I suggest a weekly review from (an executive) to make sure the conversation is adding value.

    6) I volunteer to organize this, and lead our conversation.

    There are many legal and brand issues companies have, and individuals talking directly to the public is scary for them.

    What people like Bob need to remind (and show) them is that the conversation led by individuals about them is happening already, whether or not they participate.
  • @Rufus: You may be correct that Bob has no tribe. But the company does; the tribe are the customers. Bob is one of many corporate voices, but one who understands the old saying, "The customer is right," and chooses to listen to them and be their so-called online leader.

    @Jay: Keep in mind that Bob was originally given permission to engage with customers on an online forum. Maybe you're right and Bob should cease contact. He'd need to write a goodbye message on the forum, right? Maybe something like, "Hi guys, I've enjoyed talking to you but effective immediately, corporate management no longer wants me to talk to you. Have a good day."

    That will end it. But is that something Bob's manager wants Bob to say? If Bob doesn't say it, the customers will keep asking questions on that online forum, there will be no response, and the phone calls will start pouring in referencing Bob.
  • Sounds like poor "Bob" was a "unicorn in a balloon factory." (Yes, I have been reading Seth Godin and I'm hip dip in triiibes).

    That said, it sounds to me like a great opportunity for the competition. "The Widget Weasals may not care about their customers, but Fizzbin Inc. does."

    I hope "Bob" gets a new job soon!
  • I agree with everyone who commented that Bob was in error continuing the conversation online after being told to stop. Let's talk trust here. Bob got permission to begin engaging the online community. But the company got scared, and his boss said "stop your end of the conversation." My guess here is Bob's boss took whatever heat at this point, as he should have, since he gave the original permission. But Bob didn't stop. The company shouldn't be demonized just because it won't get on board with social media. And why should we trust Bob, just because he claims he wasn't giving away company secrets? This tale ceased being about social media when Bob took it upon himself to ignore the directive from his boss. At that point, to me, it's about job performance. Just because it involves "social media" doesn't make it different. Would Bob have started running off full color flyers on his home computer and mailed them to the company's list of customers, all in the name of helping them? Sure, that would be cost-prohibitive, and Bob would probably not want to spend the money. Just because Bob now has, as we all have, a form of cheaper "broadcasting" capabilities, doesn't change the fact that he ignored what his boss told him to do.
  • I feel for Bob. I am presently in a situation similar to his, only I haven't gone all-out representing my employer without his consent, not because I fear something similar to Bob's situation may happen, but because I already know that my ideas and my work are underappreciated as it is.

    I work at a small interactive agency that desperately needs to be active in social media and would benefit from it immensely. My boss was grasping at straws trying to find leads and have more of a presence online, so naturally I asked him what he was doing as far as social media.

    He literally laughed at me and said, "My clients are older than you." I kid you not. He's in the mindset that SM is just for young twenty-somethings with Facebook accounts.

    So instead of trying to convince him otherwise and wasting my breath, I'm keeping my mouth shut and leaving soon. I'm not going to sit around and watch my employer lose business because he's not getting with the times. I have people who want my consultation and have decided to go out on my own, and if I end up stealing some of my current employer's clients down the road, well, it's his loss.

    Rather than taking the natural steps that you'd expect an interactive agency to DO (evolve into using more social media), my old-school-minded boss rewound the clock a couple decades and hired a telemarketer. Somebody needs to tell him that 1985 called and wants its job back.
  • @Vicki: I'm surprised it took this long for someone to mention that Bob's manager did not go to bat for him against a manager of another division. He could still address Bob with any dissatisfaction, but the other manager is sticking his nose in and undermining anything Bob's manager was allowing in the first place. We really don't know the other manager's motives, but by screaming "SLIPPERY SLOPE" and going over the head of Bob's manager as well, I have to question this manager and whether he may have it out for Bob in the first place.

    It looks like all of the management's action have been to cater to this outside manager. So it sound like Bob doesn't have the people above him, that (1.) "get it", and (2.) have the backbone to do anything about it even if they did.

    There is a saying somewhat akin to "begging for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission", and it certainly seems applicable to Bob's plight.

    Reading stories of innovators you will often find insubordination as well as failures until success comes along. Innovation and rules make for strange bedfellows. Actually they don't always hang out at the same bar, so it's unlikely that they'll find themselves in the same bed. But what's happened here is that Bob has found something that has inspired him, and he developed a passion in his job that wasn't there before. And maybe this passion is just what Bob needed to realize that maybe this ain't the place for him, and he would be better off working somewhere else. And because of his own doing he can include the social media experience on his resume.

    Bob and this company look like they will part ways. Bob might be able to put together a good argument for what he's doing, but if no one on the chain of command gets it, then Bob will be working somewhere else soon. But the whole situation could have gone another way where someone saw what Bob was doing, studied it, applied it with their group, built upon it, and come up with a whole new system for their business that was universally loved throughout the organization.

    It could have panned out this way. But no one would ever know, unless Bob started doing what Bob was doing.

    I'd rather be fired for being a "maverick" in a true sense and not as a politicized soundbite, than sitting in my cubicle clutching my red Swingline for dear life, waiting for the day the company decides I'm no longer useful.

    Good luck, Bob.
  • Sasha
    I agree with Larzini and a few others completely. Unfortunately some Business owners or Corporate types of the biggest well known companies. s
    Still have a mind set of complete Corporate Secrecy, keep everyone in the dark, the customers, the vendors, the investors and yes even the employees.

    I say stay on course Bob...
    Your gut instinct will guide you as what to do.

    Was lucky enough to work for a Fortune 500 Company that let me triangle...Pulled in Vendors, Customers and Upper Echelons prompting them communicaticate honestly between each sector...Until it was no longer three sectors but one group working towards better quality, on time product deliveries, employee job satisfaction, customer satisfaction and input, vendor suggesting new ideas, products etc. Result? Company had 98% on time delivery-94% customer satisfaction and best of all Company saved $850,000.00 in raw material costs. (Dow Corning, GE. E.I. DuPont and Kodak being our biggest suppliers.

    Planners, Engineers, Vendors, CEO types, Main Customers, Purchasing Mgr all in the loop at once? Unheard of! =)

    If you dream it...
    It can be done!
  • I have a mixed feeling about this.

    On one hand it is correct that Bob tried helping the company.
    However he did the wrong thing by continuing to interact (in the name of the company).

    Bob should have stopped when they told him so. After all if all the competitors start 'interacting online;, then Bob can say see I was right.
  • Poor Bob! He's in a tough situation as a social media advocate working at a place where the culture does not share his views.

    I would recommend he put out feelers and expand his personal network. People should always be growing their networks because no few jobs offer lifetime guarantees.

    In the meantime,if I were Bob, I'd focus on building internal relationships within the organization and begin to develop some alliances. Management feels that conversing with the customer online is dangerous. He may never be able to change this, but understanding why they feel this way would be a good place to start.

    John P. Kreiss
    MorganSullivan, Inc.
    Business Solutions in Real Estate and Construction
  • Wow, I kinda feel sorry for Bob's company. They're going to lose out unless they pull themselves into the 21st century. I hope Bob is looking for a job in social media. If not, I feel sorry for him too.

    Phil
  • Jen Zingsheim
    Late to the party here, but a few thoughts:

    One, Bob admits that he went against a directive to cease this activity. Really, all of the "ZOMG, social media & engagement are where it's at" doesn't matter one whit in this case. He is an employee, he was told to stop. As a manager, it would make me VERY unhappy if an employee went and did something that I specifically directed him not to do. It's not his decision to make.

    Two, Fortune 500's aren't little companies. They are massive. Lots and lots of silos. This sort of thing--miscommunication between divisions--happens all the time. If Bob has a problem with the different silos, he needs to work within the established framework and address that, not make corporate decisions on his own. The comparison to the military is actually apt, at a big company you need people to, well, behave. If Bob gets to talk to customers, why can't I across 20K employees is a nightmare for some companies. It's the company's decision to make, not Bob's.

    Three, "[...] that sells a product, an expensive product, the kind of thing that makes an Mercedes look like a value meal." If there's really that kind of money tied up in sales, then trust me, there is a very specific audience. This isn't Coke or Pepsi, and there is a great deal at stake if something is mishandled by Bob.

    Interesting case, but if a company isn't ready (or for whatever reason doesn't want to) engage in social media, it's not, not, not up to an individual employee to make that decision.

    Jen
  • I had this very same experience 10 years ago, although I didn't post officially in the space (unofficially yes) and they went NUTS trying to find out who.

    I even took Cluetrain Manifesto and gave it to the CEO - got into serious trouble for that. They really didn't have a clue...and were management consultants, people you'd expect to want to have 'conversations' and are probably all over social media now...but upto 5 years ago when I got out all online contacts - even responses to emails and posts of grad sites had to be vetoed. They even got stuff legally pulled off The Register.

    So yeah companies like this will continue to be opaque and not get a 'clue' and listen to their own employees, let alone their customers...and yeah I eventually got the PIP. Nasty. I recommend leaving if you can - in this current economic climate like then it was hard and I stayed.

    Wished I hadn't. Wasted year of my life...best go work for people who understand that social media and online interaction is probably what will save some companies from a fate worse that Woolworths - already it seems like with PC Magazine trad paper ad spend is going and online marketing is becoming the thing...
  • I know how Bob feels. That's why I always interact with the public under a pseudonym. Often times people ask me who the heck I am in real life. Then I have to explain that the people who pay me have rules. And you know what the first rule about Fight Club is, right?
  • I used to work in fashion and you'd be amazed at how long it took for companies to decide that working on computers was more productive then doing everything by hand... not surprised at all by this, but the future is not looking very good for this company "Bob" is at and he should definitely go somewhere he will be rewarded for his efforts to stay on top of the cutting edge - or what some might call "reality" ;)
  • Posted a response on my site.

    This is all too familiar. Bob could really be any of us. Bob should consider showing his boss and other folks transcripts of his talks, and these posts... but it is entirely possible the writing is on the wall. It's sad, because they're going after a guy who wants to do the right thing for the company and the customers.

    Ultimately, perhaps should probably consider shaking the dust off his feet and going to work for the competition.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post: Jim Kukral Launches TheBizWebCoach

Next post: When Not to Sell Me Something