Shut Up- You’re Helping the Customer!

@ 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. :)

@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

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?

I would hire Bob in a minute! He is the kind of employee all great companies need. Oh, BTW, fire the managers :)

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.

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.

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.