Facebook or Disgracebook? The Social Networking Sight Settles Privacy Dispute

You can not deny the power of social media. However, ironically, Facebook is one of the top ten most hated companies (zdnet). Clearly it is a love/hate relationship that exists because the numbers aren’t going down, but the grumbles are undoubtedly going up. Most of the frustrations coming from consumers had to do with the privacy issues surrounding the site. Today, Facebook finally settled their privacy dispute with the FTC as discussed in this article. However, for many consumers the damage first began with charges that the company rolled out upgrades that overrode users’ privacy settings without obtaining their consent and shared their private information with third-party apps and advertisers. I know, I know, you’re going to try and convince me that nothing is private anymore, but the fact of the matter is, consumers felt they had autonomy over their social network settings. As Organizational Behavioral theories would argue, consumers felt they had perceived control.

The allegations were incredibly serious and had the potential to be detrimental the sight (as made evident by the sight’s approval rating). “The complaint also contends that Facebook made personal information available to advertisers in instances between September 2008 and May 2010, alleging that advertisers could access identifying details about users who clicked on their ads, along with other facts, like their browsing history” (zdnet). My advice to Facebook?  Steer clear of what I would like to call the Lindsay Lohan Effect. You are not the exception. Ms. Lohan has believed she is above the law, untouchable if you will, and while the laws of social media may be a victim of an intense cultural lag, the principles are the same. Facebook is not a monopoly and as much power as the currently hold, they too are susceptible to a younger, prettier, more talented actress (in the case of Lindsey Lo) or a younger, prettier,  “safer” social media site. If the risk is not worth the reward, we will revolt.

Currently, it looks like what some would call Disgracebook will go back to being the ever-successful Facebook that we all know and love, but let’s hope that the site learned an important lesson here. They may have dodged a bullet for now, but live, learn, and then get private. For now, the resolution is as stands: “To consumers, be assured that Facebook should seek your consent before overriding your privacy settings,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. Facebook is subject to a $16,000 fine per violation per day if it fails to comply with the terms of the order. In addition to obtaining users’ explicit consent before making changes that override their existing privacy settings Facebook must institute a privacy program that’s required to be audited by a third-party company every two years for 20 years.”

What’s the lesson? Shape up or ship out. Even though you are currently king does not mean you will have the thrown forever. What do you think? “Faze”book or Facebook?

 

Friend or Foe?: Interpersonal Relationships at Work

I think just about everyone would agree that life is better in the company of friends (or lovers), but is a company better in the presence of these relationships? It is a debate that is hard to tackle. However, we have wrestled through the positive and negative aspects of interpersonal relationships in the work place and then applied our understanding of social psychological principles to objectively come to an understanding greater than a snap judgment or an emotional appeal.

As this ABC report points out, an individual who has a best friend at work is seven times more likely to be engaged at work and eighty-eight percent more likely to be satisfied with their lives! That’s huge. One’s personal life and work life and not mutually exclusive. In fact, they very much depend on one another. That is, if there is an area of concern in someone’s personal life it is more than likely it will carry over to his or her professional life and vice versa. Therefore, an eighty-eight percent satisfaction rating when individuals have a buddy at work is highly influential on any company.

People who have a close friendship at work are fifty percent more satisfied with their job than those that don’t.  It is easy to see Cialdini’s theory of liking here. We tend to like our best friends and therefore are more likely to help them in any way. In the work place, this is effective for work performance and creates a system of support throughout the corporation. The more you care about one another, the more you care about the quality of work. This care, when appropriately applied to the work environment builds a group-dynamic and capitalizes on the idea of unity and cohesiveness. This inclusive culture emphasizes a sense of belonging and team dynamic. When individuals see themselves as part of a group, they are more likely to associate positive feelings with the company. This applied concept of in-group bias demonstrates the benefits or being part of such a collective culture. Furthermore, a form of harmony is reached when individuals are able to line their own goals with the goals of the group. For these reasons, it is important to have a collaborative work environment that values relationships among employees.

However, to be fair, there are downsides to interpersonal relationships. Take a look at this equation for example: two best friends + one promotion = resentment. It is natural to be disappointed after not receiving a promotion, but trying to sound convincing when congratulating your best friend gets tricky. It is also difficult to handle when a friendship ends and the work relationship doesn’t. If two friends/co-workers are fighting this is detrimental to workplace morale. See below example:

On the flip-side, friends also have a tendency to “have each other’s back” which doesn’t always bode well for the employer (friendship camouflage). We suggest enforcing ratings and employee reviews as a solution to this type of behavior. It forces the employee to remain individually accountable. Also, supervisors need to be very careful if they act as a superior to their friend. Employee favoritism and bias is an easy trap to fall victim to. Training sessions for upper and lower level employees must be in place to alleviate this potential.

Lastly, the things you share with your friends are not necessarily the same things you would share with your co-workers. It is difficult to maintain a professional image when sharing stories of your bedroom rendezvous. Her “friend” and coworker, Linda Tripp, taught Monica Lewinsky this lesson. Although this is an extreme example, gossip in the workplace is a common occurrence. It is important for the company to enforce communication skill workshops as well as correctly identify the root causes of gossip so the workplace is affected minimally.

In the end, the benefits of interpersonal relationships outweigh the downsides. It is true that socialization does not equal productivity, but self-esteem promotes productivity, as does a support system as mentioned previously. I support interpersonal relationships, but that doesn’t mean this conversation is over. A local psychologist, Ken Siegel remarked, “True friendships can’t exist when there are issues such as money and status at play.” What do you think? Are these friendships authentic? Also, the article highlighted that managers and employees aren’t as aligned when it comes to just how beneficial it is to have buddies on the job: 22% of employees said befriending co-workers has a “very positive” impact on productivity, while only 2% of managers felt as strongly”. Why do you think there is such a discrepancy between employers and employees?

Effective Leadership

It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership. -Nelson Mandela

What makes a leader effective? Derek Sivers would argue that “the first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader.” Regardless of how an individual attracts his/her followers, the point is, when they are in fact successful, there are characteristic trends within personality that most leaders share. “Every leader has a particular style of leadership that is innate. However, the behaviors, attitudes or methods of delivery that are effective for one staff member may in fact be counterproductive for another” (CNN).
Here are what I deem the most important leadership traits mentioned by the CNN article that comprises a good leader:
1. Honesty: builds trust
2. Focus: mission statement and direct understanding of expectations as well as a clear path to get there.
3. Passion: find it.
4. Respect: treat each other with dignity and equality. There is no room for favoritism.
5. Excellent persuasion abilities: find your “why”. (See previous post by me)
6. Be Empowering: make your followers feel valued.
Whether it was Ghandi, Steve Jobs, J.F.K, Dr. Greene, or the manager at your favorite local coffee shop, in order to be an effective leader, these characteristics are essential. I would argue that charm, charisma, and intellect also play obvious roles. However, as theories of organizational behavior would reinforce, inspirational leadership styles, or walking the walk is a transformative method of management.
“Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be..” The same is true in management; wherever your treasure or priorities lie, there too the desires of your business (or heart) will lie. If money motivates you, than that is where your heart is. If it’s within the people you guide, than that is where your heart is. Whatever it may be, your means to the end may vary, but the most common formulas have been prove to lie within the characteristics above. Where are you lacking?

A Deeper Look at Frank Luntz: Obfuscation or Clarification?

Frank Luntz. “A corporate consultant, pollster and political consultant to Republicans, Luntz's specialty is testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate” (The Persuaders)

I was first introduced (figuratively) to Mr. Luntz in Dr. Fraser’s class. I found Luntz’s theory and technique as a wordsmith to be incredibly appealing. It is utterly fascinating how he has been able to manipulate our emotions, but is it conscionable?

Frank Luntz has made a career out of witnessing reactions and making decisions based on the reactions he gets. It’s quite simple, really. Newton determined that for “every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Frank Luntz pays particular attention to the reactions and alters the action or input to be able to get the appropriate reaction or output. How does he do this, you ask? Focus groups. Luntz uses dial technology to track uninterrupted reactions. More specifically, he takes a room of mixed Republicans and Democrats then plays a political speech while equipping each of them with dial technology. Participants turn the dial up if they agree with the statement being said at the time, and lower if they disagree. The point at which both Republicans and Democrats reach a plateau of agreeable measure is the point at which Luntz achieves success. As a result of such shared harmony, he knows what is marketable to each segment. This type of research changed the War in Iraq to the War on Terror, it renamed Global Warming to climate change. It is important to note that the war did not change as a result of his renaming nor did the problem of Global Warming. Only the titles changed, not the issues.

Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, Luntz would argue that while the smell may be the same, the association is not as consistent.

Luntz explained that eighty percent of our life is emotion, and only twenty percent is intellect. He is much more interested in how you feel than how you think.”It’s all emotion. But there’s nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are on vacation, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are happy, we are not [rational]. In fact, in more cases than not, when we are rational, we’re actually unhappy” (The Persuaders).

Do you think his career is built on manipulation or does is he an innovator simply capitalizing on connotations? How can marketers apply these types of word alterations to their own products or companies to achieve the same success? Is it authentic and perhaps more importantly, is it that easy?