The second of two pieces of advice that the author gives firms involves purpose and culture. Though it would seem that the former drives the latter, culture is capable of working towards or subverting an organisation’s purpose.

As is becoming a regular occurrence, I had an article waiting for me on Reader – Umair Haque’s “Overthrow Yourself“, in which he draws out the fine nuances between an organisation’s vision and its ambition. The former is an egoistical version towards which resources toil, and the latter is a portrait of the human consequences that your enterprise (not just your “company”, but your ideas, effort, time, ingenuity) creates. Semantics, you might say, but I think ambition also acknowledges the sense of purpose of the individuals involved.

To add to last week’s post, good professionals love to be empowered, and when they are, they love to be held accountable for the decisions they make, decisions that drive them towards achieving a purpose they can identify with. Probably every startup begins that way, but sometimes the vision takes over, just as in the case of social platforms.

until next time, purpose.ly

Stowe Boyd’s post titled ‘Are you ready for social software‘ not only gave me perspectives on the subject of the post, and title – social software, but also gave me a way to connect these three posts. He starts of with challenging the belief that Sherlock Holmes used deduction to solve the mysteries.

It turns out he (or better, Arthur Conan Doyle) was using induction, which is, according to Webster’s, “the act or process of reasoning from a part to a whole, from particulars to generals, or from the individual to the universal.” In working from a paltry collection of clues to a full understanding of the actions and motives of the butler and his victim, Holmes/Doyle was, basically, developing a picture of the universe surrounding the crime from a few hints.

He goes on to distinguish social software from software built for several purposes taken to mean ‘social’.

Social software is based on supporting the desire of individuals to affiliate, their desire to be pulled into groups to achieve their personal goals. Contrast that with the groupware approach to things where people are placed into groups defined organizationally or functionally…..Traditional groupware puts the group, the organization or the project first, and individuals second….. Social software reflects the “juice” that arises from people’s personal interactions. It’s not about control, it’s about co-evolution: people in personal contact, interacting towards their own ends, influencing each other.

Its a fascinating read and he quotes Kenneth Boulding, the economist, humanist and social scientist,“We make our tools, and then they shape us.” I thought that was an amazing way to look at it, and if you think for a moment on how tools have changed the way you behave, interact, consume, I’m sure you’ll appreciate it too.

Amazingly, even without getting into software or technology, I saw an application of this thought process in Tom Fishburne’s Wiki Wall, a symbol of organisational creativity that could prove more useful than the traditional ‘brainstorm’. The wiki wall (a real whiteboard/surface)  allows ideas to be shared, collaborated on, and evolve over a period of time beyond the silos that the organisation might have. Shared belief systems and thoughts around which people could group together.

Which then brings us to the ‘larger purpose’ that an organisation exists for. This purpose is something that has popped up here many times in the recent past, the last being ‘A Social Culture‘. I found it expressed extremely well in Umair Haque’s post on the way ‘social’ needs to evolve.

Social is significance. The real promise of social tools is societal, not just relational; is significance, not just attention. You’ve got to get the first right before you tackle the second — and that means not just investing in “gamification,” a Twitter account, or a Facebook group. It means thinking more carefully how to utilize those tools to get a tiny bit (or a heckuva lot) more significant, and starting to mean something in enduring terms.

For now, most organisations are looking at social tools (including software) to meet their business ends, and not looking to make the business’ ‘reason for existence’ itself something people – both employees and consumers- would associate with. Hopefully, by the time they deduct the importance of this, it won’t be too late.

until next time, elementary?

And there’s the first example, which is easily becoming THE example now, for bad PR. BP – if the spill wasn’t bad enough, there was the spillage – the fake PR account – advice on what/why BP should or should not do with it, the tweet billboards, an old (fake) ad, the ironic sign, the ghastly, ghastly images, the user created logos, a coffee parody, and the post from the man who created BPGlobalPR. BP’s losses as a brand (intangible?) is much more than the real $costs that have been speculated. Meanwhile, it has finally reached out to the @BPGlobalPR account. (While on the topic, do check out Rob Cottingham’s excellent take on the subject)

The only commonality I’m looking at is the user generated content (or discontent). I don’t think this is an area which can be gamed easily. Sure, you can try to manipulate events and people, and search engines, try some good old PR, but there are no guarantees that it won’t boomerang. And I think it holds true across the spectrum – the two cases are polar opposites in terms of magnitude of the event, what the crowd did to it, and what the brand tried to do.

Deviating a bit. I read “Arundhati Roy on ‘War of People‘”, where she took the scope of the Naxal issue into corporate boardrooms, and was immediately reminded of Umair Haque’s latest post titled “Ethical Capital is Capitalism’s new cornerstone“. He defines Ethical capital as “the stock of techniques, tools, and practices not just for creating value, but for defining and refining values, that an economy possesses”, and CSR, social investment, social entrepreneurship etc as the baby steps towards building it. But the corporate world still doesn’t understand the rewiring, as he himself notes. And here’s where we loop back, I don’t think this building of ethical capital can be gamed either.

I can spot an increasing number of efforts – Pepsi’s Refresh Project, their efforts for production sustainability, Nokia’s eco profile for new products, their bicycle charger kit, to name a few. While the cynic in me sometimes disses official CSR, I realise its perhaps a level that has to be crossed before we reach out for bigger things. I also see efforts from the consumer side  –  CarrotMob (via Surekha)

I see all of this as a trend where users are linking the brands they use, and their consumption, to the larger context of their lives and the even larger context of the world they inhabit, and the culture they consume and create. The ‘badges’ have changed, they’d like to associate themselves with brands that accommodate or at least work towards these badges.  In the foreseeable future, I think that brands which understand this will not only align more people on their side, but also have inherent features and processes which would allow them to be transparent, reduce these costly mistakes, and admit to their mistakes without the PR approaches that are drawing flak now.

until next time, PR pressure?

But thankfully, the national animal ensured that we continued the debate. Aircel’s ‘Save the Tiger’ has also not been given a label, but it does give a good handle to convey my thoughts on CSR, especially since there are at least a couple of good posts on it already, by L.Bhat and Karthik. Harish’s ‘Branding with a cause‘ is a more general, but very relevant read in this context. Aircel’s high decibel campaign ensured that most of everyone knew there were only 1411 tigers left. If awareness was the objective, as stated, it’s been done, especially since the slacktivist generation has retweeted and facebook-fanned it so much that even the tigers must know now. They haven’t been asked whether they want to be saved in a planet full of us, but that’s a different debate. So is the debate whether Aircel should complete the loop, after all why can’t we? (and maybe there’s another phase anyway) But I digress, and generalise. Sorry.

(Image Courtesy: Tom Fishburne)

The questions I have are these. Should CSR be related to the business domain or not? Aircel’s was not, but as Surekha rightly pointed out, they chose a topic that would connect with their target audience. My problem with that, though it helps stand out from the clutter in a commodity category, is the lack of context. With Pepsi, though one could say the project has nothing to do with sugared water, there was always a ‘youth’ context, which was established long ago. Now, if it were connected with the business, and it is possible with say, the pepsi project (surekha gave me at least 2 excellent ideas) I would turn around and say, vested interests, and doubt the sincerity of their efforts. ‘The big corporate giving us eyewash’ view. It would also bring in ROI measures etc, which I find hard to associate with CSR. Roshni put it succinctly when she said ‘sort of like proclaiming, hey, we did charity’.

In trying to find a solution, I remembered a post by Umair Haque on ‘Great to good, which, perhaps unwittingly, made me think of a similarity between social media and CSR. As mentioned in my last post, the piecemeal approach to social media is something I dislike. Its as though it exists stand alone inside a box, I think I have a similar problem with CSR as a label. So, (simplistically put), what if the label were to be taken of and every process was carried out with an inbuilt csr approach – from creating environmentally friendly, sustainable products/projects and choice of partners/vendors to eco friendly packaging and everything in between? Oh yes, practical business considerations. I forgot.

until next time, with great responsibility comes great power?

Relevant Read: Cause Effect

PS: JK cement deserves appreciation for its support of an unrelated, but worthy cause – bikinis

PPS: While on tigers, this one, by my good friend Blues, is a killer read