Category Archives: Communication

The Quality of Relationships and Social Interactive Media

17 Monday May 2010

Posted by in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Communication, Information Technology, Lessons of Life, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

by Paul Kiser

Do you love me?….Do you like me?….Do you loath me? What is the quality of our relationship?

There are some people who claim that Social Media tools like Facebook and Twitter cheapen relationships. I don’t agree. Social Interactive Media almost always increase the quantity of our relationships, but does that mean the quality of relationships is reduced?

To me that is similar to saying that because a person belongs to a Rotary club it reduces the quality of his or her relationships because they are using up their allotment of friendship in one place or that children in a family of five are not as loved as the only child in a family of three. The logic makes no sense.

A blog that decries the impact of Social Media on our relationships, combined with another blog by Carola Valdez regarding love and relationships have me thinking about the quality of relationships and the impact of tools like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

(Read Carola’s Blog here – note that it’s in Spanish)

I see this issue as two intertwined subjects, which are relationships and communication. A relationship describes the connection between two people and communication maintains the connection. I divide the concept of relationship into three parts that all work together to determine the bond or quality of a relationship.

Relationships Part One: Core Reactionary Characteristics (CRC)
I believe that every person has relationship ‘DNA’ . It is the combination of our inherent personality, our experiences from past relationships, and a third factor that reacts to the stimulus (or ‘chemistry, if you will) between two people. I term this set of responsive behaviors the Core Reactionary Characteristics (or CRC). I use the analogy of DNA because genes are able to attach or connect with certain genes but not to other genes in the DNA strand, which is similar to our ability to ‘click’ or not with someone else.

Social Media makes us aware of how connected we are to each other

Relationships Part Two: Environmental Factors
Just because we feel comfortable connecting with someone doesn’t mean we will become close friends. It is a combination of the old nature/nurture influences that seem to guide relationships. We may have a great ‘chemistry’ with someone, but it is our environment that controls the depth of the relationship. I like the example given in the lyrics of Alanis Morissette’s song, ‘Ironic’.

“It’s meeting the man of my dreams, and then meeting his beautiful wife.”

It doesn’t have to be a love relationship that is thwarted by the situational factors, but love is the type of relationship we relate to when someone wants to write a song or make a movie. The point is that if the CRC is compatible AND given the correct time, place, and freedom to explore a relationship, a deep connection (friendship and/or love) can be formed.

Relationships Part Three:  Dynamics
Finally, I think it is important to accept that relationships are dynamic, which simply means that as individuals grow and change the relationship waxes and wanes. I have a friend who had an incredibly close relationship with his wife (she passed away a couple of years ago.) On their anniversary he would say, “We’ve decided to renew our marriage for another year.” This was not meant to be as funny as most people seemed to interpret it. He truly did value the relationship and didn’t take it for granted that the marriage would be continuous. I wonder how strong all marriages would be if we knew that either party could decide not to renew the contract each year.

My point is that regardless of how strong a relationship, the fact is that two people can grow and change at different rates over time. It is rare that a relationship can maintain a high level of intensity especially if the two people are in the process of change and/or growth.

It is the combination of all three factors (CRC, Environmental Factors, and Dynamics) that determine the quality of a relationship at any given moment.

Social Media and Relationships
Social Media tools like Facebook and Twitter increase the number of people we know (quantity of relationships) but the quality of those relationships are dependent on multiple factors that have nothing to do with the tools or the media itself. In the end, the quality of the relationships are not affected positively or negatively by the quantity of relationships we have, but by the type of connection that will result of making a connection.  If anything, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter make it possible to have better quality relationships because they; 1) increase the number of potential ‘best friends’, and 2) give us better communication tools to improve the quality of our connections.

More on the role of communication later….

More blogs

Aristotle’s General Rules of Social Media

27 Tuesday Apr 2010

Posted by in Branding, Communication, Ethics, Information Technology, Lessons of Life, Passionate People, Public Relations, Random, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

We learn the rules as we gain new experiences

Most people would not walk up to a stranger on the street and say, “I’m so f*&king happy! I just got laid!”; however, there are many people who might say this, or some other inappropriate remark on Facebook, Twitter, or more likely, MySpace.  It sometimes can be easy to think that writing online is his or her online diary, but the reality is that when sharing your thoughts on Facebook or Twitter, you are sharing to the general public, and those thoughts will be recorded for all time. Unfortunately, there are no rules of etiquette, except that abusers (as defined by other Users) can be identified and the operators of the service can ‘de-member’ them.

(Blog – Social Media: What is it and why should you care?)

However, Social Media (SM) is the ultimate democracy in that it is self-correcting.  On most Social Media tools members choose who they want to ‘friend’ or ‘follow’, so if someone is offended by the posts or practices of another member they can stop including them in his or her circle of friends. That is why there is significant peer pressure to abide by the unwritten rules.

How Rules are Formed in New Media
Historically, when any new method of communicating is established the rules of the media are created by the people who use the media.  It is a system of experimentation where new concepts are tested and those that work become the unwritten rules.  A good example is Western theatre which was formalized by the Greek civilization.  The Greek playwrights established the characteristics of comedy and tragedy, but it was later observers, like Aristotle, who saw patterns in the different genres of plays and put these ‘rules’ down in writing for others to understand and follow.

Social Media has started out in the same way, with the Users creating unwritten rules and observers trying to identify and discuss those rules. The difference with the Social Media tools is that everyone has different pet peeves, which means the rules vary from User to User.  Still, by using personal experiences and listening to the experiences of others it is possible to identify general traits and rules of Social Media.

User Types
There are some stereotypes that seem to find a home in one or more of the online social networks.  Here are a few:

  • Sit-Down Comic – This person has posts about everyday life and can often find the absurdity in her or his life to present to others.  For the older crowd, think Erma Bombeck and for the younger crowd, think Paula Poundstone as examples.
  • The Informer – This person typically posts informative items on a topic and may provide links to blogs or websites that elaborate on the subject.  Often this is the person who wants to establish/brand themselves as the expert on the subject and uses SM to gather a following of believers.
  • All About Me – This person is not at the level of humor of the Sit-Down Comic but tends to have a running dialogue about his or her life.  It would be easy to identify this person with the teenage girl, but to varying degrees you can usually find people of both genders and all ages who fall into this category.  To most, this User can be annoying; however, her or his circle of friends is often compact and consists of other Users who want to hear the diary of a friend.
  • Pollyanna – This person seems driven to spread good cheer to all. Typically they quote others, but the quotes are always positive and uplifting.  However, if the posts are used a vehicle for the person to preach and pray online then the User risks being unfriended by those who are not as zealous.

Some photos should just go away

  • The Photo Op – This person loves their camera, or at least photos. Often they are one of the other stereotypes I’ve mentioned, but they like to dress their posts with pictures.  It can be great if they are a good photographer showing interesting photos…or bad if it is all pictures of them in varying states of embarrassing or incriminating poses.
  • The Observer – This is the most mysterious User. They never comment or post, they just read other User’s posts. In some ways they can be creepy if they are male, but bizarrely okay if they are female.

There are some stereotypes in SM that are often seen as bad or annoying. They typically have a high loss rate in friends/followers:

  • The Hoser – This person floods the network with posts.  Sometimes it is for a short period of time each day (an hour or so) and sometimes it’s for multiple times during the day. This is the person who wants to dominate the conversation. It may be that these users just need to be loved, but my money is that they just need therapy.
  • The Political Nazi – This person has an opinion and wants everyone know what that opinion.  It can be appropriate if all of their friends are like-minded, but if not, their connections will soon shrink to just the like-minded.
  • The Salesman – For most, the fastest unfriend/unfollow is the Salesman. People like the Social Media tools because they want to connect to real people, and not to someone trying to sell something. I’m amazed by people who just don’t get that SM is not a billboard for their use, but everyday someone tries to Amway/Mary Kay their friends or promote their service.
  • Tally Ho – This person believes that quantity of friends=success, and so they are driven by getting the most friends or followers.  They will do or try anything to get their numbers up.  They are a number Ho.
  • Prime Time Host – This person creates the impression that they are the person in charge and you are on his or her show.  They tend to be online and connected all the time, ready to make comment on anything.  They have a life….and it is spent watching you!

Typically a user of SM does not fit into one single stereotype, but is a combination of many online personalities.  Regardless of the characteristics of the User, the unwritten rules have more control over all User types.  These rules are mostly common-sense concepts.

Aristotle’s General Rules of Social Media

Chart 1 - Social Appreciation Scale

Overposting and/or  Underposting – This is when a User is too visible or not visible enough on the media. On Chart 1 is a best guess at what turns Users on, or turns them off regarding the volume of posts by other Users.  There is no good way to measure this value in the real world because most people just react when they’ve seen too many posts from one person and unfriend them. I would guess that an average of one or two posts an hour is near the ideal. Too few posts and a User becomes invisible, and posting excessively makes a User is too visible. The scale is a 1 to 10 rating with 10 being the ideal.

Be Interesting, Be Fun – It’s one thing to inform people, but if all your posts are a lecture delivered in 48 parts, then you become boring.  Crossing over different stereotypes throughout the day makes for more interesting reading.

NEVER, EVER, EVER SELL on Social Media – Be the expert, inform, but anything that smacks of advertising will be interpreted as spam.

Age Mismatches – It’s okay to follow or friend younger or older Users, but older Users need to be restrained in commenting on younger Users posts.  It will always be interpreted as creepy regardless of the intention.  Yes, you have wisdom, but younger people don’t care to have another father or mother watching over them and it’s more likely to be seen as a sexual come-on.

Be Real, but Not Too Real – It’s okay for people to know your political and religious opinions, but they should be showing like a bra strap and not like exposed underwear. Passion is great, but it is exhausting and uncomfortable for others. The same goes for emotions, unprofessional conduct (drunk photos) and mating behavior (sexy talk, photos).

It’s Forever – Jimmy Buffet has a song that refers to a tattoo as a “permanent reminder of a temporary feeling.”  That’s a good way to think about the Social Media. Anything written online is there to stay…forever.  That scares many people, but if you just remember that your online self is just an extension of who you are in a public place like a mall or church, then you can keep your comments and emotions in perspective.

Social Media is the most empowering personal tool that has been invented since the automobile. It has the potential to change a person’s life…for better or worse.  For years, the Social Media as been making or breaking the public and political figures that we all look up to, or down on. Companies and governments are being heavily influenced by the impact of SM.  It is hard to overstate what tools like Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn are having on our lives, but the people who participate will have an advantage over those who don’t and those that participate need to know the rules.

More Articles

Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit

21 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Club Leadership, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Rotary@105, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Why Did John Quit?
In my years in management, human resources, and service club involvement I have watched many people leave organizations and periodically someone in the organization starts throwing around the ‘R’ word: Retention. What follows are committee meetings, calls for surveys, and finger-pointing. The search usually turns up discovery of a plausible single cause for the problem based upon limited evidence, followed by a shrug of shoulders because the alledged cause is almost always determined to be a reason that is out of control of the organization.

Finding the real reason for attrition for any organization is elusive because there is almost never just one reason for someone to quit. The decision to quit is typically after the person has accumulated multiple ‘dissatisfiers‘ or negative experiences that finally caused the person to make a change by leaving. Dissatisfiers can be issues about pay, benefits, or other tangible reasons; however, most negative experiences are intangible acts that weaken (or fail to strengthen) a person’s perception of belonging to the organization.

A Dissatisfier may be something small, like a person not getting thanked for his or her contribution to a special project, or something more significant, like a lack of a desired promotion. As each Dissatisfier is added the person gets closer to the decision that the organization is not meeting his or her needs.

While a group or organization may be unaware of their actions that cause a Dissatisfier for an individual, people often consciously use Dissatisfiers to drive away a member or employee from a group because it is a subtle form of discrimination that is difficult to detect and easy to blame the victim as being overly sensitive. We learn this tactic at a young age and often as a byproduct of sibling rivalry when one child torments another by subtlety annoying them until they react violently. In adults, the behavior is rarely as overt, nor does it result in violence, but can be very effective in weeding out diversity in the group.

When the Dissatisfiers are not the result of a conscious effort against a person, but rather the failure to include the person, the result can be the same. Over time the person may ultimately decide to quit for a better opportunity, or, in the case of a volunteer organization, leave for no other opportunity.

The Perfect Environment to Study Dissatisfiers
Volunteer organizations are an ideal environment to study the effect of Dissatisfiers because the issue of compensation and/or benefits (tangible rewards) can be ruled out as factors for attrition. While some may conclude that because there is no tangible rewards for a volunteer, his or her involvement is tenuous all the time; however, often an individual has a deeper commitment to a volunteer organization simply because they are involved for more meaningful reasons. That reason may be as simple as wanting to be a part of an organization that seeks to do good, but for many people who need is often more powerful than monetary gain.

Members of a volunteer organization should feel that the work they perform not only gives them a sense of accomplishment; but also gives them a sense  of worth, belonging (or friendship) and pride. For a member to leave that organization means that the group failed to provide or connect the member to the key rewards of volunteer service. Attrition in a volunteer organization is often blamed on a single external factor (a bad economy) or the person (not in the organization for the right reasons) rather than examine the Dissatisfiers that they might have been able to address that would have retained that member.

To improve retention organizations need to stop looking for the single factor for attrition, and start looking for the list of Dissatisfiers that led to the decision to quit. In volunteer organizations, a member’s involvement is to fill a need of belonging and attrition can only be attributed to internal Dissatisfiers, not external factors.

More Articles