Ignorance is not bliss.

Social media is all about people communicating and interacting with people through the hundreds of new Web technology tools, networks, bookmarks, etc.

(Sidenote: many of you are probably aware of this explanation and are sick of people running it to the ground, I know I know. But for those of you not aware…)

In his PR 2.0 blog, Brian Solis wrote a post the other day on how social media isn’t all that different from the standard marketing or public relations campaign template, but now it’s taken on a whole new humanistic voice. Solis aptly writes,

“We’re opening our ears and our minds to acknowledge that we can no longer push our thoughts at people in order to earn resonance; we have to listen, talk, listen, assess, and contribute value.”

With all of the new online avenues to facilitate ideas and conversation it seems there are a few negatives to follow this innovative new culture we live in. For instance, many of my fellow students at Kent State University have been (rightly) exercising their basic freedoms of speech lately online. This recent editorial has spawned over 200 comments, including the good, the bad, the VERY bad, and the ugly.

People have no problem voicing their opinions in the form of online comments, but what about “saying it to [insert your name] face?” This is by no means a new concept, but it’s on my mind because of the recent student online comment uproar(s) on KentNewsNet.

Disclaimer: I have absolutely NO problem with people voicing their opinions. Do it. But maybe people are taking advantage of the ease of online conversations because they get to “hide” their face.

However, I do have a bone to pick with this comment responding to a student editorial about President Les Lefton’s inaccessibility and seemingly ignorant attitude to his students:

“And while this is Kent State University, it is very comparable to a major mid-cap company given its operations, cash flows, etc. Do you think the CEO of any public company answers the questions that every worker e-mails him? Of course not. CEO’s aren’t paid to do that, and neither is President Lefton.”

I disagree in every way. And Kent State is not on the NYSE. I’m no expert in the matter, but I did spend a great deal of time last semester reading and presenting on the Arthur Page Society’s 2003 book, Building Trust.

The collection of approximately 20 leading CEO’s views and anecdotes on building trust among shareholders, stakeholders and employees and how they run (or try to run) an ethical and value-driven corporation opens the dialogue that there are Chief Exec’s out there who actually do care.

Did any of the CEO’s from Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, Aetna, GM or Schering-Plough say the efficient way to run their organization is by ignoring their employees or employee concerns?

Absolutely not. In fact, this is a sure-fire way to piss off employees, and no one wants that. It is understandable that the president of a university or a CEO is extremely busy. That’s a given, but not an excuse.

Like Solis said, “We have to listen, talk, listen, assess, and contribute value.” 

Leaders of any kind of small, mid-size, or large entity have an obligation to communicate, interact and listen with their constituents, be them external or internal, by email or in person.

Especially in this new era of social media.

Say your words