Community management from the first hand

Do you remember the post The Wor(l)d is not for sale? Well, there was a sequel. These posts were written with the goal to enlighten active online users that managed to build significant social media capital and explain what it means to be working for an agency or a brand as a community manager, as well as what expectations both side have to fulfill and assess whether every chance is indeed a good chance.

Hana [Cyber Bosanka] bravely shared her experience in a recent post. She was commissioned online by Jasno & Glasno to manage a FB page of a certain brand. Due to her trust in Borja and his personal social media capital/legitimacy she was less careful. In addition, this was surely due to the lack of experience. The terms weren’t precisely defined, same as payment deadlines, and I’m not quite sure how it was in relation to the expectations and measurability of her work.

Either way, I don’t doubt Borja’s good intentions either, I know him and I consider him a great guy. The same applies to Hana, where with her post she only wanted to help others, the agency that hired her, and ultimately – herself. I’m writing this because I think it’s important to stress how much we can LEARN from such a public case study!

If we’re the employer, we have to focus on themes such as overall management, people and time management, analytics, negotiating skills, leadership abilities in general.

Suggested literature: Managing virtual teams -> Leading Virtual Teams, Harvard Business Press + How to lead or manage virtual teams + Fostering Creativity, Harvard Business Press

There are (at least) two main preconditions:

1. Being correct with people

2. Knowing how to lead in general

If you’re commissioned, think about the following things:

1. Does the organization that’s planning to hire you understand online dialogue?

2. Does this organization see online activism ONLY as a fad or a trend?

3. Does it have the strength and the willpower due to overall sociological changes – not just camouflage itself with your help?

4. Is your role an introductory activity or to uncompromisingly spreading the sense and significance of the polyvalent, transparent, real time net conversation taking place throughout the organization?

5. Is your activism a part of an overall strategic approach and not merely a campaign trick?

By asking these questions will present you in an appropriate and serious manner, and will help you to understand your role within the project. The answers you’ll get will tell you a lot everything about your employer. Trust me on this one. Then expect:

  • Acquainting yourself with the strategy, the goals and methods of measuring your work
  • With that in mind, this means a precise time frame of your activities
  • Precisely written down and defined work conditions -> number of working hours, as well as payment conditions and your rights

We’re all aware of the transparency of the internet as a medium. Not only is this medium transparent, but it’s also permanent. Everything that is publicly written about you, your work, your relationship with clients on the internet -> is there to stay. The internet is no place for charlatans. They have another playground. Here, precision, respect and professionalism write themselves in bold lettering!

Hana, thanks for the post. It means a lot.

DDj

 

Komentari (10)
12-7-2009
18:46:33

Odlično, sažeto, jasno i “u glavu”. Izvrsno opisuje pseudomenadžere-kravataše, čije rezultate danas jasno vidimo…

12-7-2009
19:32:08

Interesantno. Da bude još interesantnije, sve ovde napisano piše i u mojim Osnovama Menadžmenta, koji su pisani za Višu Elektrotehničku Školu. To znači samo jednu stvar. Naši menadžeri su neobrazovani. Možda, ako zamenimo (fensi) pojam menadžment sa (ne fensi) pojmom rukovođenje, kvalitet menadžera/rukovodilaca poraste.

12-7-2009
19:34:10

Snajperski precizno ;) Posebno mi se sviđa ono da “većina ljudi hoće promene ali ih ne žele”. Toliko je istine u tome…

Promenio bih samo jednu rečenicu – umesto “svaki je zaposleni u firmi izgradio život oko određene kompanije”, rekao bih “svaki bi zaposleni u firmi izgradio život oko određene kompanije, ako bi mu kompanija to dozvolila“. Ne menjam je zato što je pogrešna, već zato što promenjena više odgovara mom iskustvu. Naime, suviše vlasnika na svoje zaposlene gleda kao na resurse, a ne kao na ljude i jednostavno im svojim odnosom ne dozvoljava da se emotivno vežu za tu kompaniju, da im ona predstavlja nešto više od radnog mesta na koje dolaze da zarade platu. Nažalost.

12-7-2009
20:18:25

Mislim, a sudim po svom iskustvu, da bi se moglo reći i da većina želi promene, ali ih se boji. To je tako ljudski.
Ako upravljate ljudima, mislim da je vaše samo da im dopustite da promene dožive kao lagani nastavak već postojećeg.
Ako ste seli na sanke i pustili se niz strminu, šta mari ako je put duži nego što ste očekivali! Tako će razmišljati ako rukovodilac ume tako da im predoči stvari.
A uspešnost upravljanja? Merio sam ga ovako:
Ako skoro svako u gradu želi da radi sa mnom u ovoj firmi i ako sa zadovoljstvom potpisujem završni račin – rubikova kocka upravljanja ljudima, a zapravo preduzećem, savršeno je sklopljena.

12-7-2009
23:48:22

“Uvek u preduzeću treba da s posebnom pažnjom posmatraš dve vrste ljudi: one koji su puno uradili u prošlosti i one koji će puno uraditi u budućnosti.”
Ramisljam o ljudima koji su za razvoj jedne kompanije puno ucinili u proslosti i koji, svakako, imaju izrazen emotivni odnos prema tom periodu. Oni, sigurno, najteze prihvataju cinjenicu da su promene neminovne, bez obzira o kakvim se promenama radi. U njima se odvija borba sujeta-sentimentalnost-strah-neizvesnost-… Ta bitka je jako teska i retki su oni koji iz nje izlaze “spremni za novu buducnost”. Nazalost… jer sa gubitkom te licnosne bitke zaposlenih, kompanija gubi ogroman potencijal za dalji razvoj, baziran na crvstoj, definisanoj lojalnosti, pripadnosti, pozrtvovanosti.
Naravno da je svako zamenjiv. Ja samo kazem: “Steta sto su tolike bitke izgubljene”…

12-13-2009
21:32:12

Citiram: “Menadžment je dostizanje ciljeva uz pomoć ljudi (zaposlenih).” Ovde se radi o modifikaciji definicije koji je dala Mary Parker Follett početkom 20. veka i koja glasi: “Menadžment je sposobnost da se poslovi obave preko drugih ljudi.”

Takođe, ovo je najnerazumevanija definicija u teoriji menadžmenta i najzloupotrebljenija definicija od strane mnogih menadžera.

Za razliku od njenog bukvalnog značenja, njena suština se odnosi da menadžeri treba naporno da rade, a samo poslove koje nisu u stanju sami da obave da dislociraju zaposlenima – a nikako, kao što je kod nas praksa, da se pod titulom menadžera izbegavaju sve aktivnosti i sav posao pod pritiskom prenosi zaposlenima.

Ovo se uči na poslovnim školama i fakultetima.

Jedini problem je što ova definicija (uslovno rečeno) ne odgovara svim kulturama.

Menadžment teorije dolaze sa zapada (uglavnom), i nisu primenjive u svim kulturama i u svim uslovima.

Što se naših uslova tiče i našeg kulturnog podneblja, za početak, mi treba da prihvatimo jednu novu definiciju menadžmenta i jedno novo pravilo: “Ljudi su sve, a menadžment je drugo.”

Naravno, ovakvo tumačenje definicije menadžmenta zahteva jasno poznavanje teorije i prakse menadžmenta kako bi se ona u potpunosti razumela..

Isti je problem sa definicijom lidera. A jedina prava definicija lidera je, da je to osoba koja ima sledbenike (Peter Drucker).

Veliki pozdrav!

1-29-2010
15:24:55
Dodaj komentar

Pošalji komentar →