I just came across the blog post ‘Learning to listen – the real “quiet revolution” that is social media‘ by Maddie Grant. I was really interested in a quote she used that stated that there are five different listening styles, ranging from appreciative and empathetic through comprehensive to discerning and evaluative. The comment is also made that a good listener becomes proficient in each style.
I began to wonder if it was appropriate for an organization to be classified as one of these types of listeners. Just as we look at the motivation of an individual online to best meet his needs, I wonder if recognizing how an organization listens is a way for us to best assess how social media can be integrated into the organization.
This is most easily illustrated with an example. Just as an individual may engage in a conversation with the simple goal to be entertained, so too an organization may desire to monitor buzz out of curiosity. This is dramatically different than the open organization that is seeking to refine or radically alter strategy based on what consumers are saying. It comes down to the level of engagement in the conversation: how actively the listener is listening may in fact impact the message of the speaker/writer.
This is another important consideration: how the organization publicizes its listening strategy. Sites like MyStarbucksIdea or DellIdeaStorm (both fueled by Salesforce) are prime examples of a company actively soliciting feedback, and then being held accountable for making changes. On the flip side of the coin may be the company that is quietly monitoring the buzz around their brand, but not publicly acknowledging it. The alternative, to acknowledge negative feedback but not respond to it, is more damaging than to appear oblivious of the negative buzz at all. Both parties in the conversation should be aware of the desired outcomes of the other.
Are certain styles of listening “best” for an organization? If we continue to personify the organization as an individual, we would expect all styles to be important. However, we have seen cases where a company has a core principle on which all their operations are based, and to deviate from this could have negative effects. An excellent example was in Made to Stick – Southwest Airlines operations are based on a core principle to be the low cost airline. Therefore, all business decisions are made to work towards this objective. Any feedback from consumers that would detract from this objective are not considered. Southwest may listen to consumers to be aware of their desires, but the information will not be integrated into business decisions. It is still important to be in touch with consumers, if only to be able to acknowledge their wants (without fulfulling them).
I am always interested in how we personify an organization. The Corporation remains a movie I refer to often. It clearly calls out how behaviours we would consider completely inappropriate or even psychopathic by an individual are acceptable from a corporation. In this same vein, while we would expect a certain level of respect and give-and-take from an individual engaging with us in conversation, we cannot be guaranteed such with an organization. Indeed, we may be lucky if they listen at all, much less endeavour to be active listeners, engaging us in conversation and ultimately bettering their own practices for it.
Related posts:
- Subscribe to the RSS feed
- Get Email updates
- Tweet This
- Stumble It
- Add to del.icio.us
- Share on Facebook
- Email to a friend
