As the roles of marketing and PR orient themselves away from the industrial practices of the last century to something more socially aware, I think it’s important that we question the role of “the voice of the organization.”

Should organizations speak with one voice that reflects a singular identity and purpose?

Or has the rising role of individual voices in the context of networks supplanted the need for “org” speak, replacing it with the speech of loosely connected individuals?

As a disclaimer, I’m writing this as a theoretical discussion, not a manifesto or even a how-to.

From “Business is War” to “Business is Social”

A few weeks ago at Social Business Edge, Fleishman Hillard Digital SVP Joshua-Michéle Ross presented “Business Is Social: Toward A New Metaphor For Business” (video here, but you’ll have to create a free account to view).

Ross argued that cultural change precedes institutional change: As social technologies shift our culture to one that values transparency, openness, connectedness, and conversation, we can reasonably expect that institutions will follow.

And not just follow in the adoption of social media marketing, but in the adoption of social business constructs.

So where are we headed now? According to Ross, this shift moves us toward a new metaphor in business: from “business is war” to “business is social.”

“…as we move to a different mode of interaction and behavior, the selection pressures on businesses are becoming increasingly social, and we are moving away from business is war towards something more like businesses is social, and not having that conception as a business is becoming a liability—meaning businesses that do not adhere to social constructs will start to have more and more difficulty.”

Shift in Metaphor = Shift in Practice

Assuming that the new guiding metaphor will be “social” rather than “war,” the fundamental way we approach even the most tested business practices (like traditional marketing and PR) will also shift.

After all, our metaphor guides everything by the very nature of the language we use. It’s epistemic. To support this claim, Ross leans on the work Lakoff and Johnson, but I prefer the words of philosopher Paul Ricoeur said on The Rule of the Metaphor:

it was my purpose to demonstrate that there is not just an epistemological and political imagination, but also, and perhaps more fundamentally, a linguistic imagination which generates and regenerates meaning through the living power of metaphoricity.

If the metaphor shifts, we won’t be able to help but shift our practices because the generation of meaning through the metaphor will be different.

It won’t be logical to operate the old way.

“Business is War” and the Voice of the Organization

If business is war, then organizations are armies.

In this scenario, the individual is subservient to unified order of the group. Just like in the hierarchal structure of an army where the only voice that really counts is the General’s, the only voice that counts is the one from corporate communication.

In an army, anyone caught giving orders who doesn’t have the authority is severely punished. The same is reflected when someone speaks out for the organization without the express authority granted to them by the group.

If business is war, then it makes sense for organizations to maintain a tight lock on their corporate voice.

After all, it’s a form of protectionism. First and foremost, it protects the interest of the organization from any message that hasn’t been tested, tried, run past legal and checked against corporate identity books. It protects the seemingly “stupid” or “disgruntled” employees from doing public damage to the organization.

And secondly, speaking from behind the logo is akin to hiding behind a shield. Individuals are protected from having to take ultimate public responsibility for anything they say. Just like a soldier who misbehaves is privately reprimanded or court-martialed, the individual who misbehaves is subject only to corporate punishment.

“Business is Social” and the Voice of the Organization

If business is social and not war, then organizations will be organized more like villages and less like armies.

Unlike Armies which have centralized power systems, villages are formed by loosely connected individuals who each maintain a significant amount of autonomy. And unlike armies which set up in highly guarded camps, villages have porous relationship with outsiders, allowing them to come, go, and pass through with ease.

As outsiders pass through a village, it becomes important for villagers to connect on a personal level with visitors. The merchant at the fruit stand can’t wait for the mayor’s official word on apples before he makes a deal.

Rules for interaction are created by collectively defined ordinance (think official social media use policy) rather than by direct commander-to-troop order.

In social business, individuals are empowered to use their networks for personal and corporate gain. Want an example? David Armano. How many people do you think work with Edelman because they want to work with @armano?

An extreme example, I know. Not everyone in your organization is social super-star. But the good news is, they don’t have to be. When individuals have the power to speak for an organization you exponentially increase your organic reach.

Instead of buying time to interrupt others (advertising), you’re using your best asset—your people—to connect with customers. As your employee’s networks expand, so does your reach.

Sounds like a win-win.

A word about opposition to village speak

Of course, some organizations will oppose “village rule” because they’re afraid employees couldn’t handle it.

But what are organizations other than the people who make them up? My question is, shouldn’t the value of the people you employ be greater than the work they produce? After all, people are an asset that continue to return for the good of the company beyond any individual product.

If employees really can’t handle it, then it might be time to think about some serious training. In village rule, the pathway to success isn’t through demands and edicts, it’s through education and constant coaching.

Where do you stand?

How do you think organizations should handle the sticky issue of the corporate voice?

Please share.

-Andrew

Photo credit altemark on Flickr; see original for copyright information.

---

Related Posts

No related posts were found, so here's a consolation prize: I hate “quality” “products” (and so should you).

keywords: Marketing, pr, social business

If you liked this post, subscribe to get updates via RSS or email