I recently watched the COO of a health care organization get excited when she suddenly "got it." We were talking about how the company could use social media to help achieve its objectives. We discussed market positioning, and brand awareness, and information sharing, and friends and family support groups. The column titled "Clinical" on my brainstorming sheet, however, got little attention. Until the COO took a second look at my preliminary ideas and suddenly saw how some social media channels and concepts could be used to improve direct patient care.
In that moment, the discussion shifted. We were no longer talking about how to USE social media. We were talking about how social media could change the core business model and operations. Social media was being made part of everyone's job, even the clinicians'.
Health care organizations generally play only tentatively with social media. They are concerned about privacy; many are big and bureaucratic; openness and transparency are rarely cultural identifiers (apologies and kudos to those small, agile, and culturally open health care groups). But when social media is recognized as an enabler to improved outcomes and performance, the opportunities multiply.
Health care organizations can expand the engagement with patients, whether in a one-to-one or one-to-many environment. They can engage with the patient communities that already exist, help create new networks, and even enhance some therapies. They can improve internal communication among staff, which ultimately aids patient outcome and operating performance. The opportunities only exist, however, if all staff members - clinical and not - are responsible for integrating social media thinking and lifestyle into their jobs.
The COO of this health care organization was using the clover architecture approach to implementation (see http://bit.ly/r9oppb):
- She was leading by sharing her insights and asking everyone to think differently, and by identifying how she would use social media in her own job.
- A distributed governance structure was being implemented, with each staff person assuming responsibility; there would be a social media guru, but no central social media department.
- The cultural change that was beginning was enormous. Each person, including clinicians, was being challenged to figure out how social media could help to drive better results. Multi-directional and multi-stakeholder collaboration became key.
- The technology was kept user-friendly and simple.
By recognizing that the objective of social media is a lifestyle not initiatives (see http://bit.ly/rb0P2i), this health care organization is improving patient care and satisfaction. Every department and person is invited to participate.
Not everyone agrees that an open, transparent culture -- the type we identify with social media -- is best. Not everyone wants to add "marketing" or "customer service" to his or her responsibilities. "I want to work with technology, not people" is a not-uncommon,
although usually unspoken, thought. Other people simply prefer structure and limited responsibility. And those traits can add to the efficiency and productivity of many companies.
Not everyone want to focus on making the company successful either. Many employees are trying to establish themselves and further their own reputations and careers; the organization is a short-term alliance. Ideal? Not at all. But reality.
So if, as I believe (see for instance http://bit.ly/oYbtHT), success with social media first requires comfort and cultural support internally, are these organizations doomed in the new social world order?
A few years ago, I helped a mid-sized professional services company implement an internal social platform as the first step in executing a social media strategy. Employees clamored to be among the first on the site. We offered tips and training; a few people started posting; two executives participated actively, and within a couple of months - NOTHING.
Leadership faultered. While many executives were lurkers on the site, only the original two enthusiasts had posted.
The professional value was not clear. Performance reviews did not recognize those who shared. In a business where knowledge and relationships are power, employees felt the new platform might enable others to snap up their information without giving credit. The efficiency of the social platform for exchanging information, pointing out new ideas, and adding value to an initiative was overlooked.
The dominant culture of the company was one of controlled sharing on a need-to-know basis. Not exactly social media nirvana. We decided to embrace and respect the corporate DNA nonetheless.
We found success by using the social networking platform to enhance and evolve the existing culture, not change it.
We limited use of the platform to one team with 5 selected characteristics:
- Team members came from several different departments
- Team members were geographically dispersed
- Each person brought a different perspective and knowledge to the project that was important for a successful outcome
- The team leader was enthusiastic about the new way of working
- Benefits were clear
Team members experienced real-time value from using the social networking platform. Communication and collaboration were easier; the number of major revisions dropped; edits and modifications could be made, disseminated, and enacted more quickly; work hours and end-to-end project time declined.
Sharing more openly paradoxically also made team members feel that they had more control of their work process and product. At the completion of the project, team members were already using the internal social network for other work activities.
Work team by work team, node by node, the use of the internal social platform spread. The objective was not to change the culture, but to help employees succeed more fully within the existing norms. Two years later, the cultural changes are manifest.
