This week’s reading dealt with strategy and competitiveness in the organizational world. Most interesting to me were the discussions about how a company can pursue differentiation — offering a product or service that’s different enough to gander attention and business.
This week, I accidentally completed the wrong watching. Instead of Kinky Boots, I watched The Social Network — a fabulously done movie, if likely very dramatized compared to fact. But it was not in vain. The Social Network had a lot to contribute to strategy and competitiveness, so I beg your pardon as I use the wrong movie to illustrate some of the book’s chapter 10 points.
According to this movie:
In its infancy, Facebook was a simple but profound product. It made a name for itself by having staggeringly reliable uptime (few server crashes), by having no advertisements, by offering what its users wanted in a simple and approachable interface, by being just different enough from other social network sites to stay relevant, and by building a mystique and allure early-on with its exclusive, school-by-school and invite-only membership. Once membership went public, Facebook absolutely took off. It implemented support for just about anything its users wanted. Centralized timeline for photos and updates from friends? Done. Integrated flash video support? Also done. Mobile app — done. Messaging app — done. Moods, hashtags, nested comments, cover photos, expanded biographies — done, done, done, and so on. Facebook listened to its users and responded reasonably and accordingly. I’m certainly not saying it’s a perfect product or company, but as far as building a product and a consumer base, Facebook has redefined success.
This success came at the hands of strategy, and using the book as a guide, some plausible methods can be dissected.
First, there are the two types of business strategies — low cost and differentiation. Facebook had both strategies down from the beginning. As previously discussed, it was an entirely re-imagined product, offering features both desired and entirely new. And it was an ad-free and cost-free experience. Facebook was a desired and different product offered at the lowest-possible price.
Next, the book discussed the 7-S model for strategic alignment. Facebook, especially in its early years, fostered a number of these factors. First, as far as the skills of employees went, Facebook hired from the most talented pools of (largely) students to build the product. This involved competitive evaluation — likely much-dramatized in the movie, but almost certainly present nonetheless. Thus, skill and staffing were controlled and emphasized. The next few factors were fostered nearly simultaneously — strategy, style, and systems. Together, these factors gave Facebook as a company its Google-like, super modern, modular aesthetic where the goal was to build and support a massive product with creativity and sound design in mind. In these ways, Facebook worked toward strategic alignment through the principles outlined by the 7-S model.
Finally, as a quick note concerning the changing environment of communication, the book mentions how modern corporations have moved to integrate new technology into their management approaches. It’s important to note that Facebook is one of those new technologies. While it is likely not often used as a professional tool, modern companies absolutely will take advantage of Facebook’s contents when making decisions about employees or potential employees. Facebook not only adapted to modern technologies — it was built to be a modern technology, and it succeeded.
What Would You Do?
It’s probably appropriate now to address the “What Would You Do?” on pages 321 and 322 (as suggested in the prompt).
Facebook is so much a part of the lives of some people. It’s a tool for communication for some, a photo album for others, an advertising device for others, a blog-like device for others still, and so on. There are advantages and disadvantages to online communication as with any other type of communication. And an “obsession with technology”, as the book calls it, is definitely a major topic today. Facebook, along with Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, and many others, are at the center of these discussions. But I think, as with any new technology, calm moderation is the answer for all sides.
The phrasing of the book’s prompt irked me some. It was almost as though the authors really wanted readers to think of all the ways new technologies are awful — and while I understand where they were trying to go, I thought their questions were heavy-handed and leading. The prompt asked such questions as “When does an obsession with or an addiction to new technology become an ethical problem?” and “Do you know anyone who is addicted to blogging? Why do you think this problem occurs?” The authors were, I think, trying to get readers to think about the broad impact technology has had on communication, but it’s very clear they think there are major pitfalls involved with the popularity of such technologies.
New methods of communicating have always been met with fear or scorn. Look at the reception of the television, radio, telephone — even post systems. All new and major technologies bring about controversy. Social media and the fear and awe its struck is no different; it’s new, it’s incredibly popular, and its popularity is unwaveringly increasing. And it’s not difficult to list reasons it could become addictive: it’s distracting, it’s impulsive, and it can deliver momentary bouts of intense emotion. (There’s a beautifully colored (albeit melodramatic) comic about this located here.) But I definitely think the word “addicted” is tossed around far too frequently concerning social media. Addiction is serious. There are very concrete lines for what is an addiction and what is just a major hobby or recreational usage (this article explains some of these requirements). In short, I don’t think addiction to social media is as serious a problem as it is sometimes portrayed.
All this support stated, I don’t use social media really at all. I have a Facebook account, but I very, very rarely post — probably less than once a month. I largely use it to keep up with my enormous family, much of which has a lively attendance online, and I do so at frequencies varying from a few times a week to sometimes once a day. I don’t have other social media accounts, and I don’t blog (apart from for this class), largely because I just don’t like having personal information floating around online, and partly because it just doesn’t interest me. As far as addictions go, I once knew someone who was probably getting close to being (legitimately) addicted to blogging on and reading blogs on Tumblr. It changed her political beliefs, her style, her manner of speech, her ambitions — it was profound. But it wasn’t hideous or evil — just profound. I didn’t like who she became as compared to the past, but who am I to judge her decisions? She wasn’t doing anything wrong, she still came to work and did a fantastic job, and she was happy and healthy. And further, to address another part of the prompt, my opinion on when a pass-time becomes unethical is pretty simple — if it’s not directly infringing on another person’s liberties, it’s not my place to draw lines in the dirt.
As the internet says: too long; didn’t read:
Social media probably isn’t as addictive or scary as it’s portrayed. I’m not a fan, but I also don’t care if others want to have an active online presence.
Source:
The social network [Motion picture]. (2010). Sony.
