Oh, wait, I thought it was a boss, not a CEO.
May just be to show the message board group that she isn’t a coward, and she’ll tell you “Wow, thanks for the input! Blah! Blah! Yadda! Yadda! I’m gonna really try your idea in front of the deadheads on the board! If they refuse it, at least you and I have tried to MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE!”
She’s the highest boss, together with two others they form the board of directors. So she won’t be smacked down by a higher-up.
I think you may want to re-evaluate this policy, in the future…
CYA = Cover Your Ass
Poor Maastricht. We may have taught you all about message boards, but we haven’t taught you about life at all.
I notice that your CEO did NOT say they were considering the idea and would like your input before they did anything else.
I agree, and I’ll go further and say that most people (let alone executives who are charged with making these types of decisions) don’t relish the idea of people publicly saying of those decisions “social science had said it was mostly a bad idea” no matter how entertaingly it’s said.
Yup. As I recall, when Martin Luther posted his objections to the boss in public and in writing what happened next wasn’t especially pleasant.
Maastricht, one thing you overlooked is that The Straight Dope is not an organizational message board. We feel free to criticize each other because no one can actually challenege another’s authority. If I post something about parenting and you say I’m a lousy parent, that’s far different from my wife sitting across the dinner table and telling me I’m a lousy parent.
Be prepared for her to ask why you brought it up in the message board questioning the decision already made. Tell her it was the spirit of open communication, team buy-in, etc.
Be prepared for her to question why you cited her name. I assume it’s because it was her policy on the floor plan, so you were referring to the policy decision.
I cannot assess the tone of the post. Work is so much more formal an environment, I definitely wouldn’t take the tone at the SDMB as the proper standard. Be prepared to address your tone in the discussions.
Be prepared with your own questions regarding why she doesn’t respond on the board. Ask her what the purpose of the board is, if not for the employees to make their opinions known, and to get interaction with the management. In the most respectful manner you can achieve.
Be prepared for the possibility, but do not assume, she does not understand how message boards work. See what her topic is, and discuss, but also ask for clarification on the purpose of the board or be prepared to explain how her explanations in the thread itself would be beneficial. As needed based upon her comments.
Ultimately, think things through ahead of time, but don’t jump to conclusions. And remember to listen rather than anticipate.
What’s most important is the culture of your company, how hierarchical it is, and how open management is to internal criticism. The message board is more likely to have to adapt to your company than the other way around.
Before you go in there, wrap your head around the fact that in-company social media tools are absolutely hopeless, useless, and naive. Apologize for wasting her time, and explain that you’re just very interested in improving things in the company, and does she have any ideas for more innovative ways to do that?
Yes, in-company boards are useless. Total shit. What happens is people only post their wins, brags, and boundless optimism. Nobody wants to have a real conversation in public. Underlings don’t want to have a conversation that leaves an audit trail for everyone to see. Higher-ups don’t want a mob to form and then be expected to go in and address it. Even if you’re a perfect communicator, passage of time can make you look like an idiot. It’s a risk that absolutely nobody wants except for people who enjoy wasting their time on message boards, and wish that work was a lot like that. It’s not.
Well, I think you need to get that “open and transparant” doesn’t mean “call out the CEO after a decision has been made”. Your CEO is not your peer. It’s not your place to “keep our CEO to their remarks”. You still need to be sensitive to what you post and how.
Yammer and other similar tools are great for building connectivity within a company so long as people actually want to be connected. If you work for a large, beurocratic organization where no one socializes and people cower in their offices for fear that any show of initiative will be perceived as a threat, then those tools aren’t as effective.
(looking around the SDMB)
And that differs from reality how, exactly?
Because it’s a SHITLOAD of malcontents!
I’d argue that it does mean that, just that you shouldn’t expect a CEO of a company that is worried about smackdowns to actually mean it when they say that.
And I do agree that they don’t understand how message boards work if they think you went behind their back by posting it in public. That’s the exact opposite of posting behind someone’s back. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a “Tell me in private first” policy, but it’s wrong to characterize not adhering to one as being malicious.
In certain environments, these “open door/transparent yada yada yada”
things are basically self-targeting devices - using them marks you for sanction.
Company surveys, wikis, fora - fuck’em all.
Open plan workspaces? Such a good idea, management? Never seem to
see you people doing it.
Oh, and those bullshit nonmonetary bonuses? Personal time “awards”?
Don’t bother.
Asstard management culture.
There is an old management saying “praise in public, criticise in private”. Posting something negative on a message board IS like going behind someone’s back and saying something negative about them to every single other person.
I mean honestly, what possible business purpose is there to allow an employee to stir up dissention over a decision AFTER it has been made and the money spent? The time for discussion is before you start picking out vendors and color schemes.
“Suck it up and deal with it” is a time-honored and proven management strategy. Once a decision has been made, employees become more comfortible with it once they realize that it is no longer negotiable and is now simply “the way”. But I digress.
Yammer is different from SDMB or your personal Facebook/Twitter account or any other social networking medium in that it’s not a place for you to bitch, moan, pontificate, get on your soapbox or call out your executives. It’s a place for you to constructively share ideas, suggestions and various learnings you’ve…uh…learned (why do they turn verbs into nouns and nouns into verbs?).
It’s also not a replacement for one on one social interaction. That’s great if your CEO wants to sit with you and constructively talk about your concerns. That sucks if the only time she wants to talk to you is to “give you a smackdown”.
I wouldn’t say they are useless if used properly. Even if most of the chatter is inane posting of wins and team birthday parties, there are benefits to employees feeling more connected with each other.
Let me be clear: that was not the case at all. Management wants to “experiment with open floor plans” that is about the extent of the plans. Nothing hard and no money spent. And that speech was also the first time the employees heard about it. So I’d say my remarks are right on time.
I agree with you that bitching after the fact is just powerless bitching.
You’re assuming that at some point was the correct time. I don’t need to commit actual money to have made my decision and not want it questioned. Likewise, if the first time my employees hear about a decision is when I tell them I’m trying it out, there probably never was a time I wanted their input.
My mistake. I thought it had already been implemented.
Really the problem with Yammer for that sort of thing is that everyone has their opinions on the best work environment, but you only hear the most outspoken voices. Sort of like how spending too much time on the Internet in general will make you convinced most people are semi-functioning retards. And people’s opinions on their environment might not necessarily be the best options from a cost or productivity perspective. Some people want full cubes for privacy while others want half cubes while others like the more colaborative open space. Do we rent office space with the building where every office is a corner office or the building where there are no corners?
If I were your CEO I would “punish” your insolence by giving you ownership of polling the team and selecting the new work environment.
I’m guessing a couple of things are going on here:
a) They want to test an alternative office seating plan and I believe they are much further along than, “Hey, here’s a thought everybody…”
b) Your post criticizing the plan might have poisoned the well for them and they want to figure out how to manage the possible fallout.
The issue is not whether or not the new seating plan is a good idea. The issue is that they have a social medium which can be used for open criticism and they do not have a plan for handling that.
They have a couple of options to “manage” this:
They should probably do both. But first, they’ll sit you down for a friendly talk over coffee to make you an offer you can’t refuse.
That ought to shut you up, troublemaker! 
Stop typing while I’m typing! 
This is what I’m thinking. Open floor spaces tend to promote productivity in a way cubicles/private offices do not, simply because it’s easier to slack when nobody’s looking at you or your computer screen. Open concepts make people feel more paranoid–because there’s no way to stare into space, shop online, pick your nose, or adjust your pantyhose without EVERYBODY seeing it–but they undeniably make people more productive. Your company is probably piloting the program with a strict eye toward numbers, and will make the decision permanent once they notice increased productivity (keeping in mind that morale is often a non-consideration wrt these kinds of policies).