The Student Leader Blog

Facebook Page or Facebook Group?

What's the best way to represent your student club/organization on Facebook?

Due to the number of questions received about this topic, I was about to write up my own analysis, but figured I should check with my blogging pals first. Sure enough Leigh Householder of Advergirl put together a nice post for businesses that is easily translated to Student Groups. Here is a full repost:

There are a lot of choices – groups, pages, causes, fans, friends. And, none of the which and the why seems terribly clear.

To make it simple: There is one main choice. And, then a few other important options.

First pick: Page or group or both

Page
Who can create it: An official representative of the real public figure, artist, brand or organization that the page is for

Why page?

•     First up, pages are indexed on Google. A nice little add to your integrated social SEO strategy
•     Allows you to connect with an unlimited number of fans (personal profiles & groups support up to 5000 friends)
•     You can send messages to all your fans
•     You can use rich media and leverage Facebook apps (super customizable)

Why not page?

•     Little of the new content or activity you post is actually fed to your profile new feeds (the most visible? New fans. New photos or video uploaded by fans)
•     Messages to fans don’t go into their inbox; rather, they’re delivered as an “update,” which fewer people see.
•     Unlike being an administrator of some non-FB communities (like blogs or wikis),there’s no automated way to moderate activity. You have to manually check for new links, videos, etc.

Group:
Who can create it: Anyone (on any topic)

Why groups?

•     Most importantly, you can message all members and the notice shows up right in their inbox for maximum attention
•     All activities are picked up in the feed – posts, discussion, photos, etc., which provides a lot more visibility
•     Tend to be more informal, which can, in itself, feel more social
•     Lots of control over who to involve. There are three different types of groups: Open (anyone can join); Closed (the group owner/admins have to approve all members); Secret (only the members and invitees know the group even exists).

Why not groups:

•     There’s a 5000 fan limit for messaging. More people can choose to be fans of your group, but you won’t be able to directly contact them
•     You can’t add apps directly to a group
•     Customization is limited
•     Unlike being an administrator of some non-FB communities (like blogs or wikis),there’s no automated way to moderate activity. You have to manually check for new links, videos, etc.
•     Word is, these groups are also very tricky to delete (Editor Comment - Only way to delete a group is to ask everyone to leave the group, then it just closes. There is no delete button)
  

Then add:

•     Fan: both these pages allow administrators to turn on a fan function. Allowing fans lets your organization rack up contacts (just like a personal profile allows you to add friends)
•     Cause: Want to raise money, enable supporters to raise money, win volunteers, etc? Facebook’s new action-based app is Causes. It’s a good add for a group or page strategy. But, because it requires users to add an application, it’s definitely not a standalone.

Quick update in response to an offline discussion:

Q: What's the difference between a profile and a page?
A: Short answer: a profile is for people; a page is for non-people (or super people, i.e. celebs). Profiles are the basic building blocks of FB. They represent its millions of members. In a longer answer, I'd also tell you that pages allow a lot more customization and flexibility ... but, I think this whole person vs. nonperson thing gives you the talking point most people need.

No Time Like the Present

Hello Student Leaders, I hope you're all having wonderful Labor Day weekends. I've been working. And not as a student leader, but on the lowest rung of the retail food chain. But enough about me.

No wait, let's keep going. Today I planned on a nice, quiet day off from school and work, only to be duly informed that I am going to be spending the day with my relatives. Which is not so bad. However, it makes enjoying Labor Day barbequing somewhat of a chore if you're the only person in your family that doesn't eat meat. Whoops. Seriously, we are almost a vegetable-less family. Meat's gotta be in everything.

But perhaps this is for the best anyway; when I'm home, I'm lazy. Case in point: my unread e-mail inbox is stacking up Jenga-wise despite having many spare minutes to respond to hopeful students with hopeful queries. Don't let this happen to you.

I used to have somewhat of an e-mail complex. If I were sitting online and I got a message, I'd usually wait a day to respond to it so I wouldn't look like the guy that sits home at night refreshing his inbox, despite being exactly that. In college, I came to appreciate professors who would reply within minutes to my e-mails, but, for some reason, this didn't make me reevaluate my habits for the sake of cool points, even though I wholly acknowledge the fact that I'm not cool, nor will I ever be.

So now I have a bunch of e-mails to respond to with barely any time free (thanks to the aforementioned relative hang-outtage) other than the time I'm spending writing this blog, and probably the time I will spend writing for another blog directly after this. I procrastinate in all the wrong ways.

Basically, if you find yourself in a position where people will suddenly give you attention, make sure you give them back the attention they deserve and sometimes crave. You don't have to call them back immediately, no. Nor do you have to say they're pretty or intelligent. But answer their e-mails instead of watching videos on YouTube. Otherwise, before you know it, you'll have dozens of e-mails left unanswered and you will probably continue to twiddle your thumbs and pretend they can wait until you're truly bored, or for when you need to procrastinate doing something else, like writing a post for a student leadership blog. My life is a vicious cycle.

It's not in my job description, and that's that.

I'm taking an Industrial Organizational Psychology course this summer, and recently, we covered the topic of job descriptions--a subject I've thought a lot about since development of job descriptions was added to my job description at my former job. (You may need to re-read that a few times before it starts making sense).

Anywho, during the class, my instructor was adamant about the fact that a worker must never say "it's not in my job description" to a superior. If your manager tells you to do it, then do it. Otherwise, you come across as unmotivated, lazy, arrogant, or all of the above. I can understand the merit of this advice, but in my experience (as leader and worker), this kind of ready-and-willing compliance also has a dark side.

A former coworker of mine actually lost his job in part because he was constantly agreeing to do things outside his job description. He accepted random tasks as his main responsibilities sat waiting, and he eventually lost credibility in the eyes of his supervisor--all as a result of being too eager to please.

As a worker, to prevent this from happening, I've learned a handy managing up strategy: saying "Okay, sounds good, but here are the things that I am working on right now. Which of these items should I push down in order of priority so that I could take care of what you're asking me to do?" This reminds the leader of your role and its importance while showing your willingness to do what ever needs to be done--as long as it's really a priority.

As a leader, I've made the mistake of asking members of my group to do things outside of their roles and later kicked myself for doing it because (a) I had delegated the task to people who weren't the best fit for it and (b) they completed this task at the expense of their priorities (i.e. the stuff in their "job" descriptions). And I also risked (c) making them feel unappreciated or overworked. All very bad juju. A leader has to respect people's roles and only ask for them to step outside these roles if it really makes sense to do so and with an appropriate explanation of the request, and then adequate appreciation. And that's how you get good juju.

Accidental Leadership or rethinking our roles as leaders.

I just had a moving and puzzling experience during a meeting with a group I've been a part of at work. We got together a few months ago because we were all looking for feedback and support for our writing. Our meetings came together naturally, and in no time, we built an inspiring, motivating, and warm mini-community that was often the highlight of our week.

Today, some members of the group mentioned kind of matter-of-factly that I was the group's leader. And I said "Huh???" We have no titles, no structure, and my knowledge and experience level are way below many of the members'. So this got me thinking: either I'm an "emergent" leader, or it is a group with shared or shifting leadership.

Emergent leaders are individuals who naturally gravitate toward organizing or facilitating. Some say every group has one. In my group, I tend to be a bit OCD about organizing our notes and plans (a role I always saw as secretarial). But my own experience has been that of a member, not a leader (as I'm used to defining it). I feed off the other members' enthusiasm and initiatives, and try to compliment their strengths as well as I can. And we all bring different things to the table. Some people encourage us to open up more. Some are best at making sure we all meet up, some challenge our thinking, and so on. In short, it is a group of leaders.

If that's really the case--and I think it is--what does this tell us about leadership? Maybe (as anthropologist MWesch) is fond of saying, we have to rethink a few things. Especially, especially with the advent of collaborative tools and equal access to information, can we still look at organizations and leadership in the same way? I think we may have to rethink groups, rethink participation, and rethink leadership.

Top Down vs Bottom Up: two very different approaches to organizational structure.

So there's the classical boss that kind of looks like this:

And then there's the new agey-listen-to-your-feelings boss that looks sort of like this:

Well, not quite, but I though it was a funny comparison.
Boss #1 is probably a managing "top down" believer, whereas boss #2 is most likely into "bottom up" or team-based philosophy. In a nutshell, #1 is a centralized leadership style in which all orders come from the "top," and #2 involves all the players and comes up with ideas together. In this age of Wiki, style #1 has a pretty bad rep, but I think there are pros and cons on both sides. #1 gets things done quickly but leaves out others and often overlooks great new ideas, whereas #2 functions like a true team but often gets stuck in the discussion stage. I haven't done the research but my feeling is that being too far to either extreme causes some pretty major team member dissatisfaction. People need strong, dependable leadership and they need their voices to be heard too... is that too much to ask?

In terms of student organization, I'm a firm believer that organizations should be primarily bottom-up. The main point is not to make money or attract investors; the point here is to create an amazing experience for the team and give everyone leadership opportunities (i.e. a voice). However, I do think that a good dose of top down is needed on occasion. To work this in, it's important to ascertain from the beginning who has what role and responsibility. Who is responsible for keeping conversations on track? Making sure deadlines are met? Complying with college rules? As long as this is clear, ruling with a firm hand every once in a while usually works out well.

And in conclusion, here is just one more illustration of this topic:

In with the new, in with the old: remembering to re-recruit current team members.

It's important to put loads of resources into recruiting new members and making their transition into your organization as smooth and enjoyable as possible, but very often this happens at the expense of paying attention to current members.

"No one ever threw a welcome party for meeee," someone may grumble, and if they do, then the deeper issue is probably a feeling of being unappreciated. As I mentioned in a previous post, one solution may be giving random, unexpected praise and rewards.

Another may be to get members more involved in doing things they really care about and can excel in, then giving them the opportunity to discuss their contributions and get feedback from the group. Try to keep visible records of people's progress (think Reach for the Stars charts, but perhaps more age appropriate) and celebrate milestones such as getting X amount at a fund raiser or getting Y number of attendees at an event. Not only can this be motivational, but it will show your members that you acknowledge their importance.

And lastly, make sure to get everyone involved in the recruitment and initiation process. Growing and/or developing the organization should be everyone's responsibility and always a cause for celebration.

Managing up: the wisdom of the conga line.

I've been a long time devotee of such dance party classics as the Electric Slide, Cotton Eye Joe, and yes, even the Macarena, but I'm ashamed to admit that only recently have I discovered the proper way to do the conga. In case you're not familiar with the general idea, here's a video (you may not want to watch the whole thing, and that's OKAY):

Now what's so interesting and unique about the conga (aside from having a bunch of strangers touch you) is that the leader is in BACK of the line. Each conga line member is actually responsible for moving the person in the front.

This makes me think of "managing up" theory, which states that individuals should strive to direct and improve the actions of their supervisors/leaders and organizations. So for example, as a club member, you may want to email your leader and ask whether there's anything you can be doing to further the purpose of the group (as opposed to waiting for direction). Or you could prepare a presentation on a new idea you came up with.

To me this is a very powerful notion. It means that everyone is responsible for everyone, and it means that everyone leads. Plus it's pretty hard to step on someone's toes from the back (I love this metaphor!).

Organizational flaws and a bitter shortage of Milkshake Moments.

In his lovely new book The Milkshake Moment: Overcoming Stupid Systems, Pointless Policies and Muddled Management to Realize Real Growth, business growth consultant Steven Little manages to put his finger right on the weak pulse of my college's problems.

He describes a strange little experiment he's been conducting unofficially at numerous hotels in which he calls room service and asks for a milkshake (his favorite thing of all things) even though it's not on the menu. Almost invariably he is met with a worried and hurried, "Sorry, sir, we don't have milkshakes." At this point the dialog goes like this:

"Do you have ice cream?"
"Yes."
"Okay, do you have milk?"
"Yes."
"Then please bring me a bowl of ice cream, half a glass of milk, and a long spoon."

Once the ingredients arrive, he makes his own milkshake and wonders what makes organizations restrict their members so much that creative problem solving is pretty much stifled.

At Hunter College, bureaucracy is the rule of the land, even though no one can quite figure out what the rules are. Limited power for each member of this thick web leads to crankiness and a zombie-like state of apathy, and dumb policies lead to chaos and frustration.

Little's lesson? Don't be afraid to challenge the beast. Question stupid policies and demand explanations. And within the organizations that you run: beware that growth often leads to more and more rule making and structuring. Make sure the rules you have make sense and that they serve to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of each member. And have milkshakes whenever you can.

A lot of them.

Who's to Blame? Fingerpointing and when to point the finger at yourself.

Recently I've been involved in an ongoing debate about the behavior of individuals within an organization. My feeling has always been that the way we act in a given situation often has more to do with the situation than the individual. The opposing view believes that people are what they are, and they will act as they will act, period. Though many psychologists scoff at this belief (often called the fundamental-attribution error), it is nevertheless firmly grounded in many people's perceptions. It is so firmly grounded, in fact, that I am not always sure whether it's true or not.

For example, one of the organizations that I am a part of has a member that many perceive to be too "passive." He does not take initiative or go the extra mile. My thinking is: "The leadership within the organization is doing something wrong. What can we change about our procedures, communication, or organizational culture so that he feels more willing to take charge?" My "opposition's" thinking is: "Well, that's the way he is. It sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it. He's to blame."

It's tempting to accept. After all, I personally feel that my actions are consistent regardless of the circumstances, but research shows that I'm probably wrong.  Regardless, as organizational leaders, I think we have to accept the possibility that we are causing a person to act in a way we don't like, and it is our responsibility to change ourselves (or the system) before we try to change the individual.

Of course, if we try and try and nothing helps, then maybe we have to accept that the person just isn't a good fit. Maybe it just isn't worth it for us to bend over backwards to change someone's behavior. But I stick by my initial argument that the finger of blame (or as I like to put it "opportunity for improvement") should point to the leaders first.

Brainstorming strategies and what Tyler Cowen doesn't know because he's thinking all by himself.

In his book Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist (which I find infuriating and backward but a fun read nonetheless), Tyler Cowen mentions his economically based assessment that group brainstorming is self deception. In his view two brains are more diluted than one, and the only reason we like to brainstorm in groups is to let others do all the work for us while we sit back and pretend we're participating.

Sorry Tyler Cowen, but that's just not true. Over the past two days, I've been lucky enough to get soaked in two brainstorms (one with two people, and the other with four--both very successful and gratifying).

In both instances, something particular to group brainstorming happened: one flimsy little idea grew exponentially and exploded into hundreds of new ideas. The little ideas whirled about, settling on different people's back burners, and the larger and more solid ideas bounced off one another like determined sumo wrestlers. The strongest of the bunch merged into one big idea again, but this time solid like a chunk of metal. And then the brainstorming members set to work chiseling away at it until it was a beautiful sculpture.

Thinking alone, my idea had only a few directions it could take. I was pretty stuck and uninspired. With the group, ideas were suddenly shooting out of my head uninterrupted. That's what brainstorming is supposed to be; something new and unexpected has to happen. It's almost like a chemical reaction--there's oxygen and then there's hydrogen, then all of a sudden there's water.

Of course, there are also good brainstorming sessions and bad brainstorming sessions. Cowen writes that the worst thing to do is make people share their ideas one at a time or to set a time limit. This part I'll agree with. In my experience, the best things happen when ideas can flow uninterrupted. Here are the guidelines I keep in mind:

IN THE IDEA GENERATING PHASE

• The number one rule is not to criticize anything in this phase.
• Have someone jot down all the ideas (choose a fast writer).
• Keep an eye out for people who have been cut off-- be sure you ask them what they were about to say.
• Don't call on anyone to speak unless they look particularly ready.
• Give a lot of positive feedback to stimulate more ideas.
• Try to lead the group into a rhythm or a steady pace.
• Ask follow up questions to get juicier ideas.

IN THE IDEA SELECTING PHASE

• Determine if someone will have final say and make sure the selection process is clear to every member.
• Discuss what the needs and resources are.
• Review all of the ideas that have been presented.
• Here you can discuss how effective and doable you think each idea will be (but, of course, never actually insult an idea)
• Once an idea has been selected, make sure everyone understands what it is and feels comfortable.

THE IDEA DEVELOPMENT PHASE

• Now that you are down to one idea, you can begin tearing it apart a bit more fiercely.
• Determine who will play what role in the idea and exactly what resources are needed.
• Put together a clean outline and work out all the kinks.
• Decide when the idea will be implemented, by whom, and who else should know about it.

THE IDEA ENJOYMENT PHASE

• Enjoy!