I was talking about the importance of CEO presence and sad 1 tweet by CEO is worth 1,000 by staff. Was sort of tongue and cheek. (Title is from a blog post that Maddie Grant wrote) But Megan said the ratio was too high. Let's hash it out in branch ...

I did understand the point -- that CEO involvement validates things externally and internally, and says that they approve of / are invested in / care about the social efforts of their organization, and want to contribute.

On the other hand, that statement can be used to invalidate the grassroots work that happens before leadership steps in, and when the leadership isn't part of the conversation. The staff are doing the work it takes to build the community and create content that matters to people, etc. They're providing the service and connection that lies at the real heart of social media's value, inside the organization, and to the constituents outside of the org. They're doing the stuff we always say really matters.

Previous tweets: ‏@tmcenroe In many orgs - I think the CEO tweet would do a ton to empower and validate work of staff. it's not that zero sum to me.
‏@megtripp I do understand what you're saying, and within the context of your whole talk, I'm sure it would have stuck out less to me. :)

I understand the internal vs. external thing, but the value of a leader's tweet depends on the leader... and the led. :)

I don't think any ratio is accurate. It completely depends on the org/audience/culture/tweet content.

not really -- just pointing out that the 1to1000 thing does more to devalue staff than value leadership. :)

Ted: I think the CEO tweet would do a ton to empower and validate work of staff. it's not that zero sum to me.

Meghan - Ah, get where you are coming from. But, in some organizations the people who are the heart and soul of the social media won't have as much impact unless there is leadership support. I'm saying that it has to be a top down directive, I think social media strategy flows in many directions within and outside of organization up and down and sideways

You want the CEO's thoughts and support, no question. But the scrappy, hands-on, whole-org stuff I love about social media and what it can accomplish is what happens when there isn't a thought leader tweeting. His tweets support that work and the org benefits from his involvement, but it's not nearly so important to the work as the (admittedly tongue in cheek) ratio indicates.

Maybe I'd put it like this: Support from the top down makes it easier for folks on the ground to do what they do, and adds depth to the conversations happening. When your boss gets online and gets involved, it's an amazing validation on one level. But the folks on the ground provide the most lasting impact on the lives of their community, and I felt like that needed saying. :)

Yes!1 I agree with you! But, but, but .. I'm thinking about the Twitter storm with "poop_strong" and Atena Life Insurance - when the CEO actually engaged with him and solved the problem. Sometimes, some issues requires the leaders voice. Now agreed - it may not mean that the CEO has to be on Twitter - but I think it is really important for leaders to show their support and what better way to show the support than model the model......

So, yes we're saying the thing ..:-) and easier to see that in 750 charaters

Sorry I missed the back and forth -and think we are in alignment. One different lens on if for me was to look at it in terms of relationships. The ground level person can have a great impact, but it is typically strongest with those who already have an established relationship. The CEO who is tweeting is more able to have an impact on those who don't know the org well.

In theory, I could see our CEO as a great amplifier for the work going on in the organization and with our partners - and have it be more genuine than the sharing I can do from the brand account.

You might say that an org where staff and CEO are both engaged are magnitudes better than staff alone...

Also, as Meg pointed out - it varies by culture. Philanthropy has a somewhat unique type of organizational culture -- and if the Foundation CEO is walking the walk, talking the talk in social media - it really helps the ground level person have more impact because philanthropy operates in that way.

I have analyzed a bunch of Nonprofit/Foundation CEO accounts - some tweet just like the branded account - there is no personality in it. Others are more authentic. For the latter, I think about Sara Miles and Save the Children.

So, the CEO could Tweet but it not be authentic and perhaps not be as effective an amplifier for external audiences.

Very valid point. No matter how big your reach, if your message is weak it won't have impact. And I guess we can also agree that a lower-level employee can have a major impact as well. Ummm, just ask KitchenAidUSA!

More seriously, to Meg's point, social media does give additional opportunities for staff to have an impact and broader reach - which actually gets to another tweet I sent out about your talk yesterday. That potential added impact creates some of the fear that many orgs still are grappling with...

Ted .... I've been writing about social media fear now since 2003 ... which we could get over it. I don't remember the switch from Fax Machines to Email being so long and difficult ... but maybe when the next new disruptive technology comes - ten years from now we'll be saying -- I don't remember getting CEOs on Twitter as being as hard as today's new shiny object ...

Seriously. I did a master class at the Nonprofit Management Institute at Stanford - talking to 350 Nonprofit CEOs about networked nonprofits ... show the opportunity to fill structural holes in their network with LinkedIn and SNA ... I got some skeptical looks so I asked for push back ..

No one wanted to come up to mic and challenge me, silence for like three minutes. Then some CEO came lumbering up to the mic and said, "I'm the CEO and I don't want my staff on LinkedIn and connecting with my board. I want to control the communications .... What do you think of that?" I used the Clay Shirky Line from 2008 (If you are afraid of loosing control, than get over it you've lost control.) So, there are a lot of attitudes like that still ... change takes a long time.

Hey - Holly - what do you think? You are a CEO ....:-)

I am in complete agreement with Ted. I think CEO + staff is the best combo. I can validate things in a way that other staff can't always do. Even in social media, I think rank and title carry SOME weight, so when I RT, it can convey more weight than when a junior staffer does.

That said, I have the Amazing Amy Sample Ward on my staff, and in many ways, she has a LOT more credibility than me. She is more engaged in the social platforms and has a lot of strong relationships. I don't know what my Klout score is, but I am sure hers is higher.

So I think we have to work together. When I RT one of our junior staffers, they get more followers, AND the credit for being super smart. I get to look like an awesome leader who empowers her staff!

Ahem .. Holly you don't just look like one - you are one!! :-)

At the expense of sounding trite...I agree! As with many good things in life, it's not either/or, but the right combination of both. As Holly pointed out, the CEO can draw the attention to an "on-the-ground" worker with RTs and other mentions.

There's another important role of the CEO that hasn't been mentioned: getting our sector past the fear that Beth has been writing about for nine years. Our experience at @irvinefdn: Once @jcanales became active on Twitter, and took the time to build an authentic presence, it made it a lot easier for other people here to experiment, and a lot harder for people to raise some of the fear bugaboos that keep us from taking advantage of new technologies.

I was interested in this recent Wall Street Journal article on CEOs on Twitter (more about corporate CEOs than nonprofit/foundation leaders): online.wsj.com

As that points out, it's all about authenticity. I have loved my experience thus far on Twitter as it has helped me to learn from others, be exposed to articles/ideas I might not have seen otherwise, and even engaged me in conversation with people directly. As a big proponent of transparency in philanthropy and someone who believes we need to make foundation work less opaque, this has been one path toward those ends. Lots more to do, of course....

Jim, can I quote you in my next presentation for a "Leading the Networked Foundation" workshop? ;-) slideshare.net

I have also found fear around measurement too and I have written about this, but fear is not necessarily coming from the CEO. So, the questions is about how to lead to encourage becoming "data informed" ....

Jim- Thanks for sharing that article. I loved this quote in particular:

"I don't want to be a press release," says Mr. Bertolini, who has about 3,000 followers. "You have to take some chances. You have to put yourself out there."

Sometimes I think that we're barking up the wrong tree, trying to get every ED on Twitter. Some EDs are just NOT built for it, and it's better they stay away. But for those that are ready to be transparent and hear the good, the bad, and the ugly, it's an amazing tool. Maybe we should be preaching only to the converted?

Beth, of course you can...presuming there's something of use to share! :-)

Jim,

Yes, your quote about the building an authentic presence ... there is nothing more powerful in a presentation for people to see their peers doing something they are not. And, I can't always have someone in the room, live - saying that - so I do it by proxy with screen captures and stories ...