Social Intelligentsia
| posted by Aainaa-Ridtz AR Transparency is much needed in an almost ‘border less’ world, especially where the Internet is concerned - social media, social support and social business will evolve in the not too distant future - maybe not in ten years time, but ‘now’ as in yesterday. Internal office politics should not even be allowed to be discussed or encouraged to be discussed unless its behind barred ‘titanium’ doors, albeit after an NCND has been signed and shouldn’t be jeopardized, for once leaked could be detrimental to stockholders etc {vis, the recent Bayer’s case in distribution of Aspirin elsewhere than the Americas}.The adoption of ‘transparency’ allows corporations to instill the Trust Factor, outside the cubicles, beyond their own backyards. When trust has been established, it can be difficult to disable it. What makes traditional Executives reluctant in blogging or ‘opening’ up to social change is obvious. The Social Entrepreneur thinks and act differently -
The Skoll Foundation defines a social entrepreneur as “society’s change agent: a pioneer of innovation that benefits humanity.” Wikipedia reads, “A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change”.
Social Engineering
Social Network{s} acts as outlet{s} for PR / Corp. Comm, Marketing Teams, to propagate relations with future collaborateurs / suppliers / businesses, and deals with people first, whereas in traditional business{es} the goal is the Coffer! Previously employers need to vet who does what and when - even if an NCND has been signed - trust on paper is different from trust online. When a ’social-order’ is implemented, then things move fowards but does it propagate a positive tone ? What happens when traditional businesses resist change in the twenty-first century especially when Social Media instigates economic change ?
Does social media actually instigate change or perceive by the masses outside generic communities as manipulating the minds, to actuate change ? Wouldn’t this be seen as social re-engineering ? A new intelligentsia ?
Could social networks, or the idea of social unification amongst peoples worldwide be techniques used to manipulate people into performing actions or divulging confidential information - like corporate blogging, sharing of ‘information’ between adversaries - when the act of phishing, pretexting, IVRs get {worldwide} attention there are many security solutions made available but how does online security in terms of social interaction between people in networks be secured - does it invite identity theft amongst others ?
I’d like to add that the ’social’ label is usually if not most of the time, being provoked by by transitional changes from a motivation towards the ‘will of goodness’. If its not being instigated by the ‘conscious’ being, social entrepreneurship will not be undertaken - because the concept of ’social’ deals with society and is reflective of ’spiritual’ fervor irrespective the slants.
Things and the times are changing - Evolution is not just about civilizations, but also mindsets.
Should policies be drawn for how employees can or cannot do outside the office, and for how long ? How far should one’s ‘personal’ commitment in social networks be for oneself, and for one’s company ? When there’s a major issue undertaken for society, social development becomes a key factor in an evolutionary pattern - Evolutionary patterns pushes us to do something, to extend parts of ourselves to the world - It’s not easy working for the Universe, and keeping it in balance, but someone or a collective consciousness has to do it.
Most traditional companies are now adapting to ‘change’ by subscribing to a ‘new’ perspective, but whether that will ‘instigate’ positive change for the masses leaves much to be discussed / debated.
What’s your stance on this ? Share
