Is ghost blogging OK in IC?

A regular issue on Black Belt is whether it is acceptable to ghost write blogs for senior managers.  Afterall, writing statements on behalf of leaders is what we spend a lot of time doing anyway.

However, a posting by pr blogger Simon Collister caught my eye.  His message seems to be that ghost writing blogs is bad practice - and I tend to agree with him because of the implied authenticity...

But I wonder if that will last for much longer?

Liam

Comments

[Simon Collister]

I'm not sure that ghost-writing blogs will continue to be seen as unethical as more and more practitioners start using the practice.

But in reality ghost-blogging is: a) against the CIPR's code of conduct and b) totally counter-productive. As a result hopefully anyone trying to ghost-blog will give up once they or the client realises it is a waste of time.

I spoke to a group of advertisers recently and even they appreciated that a blog they created for a fictional brand character didn't work.

[Alex Manchester]

I guess it depends on the level of ghost writing, but if it's complete falsification of a post that's then "approved" by the person supposedly writing, it's a complete no-no as far as I'm concerned. This level of ghost writing is also: a) pointless; and b) unnecessary.

The whole point of using a blog in the above context is because it's personal, and the personality is emitted via the writing. You have an excellent example of that right here on the Black Belt Dojo.

No matter how well the ghostwriter can emulate the person they're ghosting, if it's an individual that's supposed to be posting, most people can see through it in seconds. Those autobiographies by footballers that Simon mentions? We all know they're not written by them, but there's little care or recourse (by way of comments back on a blog, for example).

Now, if it's a case whereby the "blogger" has dictated a post to someone with more time to write it up, or has written it elsewhere and gives it to someone to post (Bob Lutz at GM started this way originally), that's ok - so long as no corrections are made aside from spelling and grammar.

And a blog post can be sent via a Blackberry directly to a blog. Most people can tap out an e-mail pretty quickly so why not do it that way?

Given those reasons, I don't see any way in which a ghost blog can or should even be considered. The idea just stinks. If a ghost blog is being considered to that degree then it's fair to say the point has been well and truly missed.

If someone hasn't got the time to commit to posting, then don't bother. If they're too worried about writing style then try it anyway (most people get much better with a bit of practice and feedback) or, again, don't bother.

I really hope we don't see more and more of them, They have a habit of being found out quickly and torn to shreds.

[Sue]

I should start by saying that I'm totally against ghost-writing blogs. I think it goes totally against the principles behind them.

The interesting thing for me about the debate on the most recent Black Belt, though, was that it then called into question how we approach everything else.

For example, people were saying 'so, why is it OK to to write my senior leader's monthly update myself and then get it approved, but it's not OK to write their blog? Why is one of those things inauthentic and wrong, and the other one OK? 'why is OK for me to make up quotes from leaders to go in Intranet/magazine articles, and it's OK for me to answer questions from their feedback account on their behalf ... but it's not OK for me to write their blog?'

I thought they had an interesting point. Why do we feel people should justifiably be torn to shreds for writing someone's blog, but it's perfectly acceptable to write anything else in their name?

[Alex Manchester]

The thing is, Sue, in this day and age, is it really OK and perfectly justifiable to do all of those things listed above?

Does anyone believe the column is by the person who is supposed to have written it? Does anyone actually believe the made-up quotes, or buy the corporate speak that is so often and so clearly fabricated?

We know such forms of communication are deeply unsatisfactory, especially if you're talking to a more media savvy audience.

I've also often seen people "make up" quotes from themselves - putting something together that you know they'd never say in a million years (much like most of the copy in footballer autobiographies that are filled with multisyllable words - always a giveaway).

Should we not be aiming for something a bit more than what's always been done before? Why do we want to stick to the old, top-down way of doing it, just as was done 15 years ago?

If anyone - an employee, your team, your manager - is fooled by a ghostwritten column, how would they feel if they were told they'd been fooled? How would they feel about the person fooling them? Would they be upset, or are they already so apathetic about the person/company that they couldn't care less? Or, are they unsurprised because it's the norm?

I don't really like any of those answers.

I would also feel distinctly uncomfortable posing as someone else in the company, be it on a discussion board, blog comment or whatever it is.

Declare you're speaking on behalf of someone else, state that this is the official line and it cannot be deviated from, take the flack if there is some, get a real answer from the real person being questioned and post it verbatim, but don't pretend to be someone you're not. It's just plain wrong.

21st century leadership – and 21st century internal communication - needs to consist of more.

[Eveliene Ward]

I fully agree that posing as someone else is unacceptable.

What I am not fully clear about myself is that grey area: what about writing a speech, or an internal newsletter column for a CEO and having it approved by them before publication?

Isn't that justifiable, as delegation of activities is a commonly accepted practice?

For example: my CEO is very time-poor and expects me to understand her point of view by briefly briefing me. Then she delegates the time-consuming job of writing to me.

Maybe the whole concept of delegating activities is okay as long as the delegating manager openly gives credit to the hard-working person who performed the activity. Which, of course, is never going to be the case with the speech or column in this example.

The whole activity is pretty fraud, but as long as we haven't found a better way of getting around the issue, why shouldn't we be practical and accept it as a workable compromise?

I draw the line by posing as the executive. However, overall it is fine for the executive to use my words as if they are theirs - as long as it represents their point of view.

[Liam]

I suspect that in a couple of years' time we'll have forgotten this issue as routine ghost posting becomes the norm. Virtually all forms of professional communications involve some mild sleight of hand - even a TV newsreader maintains the pretence that they are not reading and are talking directly to you.

So I'm with Eveliene - draw the line somewhere sensible.

However, I do think it will be a shame if blogging is reduced to a simple way of posting notices on line. The authenticity which blogging allows isn't really delivered by other channels apart from face to face...

Liam

[Jeroen]

Well I have been ghost writing Liam's Dojo posts all along and I didn't hear anyone complain!

Jeroen

[Liam]

Jeroen - I thought no one would notice if I added a few spelling mistakes from time to time.

Anyway, no one has spotted that my cartoons have been working thier way into your blog...

Liam

[Alex Manchester]

I agree that drawing a line somewhere is sensible. In fact, that line is quite easily drawn.

A television presenter has very little chance of receiving communications the other way (though we all shout at the TV from time to time). Ditto with the penny a dozen CEO columns on the intranet, or in the printed bulletin. There's rarely any follow up. It's all staged. A fraud to some extent.

A speech does have option for recourse. By default the person giving it is the speaker, so it's authentic and they'll be the one asked subsequent questions, face to face.

These communication methods and their history and principles are quite different to blogs (and their history and principles) although they're not without flaws. I read a good comment the other day asking, "do you think Winston Churchill had a speechwriter?" He didn't, but it was a nice point.

If a ghost writer writes a blog post, comments are left, and the ghost writer is permitted to answer those comments and engage in discussion, they're going to get into problems very fast, not to mention it being completely unethical (agreed above) and quite likely a legal disaster waiting to happen.

If comments are left by readers and the ghost author only responds via another blogpost answering those question then, again, it's unethical (bad, as agreed above), fabricated, not authentic, and there's huge potential for problems in the long run.

If one person has time to blog and one doesn't, it should be the person who has time who blogs. Simple. If you don't have the time, don't do it.

You cannot expect something to work as intended if you blatantly disregard the fundamentals upon which it's founded, and you should expect it to go wrong. I wonder how long it will take the BBC journalist's friend, Mark, to find things aren't quite as rosy as it first seemed.

Executive or leadership ghost blogging cannot be a long-term trend and I don't agree that it will become common place or, if it does, perhaps it will no longer be called "blogging".

If the worst happens then something new will emerge to top it and provide the space for authentic communications – much like we find new websites or applications and ways of avoiding spam until the spammers catch up and we move on to something else.

Is that really what online IC wants to be likened too forever: spam that we all try to avoid? In that case there's no need to blog, you might as well just stick to the "all-company" e-mails...

I know you agree it's bad practice, Liam, you said that in your original post, but your sense of inevitability I find surprising.

[Mariana Sarceda]

Personally, I'm against ghost-writing in blogs. That's not only against the professional rules of ethics but it also does more harm than good to internal communications and to the CEO's image. Nowadays, almost every CEO knows how to type an email on their computers quite fast and most of them own a blackberry so they can just write something for their blog on a train trip, while they're drinking a cup of coffe, while they are being driven to a meeting... plenty of opportunities to drop a few lines for their blog. Why then bother with ghost-writing for it?

[Sue]

Personally I'm quite clear-cut on the blog thing. As Alex says, if someone doesn't have time to write a blog, or they're not inclined to do it, or they're just not a 'blog-type person', they shouldn't have one. There's nothing to say they have to have one, so why go to the trouble of making it up? I think it goes against the spirit of social media, and I don't share Liam's sense of inevitablity about that changing. It will change if we - and employees - let it. If we start suggesting we write blogs for senior leaders, or agreeing to do it, it becomes inevitable. Personally I won't do it.

That then makes me feel slightly uncomfortable about the 'so what's the difference between that and writing the leader's monthly update?' point. Yep, that debate in the Black Belt session made me think quite hard. If I'm so categoric that I'd refuse to write a blog, why would I write anything else?

Well, the point for me is that a leader doesn't need to have a blog. But they'd probably be a pretty bad leader if they spent their life hiding away from anyone, never communicating anything, just because communication wasn't their strong point.

You can coach a leader, as best you can, to be a better face to face communicator. But some people just can't get their point across well in writing. So if me standing back and saying 'good leadership means you should write it yourself' means that actually what they were TRYING to say gets lost, or the whole sense of who they are, what they're really like, how they feel, doesn't come over - I don't think I'm doing them the best service.

I'm not talking about the 'I haven't got time to write an update. You write it - make it up' scenario. I've never understood leaders who ask for that - why would they want you comment on performance and set forward priorities? It's like asking you to run their business for them.

I'm talking about sitting down together, understanding what they want to achieve, what they want to say, how they feel about things and then going away and trying to capture that in writing, and then going back to them to see if I've got it. If I can almost hear them speaking when I read it, and if I can hear back word-for-word some of the things they were telling me in our conversation, we've probably got it right.

That, for me, is why I'd write some of the stuff through standard channels.

But shouldn't it be a core capability for every leader to be able to communicate? Sure. Shouldn't it be a core capability for every leader to handle budgets and figures? Absolutely - but I'm lousy at it and always have been, so that's why I've always taken responsibility for my budgets, but found somebody close by that can do the leg work for me and help me with them. As hard as I try, I'm just not great with figures. I think some people are like that with words.

Morally, it doesn't stack up, does it? I know. It's why I felt so uncomfortable in the Black Belt discussion. I'm just going on what practicalities and my experience tells me.

So, I think if we let ghost-writing blogs become the norm too, give it ten years and maybe it will be. But I don't think it has to be. And I hope it won't.

[Presterat]

[url=http://www.3rb69.com/f6-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B3-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3/]صور سكس[/url] http://www.3rb69.com/f6-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B3-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3/ best guys

[lownShell]

[url=http://www.3rb69.com/f6-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B3-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3/]صور سكس[/url] http://www.3rb69.com/f6-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B3-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3/ hope you answer me :(