Comments on: Social Belonging (Not Money) is Key to Employee Brand Ambassadors on Social Media

By: Isman Tanuri

Isman Tanuri — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:37:21 +0000

If only business leaders truly understand the value of employee ambassadors. Those are great examples of institutions you mentioned, Daryl. These are the organisations that cultivate and focus on 'happiness' and are reaping tremendous results from it.

Now I wonder, is it the failure of analysts, management consultants and corporate architects who have not been looking into the currency of happy and turning around companies around the world for social good? Oh well, then again, I think the world needs its balance of good and evil, perhaps.

By: Isman Tanuri

Isman Tanuri — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:29:49 +0000

I agree very much with you, Anol. Man has never quite evolved into solitary creatures, we are as communal as ever and that is perhaps the very foundation of human life as we know it now. We need to belong to some place or some group. In my books, denying access to our community we feel we belong to, is a clear violation of our basic rights. Facebook is another great example. People run causes and donation drives so successfully on it, that perhaps our motivation is never monetary, but rather a great need to belong and contribute.

By: Daryl Tay

Daryl Tay — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:59:38 +0000

Think you got it spot on. It's not about the money. Think about the places who are known for having really passionate, almost zealous employees. The Googles, Apples, Zapposes of the world. Sure, another company could give them more money but that alone can't generate the same amount of love and belonging necessary to turn someone into a raving word of mouth lunatic. And yes, neither will paid reviews or endorsements either.

By: Anol Bhattacharya

Anol Bhattacharya — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:15:02 +0000

Great post Isman. Nice touch with 'Maslow’s Hierarchy' reference. To add, it's not only useless to offer direct cash benefits, it may be harmful too. And I am not just guessing here, the research on behavioral economics by Dan Ariely supports that.

For example (I am paraphrasing here) - in an European country, people from randomly chosen residential areas were asked if they will allow (and help their country) to bury non-biodegradable waste near their home. Despite knowing the fact that it will reduce the value of their real estate, more than 60% agreed. The emotion there was all about belonging and helping out their nation. But when the research associate asked few other randomly picked neighborhood residents, if they will allow bury waste in exchange of a cash reward and/or tax break, the positive response dropped below 30%.

Bringing it to the level of just another economic transaction rather than providing a sense of belonging might just kill the goodwill.