We all know them: people who have Twitter (or some other kind of social media) accounts but probably couldn’t tell you how to log in let alone post something. And I don’t mean dormant accounts.  Many of these people have hundreds, thousands, and even millions of followers.

These accounts are put up by well-meaning folks who want their leaders to engage with their customers, constituents, or citizens.  We can assume that the leader in question may know the basic content of the messages and hopefully they know that they are posted online.  But I’m sure some do not.  Instead, a lucky PR pro or staffer gets the job of representing the leader online.

The Good

Using this method, the leader in question and their C-suite staff have a level of security with a social media filter in place.  They are confident that the leader won’t screw up and cause a big PR problem, because it is the filter’s job to keep on message.  So, in the best of all possible worlds, the organization gets an online presence without the headaches.  (And they also have a potential fall-person should something go wrong.)

The Bad

Some people are realists and don’t expect famous or important people to do things like tweet for themselves.  Then there are others, like my friend Kevin, who refuse to follow them if he finds out it’s not authentically them.  For those that don’t remember, Barack Obama admitted this fall to not using Twitter while having over 2.5 million friends.  One of the fears might be that when followers find out that the person in question is not really representing themself, it makes social media into just one more broadcast channel.  And this is something many of us have tried to avoid.

From a Gov 2.0 perspective, I worry about social media being seen as just another campaign tactic rather than something that can be beneficial to many different aspects of an administration.  I’d like to see leaders value the interaction with constitutents 365 days per year, every year of their term.  When social media becomes a campaign tool, then the campaign consultants are engaging with constituents rather than those of us working directly for the people.  (And I don’t mean this as a slam at campaign consultants, I promise…you all do a lot of valuable work…I just want to see it continue throughout the regular course of business.)

The Middle Ground

Some accounts that are managed by multiple people and not necessarily one leader have found the middle ground of adding a ^ and initials.  This at least makes it transparent that there is someone else speaking…for instance, a staffer on behalf of a politician.  Others don’t feel the need to identify themselves until Mashable asks who’s behind the account.

The Future Norm

One thing that is certain is that social media and our usage of social media will continue to change.

What do you think—does it hurt social media to have a PR person, staffer, or other type of social media filter behind an account?  Or do you not expect to connect with the actual person when you follow or friend them?

What will the norm be down the road and is it different for government/education/non-profits vs. business?

EAVB_ZRZACYBFAU

Higher education is seemingly lagging behind government on the mass-adoption of social media.  Why is this?  You’d think that the bureaucracy of government would far surpass that in a college or university.  Sure, some higher ed institutions have been quick to jump on board.  We have Tufts University who is already accepting college essays via YouTube and my alma mater Carnegie Mellon University with humanized Twitter personas.

From my experience, government’s development and distribution of social media policy was based on a few important factors.  For one, we wanted to encourage employees to use social media strategically and inline with business goals and objectives.  Along the same lines, we wanted to get something established to reign in potential employees who might abuse social media.  Providing policy is a proactive step so that employees understand what is expected of them.  Let us also not forget another important factor—the presidential election.  The Obama campaign highlighted social media as a key component in their victory.  This led many government leaders to consider the benefits of social media not just during the election but also during the regular course of government business.

So, getting back to my question, why is higher education so far behind on adopting and participating in social media?  From what I can see, they have the potential to gain even more than government.  Institutions have the potential for increased enrollment, better retention, increased brand awareness, larger donations, and more.  And let’s be clear…by adopting and participating I do not just mean creating an account or setting up a profile.  I mean truly bringing social media into the fold of a comprehensive university strategy. 

What do you see as the roadblock?  And why have other institutions been able to get around this earlier than others?