Leaders and managers who conduct more meetings with more people are the most successful. At least, that’s the way organizations measure their success if you consider their favoured online metrics.
That’s the analogy I gave during IABC Ottawa‘s Measuring Your Organization’s Digital Success panel (with Joe Thornley, Andrew Milne and Jim Donnelly and me) last evening. It was part of my response to a question from a self-identified junior employee whose manager has her gather high level stats like follower counts and website visits because that’s how they choose to measure success.
This is a flawed way of determining if money is well spent, messages are being received and acted on, and whether or not they’re reaching their intended audience.
I noted a recent example of a prospective client that wants to be on the radar of specific policy makers. They’ve been measuring progress by increases in their follower count rather than who their followers are. While they are following some of the desired decision makers, they haven’t attracted the attention of those same people, or others. In some cases they’ve followed personal accounts rather than the “professional” ones.
The organization hasn’t attracted the attention of media, analysts, academics or some of the important industry players. Only 49% of their followers are Canadian, and 23% of their followers have been dormant for more than six months. While a large following might make you feel good, it’s like large collection of comic books of unknown individual value — just a collection.
Do you measure the value of your meeting calendar by how full it is? Or, by the substance of the discussions and their outcomes?