September 22 2011
How Facebook Poorly Managed their Latest Change
TweetI, like many other people have been challenged this past week
with the way Facebook has changed its layout and styling – yet
again. It made me think about the way this change was managed and I
started to think about the way this reflected upon my experience of
change and managing it!
I’m not going to discuss the positives or negatives of the change
itself. I certainly don’t feel the urge to challenge Facebook
research and the need to take on styling to combat market
challengers. However, how did the change happen?
1. Before the change took
place was there any communications?
Not that I could see. Well some discussion on techie forums around the web, but no indication of the change, before it actually took place? So for the general user, and that’s probably 99% of the 750 million users, it has happened without prior warning!
2. How big is the change?
Well there are many arguments ensuing about the size of the
change. The main thrust of the change is around newsfeed and friend
associations moving into groups (Google+ anyone?).
The loudest complaint I’ve
heard has been around people not knowing where to find things in
their news feed. The new
style
appears to highlight certain news items and demote others, based on
some algorithm. This preselecting is a bit of a challenge for many
looking for information on friends or even games feeds.
I think on a scale of size of
from 1 to 10 I’d put it around the 6 mark. Its significant but not
wholesale. It just feels that way for many people.
3.
Was the delivery managed
well?
I guess this is a big argument for many, but consider the way it
was delivered to 750million users in the course of a day or so -
that is quite an achievement. Many people say it wasn’t delivered
well because their view is clouded by their opinions of the change,
but there appear no issues in delivery – just perhaps a few wrinkles
on it suddenly arriving, which takes us back to the above
statements.
4.
What about the people?
Hard one to comment upon here, as people are the users. I
honestly think that the size of user base and market dominance of
Facebook means they didn’t consider the people too much. The view
that if people don’t like the change they can rebel, resist etc. is
fundamentally lost in this situation. They have nowhere else really
to move over to. I’m not going to discuss the whole marketing
concepts, but it’s the situation where size and dominance has
precluded choice. I would however, compare this to the government
and public bodies I’ve worked with on change, where they were the
only legal entity for certain services – you can’t choose who you
pay your taxes to! In answering the question, the stock response
would probably just repeat the question with different intonation.
What about the
people? – indeed!
5.
Post change event management
I’m not sure this has even been considered. I guess the view of
the majority is to be lemmings and follow the pack mentality on
Facebook. This means if you have someone in your network that has
joined some “I hate the changes” group, page or is just posting the
phrase, then it is likely you will have that across many others in
your network. IF you don’t then you won’t likely have it. However,
all credit to free speech, these are being allowed to freely
circulate and in some way is a vehicle for venting feelings on the
change.
So what is my conclusion on this change? I don’t think it was
managed well, due to lack of communications. Anyone who knows me to
any level, knows my push on communications and its involvement in
change as a fundamental cornerstone to change management. However,
sad to say, I don’t think they needed to manage the change. Facebook
is big enough to weather any rebellions and it would need a
worldwide fundamental sea change to turn people against it. However,
constant change without apparent benefits will wear on people and
may ultimately turn them off. At least they are not falling into the
MySpace trap of not making any changes and, who uses that now?