Tag: censorship

Jeff Weiner and LinkedIn’s Chinese cultural struggle

LinkedIn’s move into China challenges the company’s values and its ambitions to be a content publishing platform

LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner believes the company’s culture and values are one of its most important competitive advantages, however moving into China has tested those strengths he told a conference in Sydney two weeks ago.

During the fireside chat Weiner went over the company’s development, the challenges he faced taking over from LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman as CEO and the importance of the company’s ethical base.

“It’s important for companies to define what culture and values mean to them before they get to what the specific values and culture are,” Weiner said in an answer to an audience question.

Defining values and culture

“At LinkedIn we think culture is the collective personality of our organisation and it’s not only who we are but who we aspire to be and that aspirational component is really important,” Weiner continued.

“Oftentimes you’ll see company executives get onstage to introduce culture and values or talk about changing  culture and values and it’s not necessarily something the company already does and it loses the trust of the employees and the audience when that material being presented because people know is not necessarily true.

“If you allow yourself to include this aspirational dimension when defining the culture it gives everyone an opportunity to play up to where your setting that bar and I think that’s important,” stated Weiner.

“Values are the first principles upon which we make day to day operating decisions, that’s how we make the distinction.”

Culture as a competitive advantage

“I think once an organisation has defined for itself what it means by culture and values it’s then obviously important to codify its culture and the pillars of the culture and the specific values that it operates with.

“Its not enough to codify it, we went to the trouble of defining it and then putting it in our public registration when we filed to go public and that’s a good start but all too often we see people talking the talk with regard to culture and values and not walking the walk.”

For Weiner, that commitment to the company’s culture is the company’s strength in the marketplace: “Today, I’ll tell you it’s our most important competitive advantage.”

The China Problem

LinkedIn’s culture though has been tested by its entry into the Chinese market where its aspirations of being a content publisher met the limitations of the country’s censors.

When asked by this writer about the quandary LinkedIn finds itself in the PRC, Weiner reconciled this with the company’s mission to connect the world’s professionals.

“China’s one of our largest opportunities in terms of the value we can create for members in China and for companies in China.”

“One in five knowledge workers and students reside in China so it’s a huge part of connecting the world’s professionals and to achieve that kind of scale so we can create value for people who are living in China it’s important that we’re able to do business there.”

“At times means complying with law that forces us to do things that are very challenging and difficult and we always knew the importance of operating in China and for us we wanted to be extremely thoughtful in terms of how we did that.”

Favoring freedom of expression

“Obviously we are very much against the idea of censorship and very much in favor of freedom of expression but in terms of operating there and creating economic opportunities for what could be potentially a 144 million people from time to time we may have to make some very difficult decisions. That’s the reality of doing business there.”

In being asked if this creates a struggle with the company’s culture, Weiner answered “that was one of the things we took so much time on.”

“From the time we decided we needed to be in China and how important it would be in creating the global platform and adding value for members and the time we entered into China with the local language version of the site it was of the order of 18 to 24 months.”

“Discussions took place among our executives asking some very difficult questions in terms of our culture, our values and where we would be willing to compromise and where we would draw hard and fast lines and that will continue to be an ongoing process.”

For LinkedIn and Jeff Weiner the challenge of being a trusted global publishing platform and a leader in the Chinese market raises some serious ethical questions; it’s a challenge that is going to test the company more in coming years.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Microsoft’s China crisis

Microsoft’s Chinese partner is blocking Skype messages and possibly passing user details onto PRC authorities. This security concern could damage both Microsoft and Skype.

That the Chinese Public Security Bureau is blocking your messages – and may even be reading them – would make anyone pause before they used a service.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports Microsoft Skype is doing exactly this with its Chinese customers. Anything deemed inappropriate is censored and referred to servers belonging to TOM Online, the company that runs the Skype service on behalf on Microsoft in China.

The Bloomberg story goes onto detail how one Canadian researcher is reverse engineering the Chinese blacklists, giving us a wonderful insight into the petty and touchy minds of China’s censors and political leaders.

What raises eyebrows about this story is how nonchalant Microsoft is about this issue, in a wonderful piece of corporate speak the software giant answered Bloomberg’s question with the following bland statement;

“Skype’s mission is to break down barriers to communications and enable conversations worldwide,” the statement said. “Skype is committed to continued improvement of end user transparency wherever our software is used.”

Microsoft’s statement also said that “in China, the Skype software is made available through a joint venture with TOM Online. As majority partner in the joint venture, TOM has established procedures to meet its obligations under local laws.”

Microsoft have to fix this problem quickly, glibly saying the Chinese government eavesdropping on conversations is a matter for partners is not going to be accepted by most customers.

It would be a shame should Microsoft’s Skype investment fail – Skype is a very good fit for Microsoft, particularly when the technology is coupled with the Linc corporate messaging platform, so squandering goodwill over protecting users’ conversation seems counterproductive.

One of the great business issues of this decade is the battle to protect users’ privacy. Those who don’t do this, or don’t understand the imperatives of doing so, are going to lose the trust of the marketplace.

Twenty years ago, Microsoft could have risked this. Today they can’t as they struggle with a poor response to their Windows 8 operating system and their mobile phone product.

Losing the trust of their customers may be the final straw.

Similar posts:

Double guessing the boss

What do the BBC, the Chinese government and Australian banks have in common?

Two interesting articles, one from English media writer Nick Cohen and the other from American journalist Eveline Chao, show how effective fear is for driving self censorship.

Eveline’s story, Me and My Censor, tells of her relationship with the Chinese Government censor appointed to monitor the publication she worked for in Beijing.

As well as having to avoid the 3Ts – Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen – there were also a range of other delicate issues an active writer could find themselves being censored for as she relates in this conversation with her censor Snow;

We couldn’t use the cover image I had picked out for a feature on the rise of chain restaurants, because it was of an empty bowl, and, Snow told me, it would make people think of being hungry and remind them of the Great Famine (a period from 1958 to 1961 when tens of millions of Chinese starved to death, discussion of which is still suppressed). Even our Chinese designers began to roll their eyes when I related this change to them, and set them to work looking for images of bowls overflowing with meat.

Snow had learned the hard way about the power of imagery to upset the party functionaries. Snow explained why when she urged Eveline didn’t illustrate a story with a graphic showing stars;

I once published, in a newspaper, a picture of a book put out by the German embassy, introducing China and Germany’s investment cooperation. The book’s cover had a big stream on it, half of it the colors of the German flag, half of it red with yellow stars. I decided since it wasn’t a flag it was okay, and sent it to print. Our newspaper office was slapped with a fine of 180,000 yuan [today, around $28,000] and I had to write a self-criticism and take a big salary cut.

Self criticism and big salary cut – the things that middle managers fears regardless of whether they work in the Chinese Communist Party, the BBC or a bank.

The same fear of upsetting those in power is discussed in Nick Cohen’s article on the BBC’s disastrous and scandalous decision to pull a documentary exposing Jimmy Savile as a child abuser. Cohen quotes an interview where George Entwhistle, the executive responsible for pulling the program, was interviewed on the matter.

When Entwistle implied that the editor of Newsnight had no need to worry about his bosses circling over him like glassy-eyed crows, Evan Davis did what any sensible person would have done and burst out laughing.

Nick Cohen’s point was emphasised to me during the week when a former bank worker mentioned an executive had been disciplined for letting slip the bank was running several instances of a cloud computing service. Apparently the press and regulators could have been in the room where he discussed this.

Another example is a big organisation I’ve been regularly writing on where staff members regularly say “this is not a place where you question management.” An acquaintance that recently started there had to agree that they wouldn’t mention anything about the organisation, ever.

The problem with this self-censorship is that it quickly becomes destructive. In the United Airlines dead dog case, staff  subject to arbitrary whims and discipline of management  avoid taking decisions which often escalates situations where common sense would quickly find a simple solution.

It also means people jump to conclusions. Eviline relates the story of the tourist story;

One month, we ran a short news brief with figures on the number of mainland Chinese tourists that had visited the United States in 2007, and Snow flagged the number for deletion. We wondered what dirt we had unwittingly stumbled upon. Which government bureau oversaw tourism figures? What were they hiding? Finally, I called Snow, and learned that the numbers we had cited were for the number of Chinese tourists worldwide, not just in the United States.

So much for the would-be plot. Chagrined, I had to announce to my colleagues that we’d made a mistake.

A culture of secrecy also creates an atmosphere of distrust with every decision being analysed by staff, customers and outsiders for what nefarious motives lie behind even the most innocuous management decision.

Eventually those organisations become insular and inward looking with only those perceived as being ‘safe’ allowed to move into responsible positions which further entrenches the culture of secrecy and blame.

This is not healthy, but it’s where many of our government departments, political parties, sporting organisations and business are today including the BBC, Chinese media organisations and Australian banks.

For the disrupters, this is another competitive advantage.

Similar posts:

Is Twitter’s censorship a good thing?

National laws are a reality for web based businesses

Since Twitter announced they were going to start blocking messages on a country by country basis if required by the laws of that land they have received a lot of criticism.

Most of this criticism of Twitter revolves around the belief that every message should only edited or deleted by the person who posted the tweet.

Anything else a breach of free speech and a threat to the underlying principles of the internet.

That utopian view of the Internet doesn’t translate into real life; the online world is as subject to laws as any other part of life and social media companies have to comply with the same laws as newspaper organisations or fast food chains.

Regardless of what you think of those laws – and in many countries they certainly are unreasonable and oppressive – they do matter.

Were Twitter not to comply then the entire service would be at least blocked in those countries and, should an action be enforced in a US court, then the tweet removed anyway for every user around the world.

By introducing country specific blocking, the service can let the rest of the world see a tweet that would otherwise be lost and in countries with restrictive or authoritarian laws, local people can still use the service.

A particularly clever way of dealing with removal requests is to note that the specific message has been blocked in a country. This adds a level of transparency and accountability to the actions of courts and governments that want to close the service.

We can see that being particularly effective in jurisdictions like the UK where British judges have been quick to apply “superinjunctions” preventing the merest mention of something by anybody.

Should Britain’s overeager judges start demanding Twitter block tweets, those in the UK will quickly realise something is amiss. The effect will probably be to increase the interest in the blocked tweets that can be seen anywhere around the world.

Despite the utopian view that transparency and openess will solve the world’s problems, we don’t live in that world right now and people can – rightly or wrongly – ask that false, defamatory and damaging posts on the Internet can be removed.

Interestingly Google this morning announced they will be introducing a similar system to deal with country specific problems on their blogger platform.

Twitter’s handled this in the best way possible, in many ways this could be a step forward for social media and the Internet in general.

Similar posts:

Why Internet filtering is bad for business

The proposals for an internet filter risk hurting innocent businesses by blocking websites.

This article orginally appeared in SmartCompany on the 14th November 2008

As reported in SmartCompany last week the Federal Government is proceeding with trials of internet filters that will restrict Australian access to the world wide web.

The aim of internet filtering is to block child abuse sites from Australian web surfers. While the idea is well meaning, the proposal will be an additional burden on business and won’t fix the problem.

There certainly is a problem – a study by the University of California, Berkeley, found around 1% of websites contain pornographic material. With over a billion websites indexed by Google, this translates to around 10 million sites containing things you’d rather not be seen in your workplace or by your kids.

To deal with this problem, most computer operating systems, browsers and search engines have built-in adult filters, and the Federal Government provides free software for home computer users on its NetAlert website.

The new filter will go a number of steps further, with it being compulsory for internet providers to deny access to around 10,000 sites, a number that falls dramatically short of the 10 million estimated pornographic sites and who knows how many terrorist, gambling and euthanasia sites that will probably be added to the list.

The task of deciding which of the billion websites to be blacked out will fall upon the Classification Board. In 2005-6, their 65 staff considered 9425 movies, video games and websites. To say the board will require a massive injection of resources is an understatement.

Under the current proposals, the banned list would be secret, and it’s uncertain if your business inadvertently found itself on the list how an appeal mechanism would work.

One serious risk for business is that many of the people who post illegal and inappropriate material do so on others’ computers to avoid detection. Hacked personal computers and corporate servers are frequently used by criminal gangs for exactly this purpose.

There is also the risk of sites being blocked for political reasons. Canberra has form on this, with the Federal Police using spurious copyright reasons to close down Richard Neville’s spoof John Howard site in 2006.

Recently, a staffer of the present Federal Government indirectly pressured a prominent critic of the filtering proposal through his industry association.

So there are real risks to your website if someone in your company does something illegal, messes up a security setting, or simply upsets the wrong person in a minister’s office.

However it’s not the censorship aspects of filtering that should be the main concern for businesses. The indirect consequences will be deep and far reaching for Australian commerce.

The immediate effect is filtering will increase internet costs. Given 98% of businesses use the internet, the increased ISP charges will be a tax on almost every Australian enterprise.

Business relies upon fast, reliable communications. Trials to date of the filtering systems show a decrease of speed between 2% and 84%. The filters will also add another level of complexity to the system, which in turn reduces reliability.

Those additional costs will become another barrier to entry. At the very time the Federal Government is struggling with competition in the communications industry, this proposal will eliminate many smaller operators and favour the larger incumbent providers.

Overall, this proposal will add costs and reduce the reliability of one of the modern economy’s critical business tools. The real tragedy is the filters simply won’t work.

Similar posts: