I’d love to see an analysis on that – might be hard to find employees as many tweet anonymously for the very reason that the relationship with personal/organization hasn’t been totally worked out! Next week I’m actually attending a meeting at the organization where I work and I will have a few minutes to talk about blogging and twitter, etc. One goal I have is to raise this discussion, show that employees can also bring credibility to their organizations by tweeting/blogging individually, and in their own words, not promoting strict “organizational messages” or tweeting press releases or strictly news emanating from their organization, but really engaging with topics, themes and discussions.

We’re developing some policies around it as well, but not restrictive policies, more guidelines so that employees feel safe to engage via social media and have some guidance on how to do it. Another point is that by having people from different parts/sides of the organization using social media, you can focus in on or engage in the many different aspects of an organization’s work, eg., specific program areas (like water and sanitation, gender, logistics, ICT4D, etc.) communications, marketing, fundraising, advocacy, policy, etc. By breaking it down I think it can be more focused and more engaging; maybe keeping a ‘one-way organization account’ for giving out those branded, official messages, that then different employees can adapt and engage around if they fit the area or interest of that employee.

A great example is Eurocontrol. They used their Twitter account (http://twitter.com/eurocontrol) during the volcanic ash cloud crisis to interact with their audience.

Referring to your point on retweets I only wanted to highlight that it can be seen as a currency. Is your content interesting/authentic/trusted or not. Actually I should check next time how many of such tweets above have been retweeted.

Thanks again for your valuable points. I know a lot of people are listening in these organizations and speaking out in many other channels (e.g. mailing lists).

“Most “social media” strategies have one or more of three goals: to “push product,” “build buzz,” or “engage consumers.” None of these lives up to the Internet’s promise of meaning. They’re just slightly cleverer ways to sell more of the same old junk. But the great challenge of the 21st century is making stuff radically better in the first place — stuff that creates what I’ve been calling thicker value.
Organizations don’t need “social media” strategies. They need social strategies: strategies that turn antisocial behavior on its head to maximize meaning. The right end of social tools is to help organizations stop being antisocial. In fact, it’s the key to advantage in the 2010s and beyond.
Using the social to “build buzz” and “push product” is about as smart as using a warp drive to visit your local Wal-Mart. Social tools today are used mostly as a new “channel” to push the same old useless stuff of the industrial era at hapless “consumers.” That’s meaninglessness at it’s finest. It’s the least productive — and most soul-deadening — use of a formidably powerful tool.”
http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/social-strategy-and-social-architecture.html

Perhaps the problem is that the behaviour in many development organisations is still fundamentally “antisocial”?