Why Social Media Ads Were the Diabolically Perfect Way to Meddle in an Election

We are all aware of the Mueller Report and its findings from our federal intelligence agencies that a Russian company (Internet Research Agency (IRA)) was hired to use social media advertising on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to engage likely Trump supporters during the 2016 presidential election. They targeted people with interests consistent with existing Trump supporters and showed them sponsored content within their feed. 

From 10,000 feet this approach is vanilla. It is the approach that every legitimate advertiser takes to cost-effectively reach its target audience. If I’m engaging with Mommy blogs, it’s appropriate to target me with content about children’s clothing. If I’m watching videos of extreme sports content it’s appropriate to target me with content about GoPro cameras. As consumers, we have learned to expect this, and we may sometimes even appreciate learning about relevant products/services we might not have otherwise heard about. 

This ad revenue is how Facebook (who also owns Instagram) and Twitter make their money. And the more specific and unique the targeting desired, the more expensive it is for the advertiser. When the advertiser is able to get users to engage with their sponsored content (like/share) it significantly increases the reach and impact of their message, and their investment ROI. 

For me, it is when the sponsored content on social media veers away from consumer or business products and services into informational content that it moves away from advertising and slides into “propaganda”.  And the slope is especially slippery when the informational content looks and feels like news or opinion from a credible source.

The reason it changes when it’s informational content is the “sleeper effect”. This is a social psychology concept when people see a message many times, over time they remember the content but discount the source. So even if they knew the first 3 times they saw a message that it was coming from a less credible source, over time the repetition “wins” and the message remains in their brain.

Social media is so perfect a medium for the sleeper effect - it’s almost diabolical. This is because, as humans, we are always most influenced and persuaded by the people we perceive to be most like us. And, at its core, every social media user experience is built on encouraging interactions among people who are “like us” - our close, loose connections and aspirational connections. And because what populates the majority of our feed is from and by these people “like us”, we do not have our guard up when engaging with the content they may like/share. 

When we are scrolling through our feeds, we are far more likely to be “processing spontaneously”. This is harmless when reacting to baby, pet and food images shared by family and friends. But when the same feed also has political, opinion or “news” headlines, it also means social media users are not thinking critically about the source of this information. 

An audience in a social media experience is in a state to be more highly influenced because they are interacting with people like themselves and they are processing what they see spontaneously. When informational content is shared — content that is not directly about the person in their friend group — it is being consumed with a highly non-critical eye.  And that makes people far more susceptible to the sleeper effect when they see it shared again and again across their friend group. 

The media and lawmakers are pressuring Facebook and Twitter to regulate its sponsored political content more tightly in this election cycle. Both companies earn their revenue from advertising and they would not want to voluntarily throttle any potential ad revenue. And, importantly, they also do not want to be the arbiter of the “goodness” or “truthfulness” of informational content shared on its platform. 

While social media firms do staff teams who review reported content to ensure it meets their established standards; these standards generally include taboo things like exploitation of children, violence, hate speech, etc. It does not address content that shares facts out of context or those with misleading headlines about a particular political party or candidate. 

The “I am so-and-so and I approve this message” on radio and TV ads are easy to recognize as political ads. But unlike regulated media, any content from any source can be promoted on social media. Anyone can pay to promote any blog post, news article or video that they want, to whatever audience they select. This informational content doesn’t “look” like a political ad, nor does it trip any of their established standards -- it looks like just another piece of content that people share with each other. Because it hides in plain sight, there is no reasonable way for Facebook or Twitter to review and assess the truthfulness or intent of every piece of sponsored content on its platform -- it’s just too big a job.

The social media firms appear to want to take more of a “Public Service Announcement”  approach -- educating their users that they need to be wary of the sources of the informational content that is shared on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. However, this strategy of forewarning and inoculation is likely to backfire. This is because people do not ever want to believe that they were, and still may be, being actively manipulated. No one wants to admit to themselves or to others, that they were fooled.

Net net, social media is the perfect place to share misinformation that “looks like” credible information. The people using social media aren’t in a mindset to be able to critically evaluate the source every time they see a message. And the social media firms aren’t equipped to review every piece of sponsored content for its truthfulness, context and lack of bias. With that in mind just isn’t a clear and easy answer for preventing this same kind of ‘interference’ from happening again in the current election cycle.

Take Steps to Reduce Bias in Performance Reviews

A recent study by HR.com revealed that two-thirds of organizations don’t think that their performance management system is effective. This may be because (as research from Stanford suggests) most people view performance reviews as “subjective and highly ambiguous”.

Ideally, the purpose of any review process should be to improve employee performance and drive better business results. However, this intention is often negated because many employees believe that their evaluations are unfair. And these beliefs may be more valid than most of us would be comfortable admitting; even though it may unconscious, bias is very real in performance discussions and takes a number of forms including, but not limited to:

• Recency bias: Judging people primarily on their most recent achievements or failures  (businesses that perform annual reviews are particularly vulnerable to this.)
• Halo effect: When someone excels at one aspect of their job, a manager may overlook negative factors that would be an issue for any other employee.
• Gender bias: According to a recent study women are 1.4 times more likely to receive critical subjective feedback in performance evaluations than men.

To reduce bias in reviews and drive better performance for everyone at your business, you need a consistent structure and clear objectives. Here are four simple ways to do that.

1. Write down goals and expectations

A study from MIT shows that the best performing teams usually have clear and ambitious goals. This is hardly a mind-blowing insight, so the real surprise is that 50 percent of employees don’t know what’s expected of them.

Setting clear targets is an obvious way of evaluating performance and developmental needs. It also reduces bias. Referring to goals before completing evaluations gives managers a more objective perspective than open-ended questions like, “how did this person perform?”.

Reviewing performance against goals more often allows you to track progress more effectively while reducing the impact of recency bias. Managers are much more likely to recall how an individual performed over the past month or quarter than for an entire 12 months.

2. Align individual and business goals

Companies with a purpose outperform the market by 42 percent. Not only does a mission guide the direction of your business, it motivates employees by connecting their day-to-day tasks and goals to broader business outcomes. Yet one study found that less than one-quarter of middle managers knew their company’s strategic priorities.

When business goals are clear and transparent, employees can directly connect their goals to specific company targets. The ability to see real business impact will reduce bias in reviews. When priorities change, individual goals should be updated as well, so that you’re not unfairly judging people against outdated targets.

Aligning individual and business goals also help to reduce gender bias. Women are less likely to receive feedback that’s specifically tied to business outcomes than men, which may explain why they only occupy 24 percent of senior roles. The more women are evaluated on their broader business value, the more they will feel like and look like the future leaders of your company.

3.  Avoid the open box

Much of the unconscious bias in performance reviews stems from the “open box”. Many review processes lack structure and simply provide managers with a few open-ended questions and a large blank space to fill. With so little guidance and so much leeway, it’s no surprise that certain biases find their way into evaluations.

The open box is a symbol of how little guidance managers get in general. Just 39 percent of new managers received training for their role and nowhere is this more apparent in the performance management process. In a McKinsey survey, less than 30 percent of employees said that their managers are good coaches.

To help managers improve, train them to collaborate with their team on setting and aligning goals and on providing constructive feedback that’s development-focused. Encourage more frequent conversations to reduce recency bias and provide technology that prompts them to check in with their team and what to discuss. The more guidance and structure you provide, the less likely you’ll see their open-box biases.

4.  Use analytics to spot potential bias

HR professionals are often uncomfortable using data to inform decision-making. But when it comes to the very human problem of bias, analytics is useful, especially as an accusation of prejudice can itself be accused of bias if you don’t have evidence to back it up.

It can be easy to spot potential bias from the data, like when an employee receives a negative evaluation but you can see that they hit all their targets and directly contributed to the broader business goals. Or if the data shows that a manager didn’t have regular performance-related check-ins with an individual, be on the lookout for recency bias in the review.

Treat these insights as opportunities for identifying which managers need additional coaching and ensuring employees know to speak up if they feel the review process is unfair.

Objectivity = Better Performance

Labor costs can account for as much as 70% of total business costs, and employees play an essential role in productivity. You need to maximize every opportunity you have to improve performance.

60 percent of people who believed that their company’s performance management process was fair also said it was effective. By reducing bias in your reviews and helping managers have a genuine impact on the development of their team, you’ll boost performance and drive growth for your business.

This content was originally published at HR Technologist