GreenSquareAccord 2024 The Ministry of Truth

In the novel 1884 by George Orwell, there's a scene where the Party announces that chocolate rations will be reduced. Despite the reality that chocolate rations were already meager, the Party presents the reduction as if it were an increase. 

This announcement is made through the telescreen, a device that broadcasts propaganda and surveillance throughout Oceania.

Winston Smith, the protagonist, recalls the true history of chocolate rations. He remembers that the rations were already at a low level, and the announced reduction is merely a manipulation of the truth. However, the Party expects citizens to accept the new information unquestioningly, demonstrating the extent of its control over the population's perception of reality.

This manipulation of facts serves as a stark reminder of the Party's power to rewrite history and control public opinion. It highlights the theme of totalitarianism and the dangers of a regime that suppresses dissent and distorts the truth to maintain its authority.

What does any of this have to do with GreenSquareAccord and their residents you may wonder.

X - Formally known as Twitter!

In yet another move that raises questions about GreenSquareAccord's commitment to transparency and resident engagement, the closure of its X account emerges as yet another example of silencing customer voices. This decision, purportedly driven by concerns over inappropriate content and declining engagement, highlights a troubling pattern with GreenSquareAccord’s brand management strategy. 

Instead of addressing the many ongoing issues faced by residents, GreenSquareAccord is resorting to silencing dissenting voices to safeguard its reputation. At the helm of this decision stands Steve Hayes, the communications director, whose role in managing the narrative raises concerns about prioritising ‘spin’ over meaningful dialogue and accountability.

I touched on this in the ‘Other Factors’ part of my ‘The GSA Way Isn’t Working’ however with Steve Hayes now courting support and further pushing his own narrative it is time for a deeper examination of GreenSquareAccord's communication practices and its implications for resident welfare and community trust.

While Steve Hayes, as the voice of GreenSquareAccord, promotes the perspective that the reason to leave X is due to hate speech and a lack of customer engagement, skepticism surrounds these justifications. I have managed multiple X accounts for many of my own clients and haven’t seen any hate speech on any of their feeds. I’m sure hate speech is out there, I just haven’t come across it, and if I did, I’ve not read it, engaged with it, or spread it.

As for his assertion that there is a lack of engagement, well, this is true—or perhaps I should correct myself and state it's true(ish). There was very little engagement when it came to GreenSquareAccord’s own posts pertaining to unsubstantiated, bloated success stories, self-congratulatory backslapping, and unfounded promotion of noble deeds. There is very little fanfare from skeptical residents living in unsafe homes. GreenSquareAccord also blocked many of the residents on this platform, and in order to comment on his post, you have to be followed by GreenSquareAccord, an honour bestowed to very few of us!

However, there was much engagement on this platform from disgruntled residents who chose to tag their failing housing provider. This would result in the Pavlovian response of ‘please DM us so we can come back to you’. Having been lost in the endless cycle of the customer service team, residents in desperation would reach out on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, only to be told to rejoin the customer service cycle, thus venting their frustrations. This caused a problem for Steve Hayes and the team at GreenSquareAccord as they were unable to control the narrative in the public domain.

In my previous post found here, I disputed the official narrative as promoted by Steve Hayes and GreenSquareAccord's assertion of declining engagement on X, presenting screenshots of past activity that suggest minimal impact and attributing low engagement to a perceived prevalence of self-congratulatory propaganda.

GreenSquareAccord's departure from X underscores broader questions about the organisation's communication practices and commitment to transparency. While official statements attribute the decision to concerns over content and engagement, the real reason lies in GreenSquareAccord's inability to address concerns and reaffirm its commitment to open dialogue and accountability with its stakeholders.

Major housing association!

The decision to leave X prompted an article written and shared by Inside Housing. The headline for this article was ‘Major housing association pulls account from social media platform X’. The choice of words was appropriate; they did not use other adjectives such as leading, inspirational, successful, or even solvent to describe this housing association! Nope, opting to stick to the facts, Inside Housing stated they were merely a large provider. Following multiple unsuccessful mergers, we can agree that they are at least a large housing provider, albeit a failing one.

Of course, such attention brought joy to Stevie Hayes’s heart. He loves nothing more than being considered a leader of communications and often shares his thoughts with others, no matter how ill-informed it appears to us outsiders.

The narrative was again pushed that the reason to leave was due to the unfounded excuse of hate speech and a lack of engagement, which you now know isn't true.

He was quoted as saying, “prolonged and continued decline in engagement on the channel over the last six to 12 months,” while failing to mention that they blocked and restricted comments from people whom GreenSquareAccord did not actively follow, an action that would make engagement from their customers almost impossible.

The article went on to quote Steve Hayes: “While our followers and engagement on our other social channels continue to grow at a steady pace, we were actually losing followers on Twitter.”

This too is also mostly untrue. Under the stewardship of Steve Hayes, a communication hero, comments are disabled across Facebook and LinkedIn, whilst Instagram receives very little attention and less engagement than their X account.

Of course, with his need to promote himself and GreenSquareAccord and with a desire to be perceived as a ‘thought leader’, Steve Hayes promoted this article on his own LinkedIn account, even though he would have been aware that he had clearly misinterpreted facts.

He wrote: “Well, I didn't expect that! Following this post, I was contacted by Inside Housing today who said they were covering this. Thanks for all your contributions so far - they've helped to create a debate I hope will be useful for others.”

Shutting Down

“As a not-for-profit, it is important we put our resources to best use, and it was clear in this case we were not.” - Steve Hayes, Director of Corporate Affairs and Communications at GreenSquareAccord.

Wise words indeed. So, we must again really ask the question: where does Steve Hayes bring value to the organisation? Where did he bring value to the paying residents of GreenSquareAccord? As GreenSquareAccord fails to provide an adequate level of service, and as Steve Hayes fails to protect the brand, is this resource, his wage, the best use of our money?

In previous posts, I've shed light on Steve Hayes, the promises he made during his interview before he was hired, and how he's failed to deliver on his promises. One of his remits was to raise the brand reputation of GreenSquareAccord by actively chasing awards. This was an endeavour that largely failed, and it seems he now seeks less illustrious awards, such as the (this took some searching beyond GreenSquareAccord’s own website) Best Communication of Change or Business Transformation and Best Internal Communications (Charity Sector) at The Internal Communications and Engagement Awards being held on 11th June at the Royal Lancaster Hotel, London.

Now, of course, like most industry awards, you have to pay and nominate yourself, agree to pay for a table, perhaps offer some sponsorship for the event. The only thing it really gives you is the ability to add "Award Nominee/Winner“ to your email signature, bragging rights to promote over the their remaining social media platforms where they still have an audience. But more importantly, it's a night out to go and get drunk and well-fed with your mates at the cost of those you are failing, us residents! Steve has a habit of nominating his own team!

The need to chase this award is obvious as how would an external company know how well you have provided internal communications? The only evidence residents have is the complete money-wasting exercise that was Steve Hayes's little board game. If my third-party sources from those within GreenSquareAccord are correct, there was also a mistake at the printers which meant that we paid for this twice. It was my comment on Steve Hayes's own Twitter account about this frivolous exercise that led to him first blocking me, and others who dare to criticise why our service charge money was being wasted on such a fool's errand.

And if you're still not concerned or worried about this latest award-chasing exercise, if you do not believe that it is yet another shameless exercise, have a guess about who one of the judges is. No, go on, have a guess - bingo, Steve Hayes!

So, as a resident who pays his service charge every month along with his rent for our shared ownership flat, I, and others in the same situation, are paying for Steve Hayes’s traveling expenses, accommodation in London, food, beverages for a night in a posh London hotel, and without a doubt, other members of his team! Starting to sound like I'm funding his jolly boys' outing!

Of course, this is an ongoing tradition with GreenSquareAccord having previously funded Rachel Crownshaw for a night out!

Other Endeavours!

While on the payroll to improve the reputation and strengthen the brand of GreenSquareAccord, Steve Hayes also sells himself as a thought leader, a comms hero, someone whom others should aspire to be or should merely follow in admiration.

He can often be found promoting himself and his views and opinions on various podcasts and blogs, and as a speaker at events. While the content that he provides is often sound and reasonable, the issue arises when his behaviors do not reflect the standards he promotes. It's very much a case of "do as I say, not as I do." And this is unfortunate and will ultimately be his downfall at GreenSquareAccord.

Now, I know from one of my contacts within GreenSquareAccord that there are many who are as bemused as I, and perhaps yourselves, as to why GreenSquareAccord has not found a more positive way to engage with me. I know from one of my contacts that when Steve Hayes started at GreenSquareAccord, he too was keen to engage but was forbidden to do so by the senior leadership team.

We again come back to a problem that we see repeated again and again and again: nobody has the backbone, strength, or integrity to stand up to the upper leadership at GreenSquareAccord. And the buck must, therefore, stop with Ruth Cooke, CEO. However, as a communication expert, why is Steve Hayes not able to sell the ideals, the mantras, and change the internal behaviours and attitudes, that he actively promotes, in an effective and striking communication style? Are his communication skills not up to par, or is he simply preaching to those who will not listen?

To again quote Steve Hayes: “It's quite simple: if we don’t communicate with our leaders in a way which reflects their importance, we set them, and by extension our organization, up to fail.”

Isn't This All Rather Personal?

When ITV approached me for an interview, we discussed multiple issues and my support for other residents. The interview went ahead, and then I was informed that ITV would reach out to GreenSquareAccord for comment. They expected the standard response they usually receive from GreenSquareAccord and other landlords, as seen time and time again in the press.

However, this time was different. While GreenSquareAccord did initially respond in the normal manner, Steve Hayes was up at midnight firing off a follow-up email to ITV! This understandably caused alarm at ITV. Why would Steve Hayes, GreenSquareAccord's director of communications, be up at midnight responding in depth, portraying me as the villain.

As a result of this email, a call was arranged between Steve Hayes and ITV for the following day. That afternoon, I received a call from ITV, and they seemed rather irked and annoyed, suggesting I may have fabricated the whole thing to garner attention. Consequently, ITV needed to consult with their own legal team, and the story came very close to being pulled.

To allay these concerns, I shared multiple emails, photographs, and a wealth of legal documents related to the frivolous legal action that had cost GreenSquareAccord almost £10,000. After ITV shared these documents with their legal department, they called me again. The tone had reverted to a more cordial and supportive manner. The information I provided had stifled concerns, proving that what I said was factually correct, upheld in law, unlike Steve Hayes's version of events. ITV's faith was restored, and the story aired.

However, I was warned by ITV. My contact told me she had never encountered a response like this before and cautioned me to be careful, as Steve Hayes had taken this very personally and clearly had an axe to grind.

In all honesty, I feel rather sorry for Steve. He's been with GreenSquareAccord for over two years now, and has not been allowed nor given the space to succeed. I've had no personal interactions with him other than emails inviting him for a call, as I've sought with others within GreenSquareAccord. However, I have actively called out and responded to statements, articles, social media posts, and the such that simply do not hold true. And here I am again directly holding him responsible for a course of action that he may not have chosen. We must consider the very realistic fact that had Ruth Cooke and the board prohibited Steve Hayes and his team from acting in accordance with the behaviours they promote.

So, like many at GreenSquareAccord, Steve Hayes and others now find themselves in the unenviable position of going against the ingrained culture, where they risk the very real chance of their face no longer fitting. Then they'll need to seek alternative employment, or do they stay the course until GreenSquareAccord eventually and inevitably collapses, with future employees being able to Google their name along with GreenSquareAccord and find a full and indelible record of their failures.

So, Why Bother?

Steve Hayes and GreenSquareAccord have every right to voice their opinions, share their successes, and protect their brand and income, all of this is protected under the freedom of speech. Conversely, I and other residents have the right to express opinions, share failures, question activities employed under their brand management, and demand value for the service charge we've paid from our own income.

We must never forget the importance of protecting freedom of expression and the right to dissent. Powerful entities like GreenSquareAccord may attempt to use legal mechanisms to silence criticism and control the narrative surrounding their operations. However, such actions not only undermine the principles of free speech but also raise questions about transparency, accountability, and GreenSquareAccord's commitment to genuinely addressing stakeholders' concerns.

So here we find ourselves in a messy little game of 'Tit for Tat'. However, as those with an understanding of Game Theory might appreciate, perhaps myself and Steve Hayes are stuck in a Prisoner's Dilemma.

Two suspects, each with a choice: cooperate by staying silent or betray by confessing. The outcomes vary:

• If both stay silent, they get moderate sentences.

• If one betrays and the other stays silent, the betrayer goes free, and the other gets a harsh sentence.

• If both betray, they both get somewhat harsh sentences.

Even though it's better for both to cooperate, the fear of getting the short end of the stick often leads to betrayal, resulting in a lose-lose situation.

Then there's the Tit for Tat strategy, a computer program that plays the prisoner's dilemma repeatedly. It starts by cooperating and then mirrors the opponent's previous move. If the opponent cooperates, Tit for Tat cooperates back; if the opponent betrays, Tit for Tat retaliates.

This strategy encourages cooperation while also punishing betrayal, making it effective in fostering collaboration in competitive settings.

In simpler terms, Game Theory teaches us a lot about how people make decisions, especially in tricky situations where trust and self-interest collide. It's a valuable tool for understanding human behaviour and finding ways to encourage cooperation even when it seems tough.

So, this is my move, if you like, my response to Steve Hayes and GreenSquareAccord coming off of X and claiming that it's a good thing. I’m offering the other perspective, that of the residents, those who must be afforded their right to complain and to be heard.

Your move, Steve. You and GreenSquareAccord have my phone number, address, and email should you wish to engage in more meaningful dialogue. However, I suspect we are in the endgame. I suspect there'll be some last-minute changes to the team in a last-ditch effort to stop GreenSquareAccord from being shattered into multiple pieces.

If anyone at GreenSquareAccord (past or present) wishes to have their name redacted from my GreenSquareAccord Resident Support site, please let me know. I'm confident that through a conversation, we can reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Alternatively, you can continue to place your trust in GreenSquareAccord as they persistently squander thousands of pounds of resident money on frivolous legal action. The choice is yours.