“Here’s a very serious question: Are the tools your company’s employees use to do their job more or less motivating to that end than the apps, games, and social services they use to do something other than their job? Put another way, does the software your people use for play improve the quality of their work, more than the software they use for work?”
Debow tells RWW, “Everybody’s expectations of both the tools and the way that they work was changing. The problem was, the things that were being given to them by the HR organization to help improve performance were designed for fifty years ago. None of these apps are truly social; they’re certainly not delightful.
There, the manager can set variable-term goals for the workgroup sharing this feed as well as for one or more individuals within the group. These goals are represented by icons that appear within the “Key Objectives” column along the right side. Employees may use these icons to gauge their progress toward achieving these objectives. “It starts envisioning the world as a graph of objectives that companies do,” he remarks.
Employees need to see how well they are performing, and from time to time, to have some tangible proof that anybody in charge is truly paying attention to them, truly appreciating them.
“Instead of process automation, it’s behavior amplification,
The part of Rypple that generated all the buzz last year was the use of badges – literally, on-screen graphics that look like sewn-on Scout patches – to reward workers for various accomplishmen
As Dan Debow describes Rypple’s badge system, the fact that the awards process is not based on some automated score is what ensures direct, personal involvement on the part of the manager in the awards process. Contrary to Caron’s description, badges in the new Force.com version are attributable to core competencies defined by the company (“leadership,” “taking charge,” “ethical behavior”) – tags for personal behavior that work like tags for articles on a blog. So employees can discern why they’ve earned a badge, not just that they’ve earned it
In the world of public social networks, individuals have become notorious for “gaming the system” – triggering avalanches of usually negative commentary that unduly influences the community’s ability to contribute to a ratings or voting process. What controls does Rypple provide for preventing employees from doing the same with its “social enterprise” network, with results that are more likely quantifiable in dollars?
“You can actually create rules around badging that can stop that kind of gaming, to create value and currency,” answers Debow. For example, individuals’ use of feedback or voting may be capped at the manager’s discretion, or only certain individuals may be empowered to bestow particular badges.
“Social media and social technologies are beginning to erode the potency of the old stack but as yet they don’t make up a new stack, one that will transform enterprises because it is coherent and because there is a clear implementation path.
So, we talk a lot about social but as yet we don’t have a social system for the enterprise. We don’t have a social stack in the way that the last generation of CEOs had a Wintel stack – not yet anyway, but it is close to hand.”
To take the debate on a step I have roughed out the new stack – it shows that social media is in fact only a small part of the mix but an important one. The stack is bound to be incomplete but I thought it was worth sharing with you – you might have better ideas.
“The really hard part of managing in larger organizations is in managing the layers and competing forces. Often we forget to reinforce acceptable behaviours, we leave role structures lose and incomplete and we set deliverables in often ‘woolly’ ways. This just promotes uncertainly and it is not an adaptive organization in leaving this so open. These unnatural built-in tensions create this shearing effect. They grind against each other, like tectonic plates that force further disruption and upheaval.”
Part of the innovation activities has been assigned to some other cost centre, or the capacity was already established and we often don’t break these down and assign these clearly enough to the different activities, we should, but into outcome orientation ones. Were the activities contributing to efficiency or innovation? We judge these through effectiveness of the outcome.
We need to balance existing performance engines for repeatable everyday tasks with innovation delivery engines for new activities to make our organizations function more effectively
In any environment the ‘rates of exchange’ of the different components or constituents operate at different speeds. Interactions occur more at your own level of contribution, the different layers sometimes you are simply oblivious too or ignore. The ‘in-spite of’ syndrome kicks in. Sometimes though, something catastrophic does occurs and you have to pay attention ( a merger, layoffs, threat of closure) but the real reality is, different layers within organizations tend to be often simply oblivious, even impervious, to necessary change and just ‘does its job’.
Simply by consciously working on all the dysfunction points within an organization will certainly reduce the tensions, reduce the shearing and allow the organization in all its layers to ‘react’ and be allowed to come back into a balance,
“It’s not just the number of hours we’re working, but also the fact that we spend too many continuous hours juggling too many things at the same time.
What we’ve lost, above all, are stopping points, finish lines and boundaries. Technology has blurred them beyond recognition. Wherever we go, our work follows us, on our digital devices, ever insistent and intrusive. It’s like an itch we can’t resist scratching, even though scratching invariably makes it worse. “
1. Maintain meeting discipline. Schedule meetings for 45 minutes, rather than an hour or longer, so participants can stay focused, take time afterward to reflect on what’s been discussed, and recover before the next obligation. Start all meetings at a precise time, end at a precise time, and insist that all digital devices be turned off throughout the meeting.
2. Stop demanding or expecting instant responsiveness at every moment of the day. It forces your people into reactive mode, fractures their attention,
1. Do the most important thing first in the morning, preferably without interruption, for 60 to 90 minutes, with a clear start and stop time. If possible, work in a private space during this period, or with sound-reducing earphones
2. Establish regular, scheduled times to think more long term, creatively, or strategically. If you don’t, you’ll constantly succumb to the tyranny of the urgent.
3. Take real and regular vacations. Real means that when you’re off, you’re truly disconnecting from work.
“Salesforce.com had originally said Rypple’s software would be rebranded as Successforce, in a seeming jab at SAP, but those plans have changed. It will now be marketed as Salesforce Rypple. In a statement, Salesforce.com said it decided to keep the Rypple brand name due to its ample supply of “goodwill and equity.””
Rypple’s approach to employee performance tracking does away with the notion of periodic reviews, instead applying a social networking milieu that allows co-workers as well as managers to give feedback and recognition for jobs well done on an ongoing basis.
Meanwhile, the Chatter integration with Rypple allows users to create special “badges” denoting special achievements and then post them into Chatter conversation feeds for others to see and comment upon, according to Salesforce.com.
Rypple has been viewed as a logical first step for Salesforce.com into the world of HR applications, since performance management isn’t subject to the same level of regulation as other areas.
“One of the things you might notice about these timely entities who claim to be from the social media realm is that they have a set of buzzwords at their disposal ready to “wow” their potential client or employer. These buzzwords can be picked up from simply monitoring a #socialmedia search on Twitter for a day or two: listen, connect, dialogue, share, and of course the mot du jour – ”engage”. For those who of have been inured to these common words, they know that – when these words are said on their own – they are equivalent to the guttural conversation utterances of “like” and “literally” – words that, through repetitive clumsy use, have nearly lost all substantive meaning and can no longer be recovered from that unctuous abyss of sloppy vernacular; simply put – these words are social media conversation fillers.”
Do not let someone get away with just saying “engage”. Ask them what they mean by it – and make sure the answer is relevant to your business or needs
Alright then so what do you mean by “connect” – for what are we “listening” and how do we do that? What sort of dialogue should we be having?
Find a perspective on each and every term you come across. Besides technical practices, like the actual process of sending a Tweet or “Liking” a Facebook page, there is nothing concrete about social media.
“Avec l’avènement des médias sociaux et des outils nomades, le quotidien des collaborateurs a beaucoup évolué, du moins celui des travailleurs du savoir. Plutôt que de revoir l’organisation et les méthodes de travail, et ayant été trop occupées à gérer la baisse d’activité liée à la crise économique, les entreprises ont laissé le soin aux collaborateurs de compenser comme ils le pouvaient / souhaitaient ces lacunes en exploitant des services 2.0 de façon anarchique.”
Des chantiers de déploiement de plateformes de collaboration en périphérie des outils métiers et ne tenant pas compte du nécessaire accompagnement culturel.
Il y a enfin des outils qui ne cherchent pas à manger les autres, mais plutôt à fonctionner ensemble
l’Entreprise 2.0 n’est pas un outil, ni une doctrine, c’est une philosophie. Il appartient à chaque organisation de l’adapter à ses contraintes et à chaque collaborateur de l’interpréter en fonction de ses besoins. Mais n’oubliez pas tout de même de vous faire violence, car le plus grand ennemi de l’Entreprise 2.0 est la résistance au changement.
“Social networks are a hot topic in the enterprise these days, despite being only one type of network deployed in a networked business. Many individuals and companies are talking about creating a ‘social layer’ in the enterprise and how that layer needs to be ‘woven’ into the ‘fabric’ of the enterprise. I’m not exactly sure what that means, but I do know that layers is the wrong metaphor for enterprise software, especially for front-office categories such as social software.”
Layers of anything are hierarchical. A layer can only interact with the other layers on either side of it. A software user interface layer can’t directly integrate or interoperate with layers below the one upon on which it sits.
Network architecture, on the other hand, eliminates the need for middleware and other intermediary layers. Any application or functional service can directly connect and interoperate with another through open APIs and standard protocols. Network architecture is more efficient and flexible, as well as less expensive, than traditional stacked enterprise IT architectures.
Because of its hierarchical design limitations, the layer metaphor has never been successful in the marketplace for enterprise software. In the early 1990s, workflow software providers collectively positioned their offerings as an orchestration layer in which business analysts could sequence the interactions with the multiple back end systems business people used to do their jobs.
The pure-play vendors that survived repositioned their offerings as workflow ‘engines’ that could integrate with any platform.
This pattern repeated itself a decade later, when the enterprise portal software market rapidly consolidated despite predictions of robust future growth.
Enterprise social software will largely cease to be packaged and sold as applications and suites, unless those are offered by platform providers as part of their broader range of integrated software solutions
Think of each bit of enterprise software functionality as a service node in a network. Multiple services (functions) can be combined to create a purpose-built application that addresses a targeted use case, aiding a worker in a specific role to perform his job, or helping a customer or business partner to carry out a specific interaction with the organization. Many different, tailored applications may be created by connecting different nodes of functionality residing in the same network.
it is time to stop talking about enterprise software layers. Instead, we should think in networked business terms and treat software functionality like networked nodes that may be fluently, even dynamically, related to each other
Beyond affecting the well-being of employees, inner work life affects the bottom line.2 People are more creative, productive, committed, and collegial in their jobs when they have positive inner work lives. But it’s not just any sort of progress in work that matters. The first, and fundamental, requirement is that the work be meaningful to the people doing it.
we argue that managers at all levels routinely—and unwittingly—undermine the meaningfulness of work for their direct subordinates through everyday words and actions
Most likely, your company aspires to greatness, articulating a high purpose for the organization in its corporate mission statement. But are you inadvertently signaling the opposite through your words and actions?
In practice, we see too many top managers start and abandon initiatives so frequently that they appear to display a kind of attention deficit disorder (ADD) when it comes to strategy and tactics. They don’t allow sufficient time to discover whether initiatives are working, and they communicate insufficient rationales to their employees when they make strategic shifts.
Our research found that many executives who think everything is going smoothly in the everyday workings of their organizations are blithely unaware that they preside over their own corporate version of the Keystone Kops. Some contribute to the farce through their actions, others by failing to act. At Karpenter, for example, top managers set up overly complex matrix reporting structures, repeatedly failed to hold support functions (such as purchasing and sales) accountable for coordinated action, and displayed a chronic indecisiveness that bred rushed analyses.
At some companies, however, such statements are grandiose, containing little relevance or meaning for people in the trenches. They can be so extreme as to seem unattainable and so vague as to seem empty. The result is a meaning vacuum. Cynicism rises and drive plummets. Although we saw this trap clearly in only one of the seven companies we studied, we think it is sufficiently seductive and dangerous to warrant consideration.
“Companies with exemplary customer service understand that delivering a superior experience for consumers drives loyalty and improves top and bottom line results. There is no secret sauce, but there are some commonalities. Customer service standouts tend to have extensive employee training and talent management programs. They also tend to treat workers well by giving them incentives, robust career development paths and other benefits. “
Since the crash, customers are more price sensitive and have put pressure on companies to compete more [in this area]. That often comes at the expense of service.”
“What underlies those companies is that they have a different labor model. Staff and customer service are not a cost; staff is an asset you invest in,” he says.
The goal for companies, according to Jill Donnelly, vice president of Customer Service Experts, an Annapolis, Md.-based consultancy, is to: “create a great employee experience so those employees can deliver a great customer experience. Do workers have to jump through hoops to get a day off? Is HR doing all it can to support them? Are their paychecks coming on time? A company’s service will be successful when the processes, leadership, communication, and learning and development are all aligned to support the service standards and the employees who deliver on them.”
Companies seeking economical ways to win customers should also consider refining their customer outreach strategies by hiring social media specialists. L.L. Bean, the Freeport, Maine-based company best known for its sturdy snow boots, recently assembled a 10-member team to interact with customers on Facebook, Twitter and product review websites. Their focus is to answer questions, respond to complaints, alert shoppers to new products and reinforce the brand’s message.
A lot of companies have gone too far in rolling out the red carpet for every customer,” Fader says. “Companies need to use their resources more wisely. They need to use analytics to do a better job of tracking people so they know which customers to invest in, and then provide customer service in a scalable way.”
“Not surprisingly, a significant number of the innovators we met were Millennials, many of whom are cynical about large corporations. According to The Affluence Collaborative, 40% of Millennials want to launch their own business. From our point of view, the role model for this do-it-yourself (DIY) generation is not Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or even Mark Zuckerberg, as you might expect, but could well be the fictional TV character MacGyver: the resourceful secret agent who was able to extricate himself from any predicament using a Swiss Army knife and duct tape. Like MacGyver, the resilient DIY generation believes in doing more with less. “
No longer must the information used in the job and the communications tools needed for the job considered as two separate domains with separate tools or endpoint devices. And no longer must the information and the tools be accessed from a business office building. With the removal of those constraints, productivity grows and business processes are accelerated and optimized.
In summary, the world of collaboration is changing thanks to the inclusion of Unified Communications and Social Networking functionality. The challenge to all of us in the enterprise communications and UC market is to embrace this delivery of communications as part of a business process, rather than as a separate silo which requires the user to switch from one application to another.
“Très longtemps, nous avons opposé la valeur à la compétitivité prix, la différenciation par la qualité au “low cost”. Les deux stratégies reposent pourtant sur une même exigence : innover pour proposer aux clients une offre de valeur supérieure.”
Certains y voient le résultat de la modération salariale de ces dernières années en Allemagne au moins par rapport à la France. Peut-être faut-il y voir plutôt le remarquable travail mené ces dernières années par de nombreuses entreprises sur la valeur.
Michelin ne vend plus des pneus aux sociétés de transport, mais de la performance au km, comme Linde ne vend plus un matériel de manutention, mais une productivité sur la durée d’un contrat.
Le prix de cession d’un produit physique n’est plus aujourd’hui l’alpha et l’oméga de nos modèles économiques où plus de 80% du PIB est de toute façon devenu immatériel
L’innovation-valeur peut parfois s’appuyer sur des innovations technologiques, mais cela n’est qu’un moyen et non une fin en soi. Son objectif est bien d’apporter une valeur supérieure aux clients, un nouvel avantage compétitif ou une expérience nouvelle de consommation
“Are the future of work and the future of management inherently democratic? Will we have democracy or rather an enlightened aristocracy? The point is not theoretical or philosophical for its own sake. The question has a deep resonance in how organisations structure themselves, how workers understand themselves, but most importantly, how workers engage with the organisation.”
In one sense, a truly democratic organisation is a recipe for a disaster. Studies have shown that the more people involved in a decision, the worse it becomes.
Thus, decisions may be made by a few, but scrutinized and ratified by the many. In that sense, one can say that organisations can be democratic.
Unlike Enron, most organisations are run closer to an oligarchy where the senior management benefits and passes down the privilege and the patronage to make the system work, within their fiefdoms. What social media allows, and the web 2.0, is that the oligarchy can be challenged
The question is now whether a meritorious aristocracy, democracy properly understood (see below) with a representational system can replace the oligarchy
Second, the approach assumes that the workers are ready to produce new ideas and new ways of thinking. To be sure, there may be ideas within the staff, but if the culture has been deeply embedded and staff are not encouraged to raise ideas or “challenge” then no amount of technological change is going to change that culture
I am not suggesting that grown people are destined to act and to be treated as children. Instead, I am trying to suggest that change is not simply going to come about because someone suggests or even models a “democratic” workplace. Instead, the change has to come from senior managers encouraging staff to “challenge” and staff being ready to “challenge
An aristocracy of talent seems to be emerging. In this approach, organisations are designed to support specific talents.
“Summary: Designing quality business strategy that realizes the power of modern technologies requires alignment with traditional business values; the siren song of projected futurism can look embarrassingly naive in hindsight”
At the heart of Drucker’s thinking was the concept of ‘Management by objectives‘ (MBO), a process of defining objectives within an organization so that management and employees are aware of and agree to them and understand what they need to do.
Dion Hinchcliffe (who is currently a VP at ‘Social Business’ consulting firm Dachis Group, where I was briefly a partner a couple of years ago) calls social media in the workplace “viable and valuable“, while Dennis Howlett (who comes at the topic more from a bean counter and Enterprise Resource Planning perspective) dismisses it as “laughable, even ridiculous“. The live voting is currently 78% positive on the topic as I write this.
Like so many movements with the prefix ’social’, the meaning varies depending on who you are talking to.
These early users and evangelists lived in a completely different era to today – the economy was much healthier back then, but suspicions about ’shadow IT’ were very strong,
most companies are run hasn’t really changed to take advantage of new possibilities: the economy is horrible, and clear ROI is not unnaturally required to release budget for changes that will demonstrably enhance the route to objectives
Today’s reality is that in the rapidly changing formal hierarchy of enterprises, including the growing numbers of contingent workers, many people have no idea what the true objectives of their employer are.
This continues to be a significant barrier to collaboration at scale across enterprises (which some would call ‘Social Enterprise’ in the current fashion season). Typically pockets of people in various parts of the company understand the value of collaborating with modern technologies and use them for various processes and interactions, but initiatives at scale are still relatively scarce for the above reason: most companies are simply not that well organized or centralized.
Another great management guru W Edwards Deming pointed out that Drucker frequently warned managers that a systemic view was required – a lack of understanding of systems commonly results in the misapplication of objectives
Like so many things in life however the promise of the future is a very different thing to the realities of what will actually work in a culture over time, and it is all to easy to project futuristic ideas and concepts on this new canvas of human behaviors as future fact.
A continuing barrier to collaboration and interactions at scale is the reality that many enterprise HR org charts are obfuscated – it’s intentionally hard to find an overall ‘tree’ of everyone in the firm, with only division or departmental hierarchies defined
This continues to be a significant challenge to the concept of a ‘Social Enterprise’ and I’ve found it hard to influence change in policy to unlock the benefits of a more connected company (and satellites) even in cases where there were very clear advantages. Legal, compliance and fiefdoms tend to rule what I call setting sun corporations – large firms which are fading out – while expanding companies tend to have fewer formal managers and more connected ‘doers’ in my recent experiences.
You can call this a Social Enterprise or anything else you want (many firms internally brand their collaboration environments) the important thing is to avoid General Motors ‘Design for Dreaming’ style projection of some sort of ‘Future of Work’ vision – instead focus on specific, actionable clarity which is relevant to your specific business needs and the pain points you know need addressing.
Far too many people continue to look for case histories of other firms who have deployed comparable initiatives to your needs, but all too often this winds up being similar but fundamentally different. An analogy is examining a box of Chevrolet engine parts to solve a Toyota problem: you may have found a water pump but it won’t fit the use case you need. Confusingly similar but not fit for purpose…
“Dans son rapport sur l’usage des nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication au travail, le Centre d’analyse stratégique (CAS) met en garde sur les risques psycho-sociaux qu’elles induisent. Pour contrer les dérives, les DRH doivent être en première ligne sur ce sujet.”
les effets des TIC sont souvent positifs, en apportant de l’autonomie, mais ils peuvent également se révéler défavorables, en contribuant à la disparition du collectif du travail. Parmi les dangers, le rapport souligne que les Tic « occasionnent du stress, une surcharge de travail », en brouillant les frontières entre vie privée et vie professionnelle, « des troubles musculo-squelettiques et un sentiment d’urgence ».
Pour éviter ces risques, le CAS préconise de considérer le système d’information « comme un outil d’aide au travail des salariés ». Cela passe par « la mise en place d’outils de régulation interne des usages », comme par exemple, l’interdiction d’envoyer des e-mails le soir après une certaine heure ou le week-end.
Par ailleurs, le CAS recommande d’intégrer, dès le départ du projet TIC, le management. L’objectif étant de s’interroger sur l’opportunité d’utiliser de tel ou tel outil. Le facteur humain est insuffisamment pris en compte, voire, dans certains cas, « totalement occulté
De même, « les responsables de ressources humaines et du dialogue social doivent être davantage impliqués et disposer pour cela de marges de manœuvre suffisantes ». Ils sont actuellement trop peu « investis en partie par manque de formation sur les enjeux des usages des TIC ».
De même, alors que les technologies évoluent très rapidement (mise en place d’application type ERP, par exemple), la formation des salariés est souvent négligée. Aussi est-il important, selon le CAS, de renforcer « l’accompagnement au changement des salariés face aux évolutions du système d‘information »
“On attend de lui qu’il soit un super héro, qu’il soit « ManagerMan » … or, bien souvent c’est le « principe de Peter » qui s’est mis en œuvre : on l’a accompagné à s’élever à son niveau d’incompétence, en le propulsant dans une position managériale sur la base de la son « expertise technique » reconnue. Noyé dans tous ces attendus, le manager n’a généralement pas perçu les changements qui se sont mis en place autour de lui”
Le passage d’un management 100% hiérarchique à l’interférence avec un management transversal dans un univers devenu matriciel. Le passage de structures dans lesquelles il était un acteur, une courroie de distribution incontournable de l’information, à des structures progressivement articulées autour de réseaux sociaux internes, dans lesquelles il devient alors potentiellement un spectateur des flux de connaissances et informations.
Dans ce cadre, l’innovation en RH prend tout son sens pour aider les managers à s’extraire du « Principe de Peter », à sortir de leur rôle de « courroie » de distribution, de gestion des activités et de reporting, pour entrer dans une nouvelle posture de manage
Innover en RH en portant des approches de « Managerial Branding », le manager recentré sur l’humain, son cœur de métier et « que l’on s’arrache » ? Innover en RH en développant des communautés managériales, en investissant dans leur épanouissement, leur bien-être managérial ? Innover dans la sélection et l’accompagnement « à l’entrée » des managers ? Innover en RH en proposant d’autres parcours de carrière reconnus, permettant des « sorties managériales tête haute
“The InformationWeek 2012 study of enterprise social networking revealed that 87% of participants had an internal social network. Only 13% rated the usage success as excellent. The likelihood that a company viewed its success as average to poor? A chilling 62%.
What’s critical to success and what standard thinking doesn’t work? Here are my top 5:
Flexibility,not strategic goals – Having a strategy and an objective for implementing an internal social network is important, but flexibility is more important. By their very nature, social networks evolve and adapt and find their own reasons-to-be.
Leadership, not grassroots – Social media is the tool of the 99%, and successful internal social networks flatten hierarchy. Social networks do not flourish under a command and control management model, but they do require leadership. The active involvement of senior executives is critical to the effectiveness and usage of the system
Organic Evolution, not controlled growth – Staying up-to-date with the latest in social media is a challenge; new applications and uses appear frequently, because users keep trying out their ideas – and some stick. It’s the same with internal networks. Should an executive team have some idea of how a network might be used before implementation? Of course. But then let it evolve.
Communities of Interest, not just work – Employees with friends at work are happier and more productive (lots of data on this issue that I will spare you at the moment), and work issues are often intertwined with personal considerations. Many companies strictly limit internal social networks to looking up data, working with project teams, or posting official pronouncements.
Ease of Use – If the system is not largely intuitive, if employees need a separate sign-on, or if the network does not integrate with e-mail and other critical enterprise platforms, employees will stay away.
Productivity – Social networks should improve the daily work of employees.
Measurement – While the uses of a social network will morph over time, it is always important to measure the real business results. A McKinsey survey found that social business reduces time to market by 20% and increases the number of innovations by 20% on average.
“Pendant que les entreprises réfléchissent sérieusement aux moyens de maximiser les avantages des médias sociaux, on doit aborder la question : Qui, dans l’entreprise doit être responsable des médias sociaux? Qui doit prendre les décisions concernant les technologies, les effectifs, ou encore les politiques concernant les médias sociaux et les interactions dans les médias sociaux? Qui dirige le spectacle?”
Alors que les organisations gèrent actuellement les médias sociaux à partir des départements des ventes, du marketing ou des services de gestion de marque, le centre d’appel dispose de l’expérience, de la technologie et des métriques pour gérer avec succès et même tirer profit des médias sociaux.
La stratégie doit intégrer les buts et objectifs divergents des organisations internes. Elle a aussi besoin de tenir compte de la flexibilité de l’organisation et de sa réactivité face au changement.
La relation déjà établie du centre de contact avec le client et la présence d’un ensemble de mesures de performance sont de solides arguments pour donner la gestion des médias sociaux à votre centre d’appel.
Il ne s’agit pas de débattre sur le fait de comment le client choisit d’interagir, mais comment l’organisation répond.
Si on regarde dans l’avenir proche, les entreprises de premier ordre capitaliseront sur les nouvelles technologies des centres d’appels, qui grâce entre autres à la communication unifiée, permettent de filtrer, hiérarchiser et engager avec les clients dans les médias qu’ils choisissent: que ce soit par la voix ou d’autre médias
“This was my first experience with American Airlines and I want to share that with you, so my trip out to San Francisco via Chicago went without a hitch from checking in at Manchester to getting to Chicago and being rushed through with an orange express card was great, I didn’t miss my flight and got expressed through security which was a strange experience as I normally fly through Newark and tend to get “If you are waiting for a flight well tough” treatment, so a week at work in Santa Clara and the return leg home which started on Friday March 2nd 2012.”
As Im boarding the flight a message comes back via Twitter from @americanair.
@stewarttownsend Sorry that you flight was delayed, Stewart. We’ve contacted ORD & made them aware of the situation. Fingers Crossed!
I clear the gate in 2 minutes and a sign off beauty beholds me two AA staff are waiting with their phones aloft with a picture of me off Twitter as they see me they start shouting “Mr Townsend come on follow us”
What can brands learn from this experience.
*Every customer has a voice and is important to your business.
*It doesn’t cost to go that extra mile but it can cost a whole lot more if you don’t
*An awesome Social Media team can change a brands perception not just to one customer but to their followers and followers followers. – Reach of voice is king.
*Use all channels possible to keep your customers informed and updated, not just social media.
*People like to know that everything possible is being done and if there isn’t an answer all attempts possible have been made to get there.
“We then had a presentation from Derrick Ahlfeldt, SVP HRM at Visa Europe with a case study from his organisation that demonstrated these points. In fact, Derrick’s story provided a great demonstration of much of what I’ve been blogging about here over the last couple of years too.”
This is absolutely appropriate for an organisation whose mojo is about collaboration as people will need to take accountability in order to trust each other in order to support collaboration
The key questions that individuals consider in this values story are:
· Given you are this person and these are your skills and talents, what can you bring to this organisation?
· How does this link? (are you doing what you wanted to do when you grow up?)
· Are you in the right job and the right organisation?
· Alignment – the team purpose, customer dreams and nightmares:
o The team as a whole considers what they want to achieve
o They then get some customers in to describe what keeps them awake at night
o The team discusses what it wants to achieve for its customers
I think people are always going to leave organisations during a transformation like this. And if they’ve left with a better perspective of whom they are and where they should be, this can only be a good thing for them, and is probably a good thing for the organisation too. If they’ve left because they’ve found the whole thing a bit too ‘fluffy’ then I think that’s a shame for them.
The CEO’s focus on both quantitative and qualitative evidence is totally appropriate
Survey completion rates have increased from 83% to 96%
· Overall engagement has increased from 72 to 90%
· External customer satisfaction has increased from 6.8 to 8.1
And what’s behind Visa Europe’s success? I’ve discussed the role of mojo, organisational capability / human and social capital and making a solid investment behind this. The other two aspects that I believe are particularly important are:
· Alignment – between each of these different concepts and Visa Europe’s programmes and practices
· Best fit – the things that Visa Europe has been doing won’t apply for all organisations, but they apply for this organisation, with its focus on trust and collaboration, superbly well.
“Les recruteurs seraient sans doute souvent surpris s’ils pouvaient lire dans les pensées des candidats pour connaître leurs véritables attentes vis-à-vis du travail. Ils peuvent en avoir une première idée en prenant connaissance de la grande enquête « Quel travail voulons-nous ?», initiée par Radio France auprès d’environ 10000 auditeurs, et publiée en janvier 2012*.”
Principales attentes exprimées : « un travail qui permet de continuer à apprendre » (48%), « un travail qui donne l’impression de réussir quelque chose » (40%
les salariés citent à 48% « l’absence de perspectives en terme d’évolution de carrière et de salaire », à 38% « le manque d’effectifs » et à 35% « l’obsession de la rentabilité »
Difficultés que l’on pourrait traduire par « je ne peux pas me projeter dans mon travail et mon entreprise », « je dois faire plus avec moins » et « je dois être performant au détriment du sens. »
Rendre le travail plus humain » est mis en avant par 16% des personnes, alors que « augmenter les salaires », « permettre aux salariés de participer aux décisions, ne sont cités que par moins de 10% des auditeurs interrogés.
le duo gagnant qui fédère près de la moitié des répondants : stopper la course à la rentabilité et tenter de faire un travail de qualité.
Une gestion encore très prégnante dans le management à la française, alors que le bien-être des salariés, ou « well being », « c’est bon pour le business », comme l’exprime dans l’enquête le DRH d’une grande entreprise de téléphonie finlandaise
Data has the same potential for service. Data can help unveil social issues in a more immediate and accurate way. It can also connect people with ways they can do something, by surfacing opportunities they didn’t even know existed.
During the Haiti earthquake, this tool analyzed text messages in real time to direct aid workers to where help was needed. The platform aggregates critical and timely information (or data), and makes it available on a platform that allows people to take action. The availability of this specific data, offered by people like you, literally saved lives.
What about the supply side of data for service? I believe that this is where the real opportunity lies for data to make a difference. Each of us are able to use our skills and experience to make an impact on the world, either as individuals or collaborating as a team to create crowd-sourced knowledge.
The world also has a huge reservoir of human capital that is being organized in a way that highlights individuals’ knowledge and skills in a much more accessible way. We just need to create a better marketplace that matches the needs with the human capital, or as we like to say at LinkedIn, that connects the right talent with the right opportunity to have a social impact.
” People buying social software want to make sure their employees will use it. They want to understand the best way to phase-in enterprise social networking and work with employees to post and share information.
These questions are logical because they are almost always coming from their past experiences with existing portals and intranets that may not have had the ROI and usage expected of them. Therefore, many prospective buyers of Enterprise Social tools want to really map out adoption best practices, with a heavy emphasis on driving people to actively participate, and measure and track that activity, i.e. posting messages.”
Unlike many intranets where the information is static or out of date, the true value of enterprise social comes from having your entire company engaged in real-time collaboration anywhere they happen to be.
Of course people who share their knowledge and experiences by posting are critical, but a passive user who is quickly and easily engaged through social business gets tremendous value out of the platform even if they don’t post.
“L’entreprise 2.0, c’est le nouveau modèle de l’entreprise, dans lequel tout le monde joue un rôle et qui bouleverse le management et la culture d’entreprise. Une petite révolution vers un monde plus social où les logiques de statuts n’existent plus. “
“Flatter organizations—those with fewer levels of management—encourage employees to take initiative without needing approval from multiple managers. “Instead of “shifting the responsibility” up the management ladder, flat structures empower employees to take charge, help make decisions and feel responsible for the company’s success,” said Dana Griffin, from Demand Media. In order for this model to succeed, flat structures requires a fully competent staff with likeminded interest in the success of the company.”
“Our challenge is how do we change the hierarchy so it isn’t one of the top three reasons people leave?” Being from the financial industry, a heavily regulated industry where risk departments often say ‘no,’ “You have young people coming in and saying I don’t really conform to that sort of style of organization,”
“Organizations are turning to enterprise social networking because it breaks down the silos, creates a more open environment where employees can be more collaborative, think nontraditionally and share innovative ideas across the organization with the integrity of doing what’s good for the organization. It flattens hierarchies by creating an environment where employees can dialogue with anyone from their organization.
. “Culture can be molded, by working on the visible aspects (or the archetypes) of culture, the stories, the systems, the structures and the processes within the organization.”
“I actually believe there are qualities or behaviors that are distinctly different from business-as-usual and that can help businesses extract value from social media behaviors and technology. To me, they are what define a social business (and, yes, I do mean a business aligned with social media-based behaviors not necessarily a more socially responsible company. This latter definition is important just not my particular focus for now.)
We are a social business. That means we practice what we preach to our clients. There are 5 key behaviors of a social business that we focus on. I would love to hear what others think: “
Foster horizontal collaboration – hierarchies and departments matter less. The price of organizing around shared interests and needs has gone way down. Just
Make clear commitments to innovation – We can’t innovate and optimize ROI at the same time. If we are not careful, we will let our natural impulses to define things like ROI dampen our spirit for innovation. Let’s face facts, we are designing while driving the ca
Be adaptive and agile – become an athlete for change. Train on coping and harnessing never-ending change. Be adaptive to customers and circumstances.
Build Integrated customer relationships – the customer or buyer journey is more complex and starts earlier. It doesn’t follow the funnel but curves around, circling back on itself in a complex, context-specific path
Master an endless flow of data– we have so much data at our fingertips. Analyzing it to actionable insights is really no easier now than it ever was. Each part of a company has data needs or opportunities. Making sense of social data – and converting it into valuable and actionable information – remains a top priority for marketing and communication leaders and the C-suite
“Les pratiques individuelles et sociétales (usage massif de Facebook, textos, smartphones, etc.) modifient nécessairement les pratiques en entreprise et il est légitime que les dirigeants s’interrogent à propos de l’utilisation de réseaux sociaux électroniques comme Facebook ou Twitter. Ces réseaux sociaux représentent un moyen très efficace de mobiliser les savoirs des individus. Danone a, par exemple, mis en place une stratégie de Knowledge Management fondée uniquement sur ces réseaux. Mais il faut « organiser » et « outiller » ces réseaux en nommant un coordinateur sinon on obtient une véritable « auberge espagnole »…”
il y a dix ans, les dirigeants d’entreprise avaient tendance à confondre Knowledge Management et Lotus Notes. Aujourd’hui ils confondent réseaux sociaux et Facebook par méconnaissance de ce qui différencie information et connaissance.
La connaissance est principalement générée par la pratique, l’action, l’expérience quotidienne. Elle est fondée sur un processus d’apprentissage et d’oubli de cet apprentissage. L’information, elle, provient d’un décodage et d’une organisation de faits, de données brutes et objectives.
le KM implique nécessairement un renversement culturel pour certains dirigeants: accepter que les employés en bas de la pyramide organisationnelle en sachent plus que lui ! Les communautés de pratiques sont basées sur cette idée forte : partageons entre nous car nous sommes au même niveau organisationnel et car nous avons les mêmes préoccupations quotidiennes.
Dans mes recherches, j’ai distingué quatre facteurs principaux : la culture organisationnelle, la structure d’accompagnement, les technologies de codification et la qualité du contenu mis à disposition
il est nécessaire d’avoir une réflexion sur la culture organisationnelle et plus précisément sur les habitudes formelles et informelles des employés
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.