People Centric Organizations ? Not that sure…

One of the most common thing we can hear about enterprise 2.0 is that “it’s about people”. Even if it delivers a meaningful meassage, it brings more questions than it solves, leaving enterprises into doubt, if not in fear. I’m not even sure that everybody agree on what it means at the end. “It’s about people” is a bit like the “enterprise 2.0″ word : vague enough to gather many people, not defined enough to provide a framework for action.

What businesses may undersand is “power to people”, “people matter more than organization”. At the end they see a real threat to essential concepts such as organization/objectives/discipline/work. I think it’s a huge misunderstanding : it’s not about the cult of the “individual kingé” but about optimizing the way it’s used as a resource. That does not prevent from having an human vision of business, to value and give consideration to people, to help them develop and improve. But the main objective, let’s be honnest, is to make people give their best, to be sure that no talent or expertise is left unemployed. That’s the macro level. (Those who want to know more about the “union risk” must refer to this post by Oliver Young).

At the micro level, it’s considering people as the engines of the organization. And their knowledge and social capital as the fuel. A new kind a fuel that can’t be stocked, replaced or substitutable and which combustion is uncertain. By “uncertain”, I mean that it delivers energy when it wants, and decide of its energetic power according to its current mood and state of mind. That’s a big change, considering the times when companies owned the engine or the fuel. That’s the reason why things like motivation, sense, engagement, are more important than ever. So, “it’s about people” means that people are the factor that limit any change or transformation project. More, it’s a factor no company can’t do without. Even of some understand than once things are implemented, they’ll be able to take the most of everyone, it’s also important to understand that working on the human parameter is key to achieve anything, how great and fantastic social media tools can be. Culture, that is a point that many try to dispose of because of lack of courage, remains essential.

Then comes “User Generated Content”. Many businesses fear generating monsters, that’s to say the uncontrable popularity of employees trying to overpromote their own status, what would go against the seeked efficiency. With hindsight, experience shows that people are not the entry point to new practices but are only the fuel. Except for CxOs or recognized experts, people don’t focus on other people as such but because they are relevant from a business viewpoint. And that changes many things. A good example is Google wave: it’s the subject that aggregates people, that determines who has to be involved into a wave. That’s the same of every social tool : it’s all about outputs and people only exist through their ability to contribute to a given output. This shows the limits of personal branding strategies in the workplace. Anyway, what has to be understood is that it’s not a “people vs process debate”, on the contrary it’s about taking the most of people while following processes.

People are engines, essential, and deserve all our attention. But, at the end, in a corporate 2.0 context, they are not central points round which everything revolve but only exist through their ability to bring an added value. The “It’s about people” word is not absolute but has to be contextualized according to the expected outputs.

Even powered by people more than ever, enterprises are still objective driven productive organizations. We all should remind this.

capital informationnel, capital social, engagement, Entreprise 2.0, Management, medias sociaux, motivation, people-centrism, personal branding, process, Ressources Humaines, sens, social-media, syndicats, ugc

HR 2.0 as an ongoing process

This post is the continuation of the one I wrote on the central role HR have to be given in the change process businesses need to undertake to grow in the current economy.

Most often, identifying a need implies that a project has to be undertaken. A project is made of a number of known and planned actions. Is the need about training, a training program will be undertaken. A need about HR marketing (retaining staff members, improving employer’s brand) ? It will be a communication project. Etc..

HR 2.0 or, not to mix things, adopting social computing tools from the web 2.0 to serve an HR strategy imply a new way of doing things. I don’t say it has to replace all what’s being done now, it has rather to be seen as something complementary.

In the above mentioned post I wrote that HR people will have to learn how to deal with the fact we were mainly talking about things that have an impact n HR and that are not into their hand but in line manager’s. HR having to pilot managers, provide them with a framework but not having to be directly involved in end actions.

Here are a few examples.

[Read more...]

Enterprise social networks are not fun if not used to work

A few feeks ago I was interviewed about enterprise social networks, especially abou the new dynamics they bring within organizations. The point was the “festive” feeling they can bring in people’s day to day jobs. The article the journalist started from was this note from British Telecom : “Social Networking : Time to ‘Party On’“.

Even if I agree with the substance, and I think everyone who has the least experience in this field would do the same, I think we have to be careful about a possible first degree understanding that may cause many misunderstandings and don’t help things to improve anything.

New dynamics and new ways to engage people

The fact people use social networks as a daily business tool (I really mean business, gettig things done…) dramatically change their everyday worklife (I can testify). At least they will use them to fluidify their daily tasks with increased resultst for those who’ll go deeper in the approach and take benefit of that to open themselves more to what is not is their traditional human perimeter.

No doubt that having the relevant informations and people at their disposal brings a true added value in their work and makes it possible to do or get involved more easily in many things. Even things they never would have thinked about before.

No doubt that these dynamics that makes it possible to integrate in a whole, develop connections and make feel being a part of something and not being a number in a directory anymore have positive impacts on work, engagement and motivation. These levers have always been effective but their importance increases with the new generation that is now coming in the workplace.

Be careful of the “party side effect” and the way it may be understood.

I heard it many times in many companies : the “party on” effect is very confusing if not disturbing for common managers.

First, and evenu if the image is relevant, it may be shocking for many people. Don’t forge we’re going to work to suffer and the concept of pleasure is irrelevant at work : if you have pleasure, if you enjoy doing your work, it means you’re actually not working. You can call this being narrow minded or complaint about the cult of appearance (I’m austere so I’m a good professional), fact are there. One day, I’ll have to be taught how to create engagement through suffering without considering masochism as a criteria for recruitment.

But facts remain : it’s hard to make decision maker suscribe to this point of view, even if there are many other arguments. Most of all in a period when communicating about what’s going well seems to be politically uncorrect and idecent.

Second because things don’t happen exactly this way. This big qualitative improvement is the consequence of an approach, not its primary goal. if you think that the party will start only because the tools are there you’ll be disappointed. Your party will be a real flop.

Employees have neither the will nor the time to chatter and create links among them for pleasure. Companies must not fear such kind of behaviors except if they themselves do everything to take away people’s longing for work. In the other hand, if social tools are useful and used for people’s day to day job, employees will realize that the so-called tools bring something more than their utilitarian purpose and they will start to free themselves and create social link.

The human, social and playful side only appears when it’s carried by something that makes sense in a work context : work himself. So it’s essential to give your 2.0 tools a kind of business sense, make them a part of the daily work and workflows in order to make them have any impact on motivation and engagement.

Enterprise social networks don’t have the same calling as general public social networks. But we already knew that.

That said, let’s enjoy this good slideshow, still from BT.



engagement, Entreprise 2.0, Management, motivation, réseaux sociaux professionnels, réseaux-sociaux, Ressources Humaines

Wasting time is not a matter of tools

On of the main issues about social software introduction within companies is that it would make people waste time. In order to answer this question, we have to understand the underlying concerns.

Because the suggested way of working doesn’t need many discussions : in the current context, people are more efficient in a network rather than in a silo. But why so many anxieties ? In fact there’s no doubt about tool’s efficiency but about the way people may use them, possible deviant attitudes that would transform a productivity tool in an unproductivity tool.

Two situations have to be distinguished : the case of internet use from the office and the one of using the same kind of tools in an intranet context.

[Read more...]

Satisfaction Vs. Engagement

I learned from an IPSOS study that’s focusing on employee’s satisfaction is unuseful, and that we’d better focus on their engagement instead. I won’t comment the whole document since you can find a good analysis here, but let me tell you a few conclusions I made.

I see some main topics :

- top-down culture is dead (or have to been killed ;-) )

- you have to valorize and give consideration to employees, and take them into account.

- need for transparency

- sense-driven management (sensemaking)

- trust in indivuduals

This change in focus will suppose deeper reflexions. Satisfaction depends on “global organization politics”, and while focusing on it we didn’t impact on its core : decision making, power, organization. Indivuals were only a subject.

This new focus implies we work on sensible topics and give more consideration and autonomy to employees : that’s to say to trust them and take them into account as individuals and not anymore as parts of a process.

Rethink management ? Adopt suitable tools ? Unavoidable.