If it matters measure it. If it’s new build a new frame of reference.

Summary : When the world and the economy are transforming, the existing frames of references on which be base our thinking and decision making become obsolete. To adapat to their current and future context, organizations not only should have the vision of what they want to become but also implement it in their employees’ day do day work. Not superposing two opposite models in order to let change happen without daring changing the existing but replacing the one with the other. It only makes sense when employees are provided with tools and indicators that favor and reward actions that are aligned with the new model and not with the old one anymore. It also helps to measure the impact of change and measure how far they’ve been. That seldom happens in enterprise 2.0 projects because of a lack of reflexion on new frames of references. Fortunately, examples coming from other fields shows that when one really want to do things well and deep, change is possible and measurable.

A couple of weeks ago I was invited by Danone to talk about their social responsibility program, what made me learn a lot, believe it nor not, in terms of organizational transformation and had many things in common with enterprises 2.0 approaches. How possible is that ? Read what’s coming in the following lines.

Like many enterprises, Danone has understood that the environmental question will be key in its business. It’s already a cultural fact that is not new at all (remember that Antoine Riboud, Danone’s former CEO, used to say that the responsibility of the enterprise did not end at the facilities’ doors…30 years ago) and new an economic fact. There are many chances that, in a near future, carbon will be monetized, so managing it efficiently leads to a competitive advantage.

How did danone do ? First by stating it in its corporate values and project, long before it becomes a trendy topic. Anyone who has a few contacts with Danone knows that concepts such as double project ou triple bottom line are known by everyone and are a share concern. Such an approach need to be embodied and the discourse has to be turned into action. So Danone established a “Nature VP” so the environmental concern has currency at the very top of the organization. But, since Danone is a business and that there is an economic reality behind all that, that people need to change the way they understand and feel what added value means in such a context, they even established a Nature CFO. The logic is obvious : we’re entering a world when things that used to be secondary are becomming essential. So they need  to be integrated into the value calculation system so what was a cost in the previous vision becomes an investment and an opportunity in 2012.

So they invented “green Capex”, some very concretes things to implement to translate this vision and awareness into business. Looking for ROI on a 3 or 5 years scale to take time to learn and not give up too early. But there were no relevant indicators to do that. So they could have come to the conclusion that it was not measurable, what could have lead to the consequence we all know : the project would have become a dead body because no one would have been able to see its impact or one’s personal contribution through one’s decisions, not even the interest of changing one’s thinking and decision making model.

So Danone worked on designing new models allowing to measure the impact of their business in terms of carbon and its short and long term financial consequences. They experimented it on the field, tried to make the most of new data, made an empirical job then tried to model. The organization tried to measure what matters, since it matters. That’s as simple as that.

It also helped to make something else possible : reducing the carbon footprint is now a part of executive’s evaluation and reward system. So everyone, at his own level, in his business unit, in his field is concerned.

But they still were trying to make sense of it for more and more employees. It means that anyone should understand his own role, impact, contribution to the project. It also means that, when facing two possible choices, one making sense in the old paradigm and the other making sense in the new one, they people should make the right one without fearing to put their performance at risk and sacrifice their bonuses.

So Danone co-innovated with SAP to integrate this new model in their business tools, in their production management system. It was all about putting the new model at work in employees’ day to day lives, in the flow of work and avoid schizophrenia. No contradiction here anymore : there’s a single model, a single vision and not an ideal one set on the top of an old operation model that has nothing in common. All indicators, measurement tools, tools supporting processes takes it into account. SAP brought the technology and Danone its knowledge and IP.

Anything in common with enterprise 2.0 projects ?

[Read more...]

Your manager is not “2.0 minded” ? No reason to blame him !

Some weeks ago Oscar Berg raised an interesting question on twitter. I can’t exactly remind his words but it was something like “what to think of a manager that fears social media, transparency, who’s afraid of seing his staff exchanging more easily without refering to him ?”.

One of my fellow-countrymen immediately answers : “it must be a french manager”.

In all seriousness I thought about it again and again and come to this conclusion : “Nothing. And there’s not reason to blame him”.

Let me elaborate.

People are what they are and we can’t blame them if they reach a management position for the reason that, most of times, they have nothing to do with it. They can neither be blamed for working for an organization that does not help them to embrace this new dimension of their job.

On the other hand we can wonder what at the HR methods for evaluation, promotion, training that allow such situations to happen. Many organizations know they have to think about new ways to create values and implement them in day-to-day operations but if the internal mechanics is not aligned the risk of wasting a lot of energy going nowhere is obvious. Managers are often blamed for internat dysfunctionning but they are seldom responsible for the system that set them there and that they must obey.

But things are not that simple. While many people were agreeing with me, Oscar told me that he this very “automated and unpersonal way” of promoting people was not what he was used to in Sweden (but that he experienced it with some French companies in the past). This was an undisputable evidence of the difference between scandinavian and french models, one being more consensual and the other mor mechanical, one beeing more about about and the other about systems that govern people.

Let’s even go one step further. While we’re stepping into knowledge economy (or service econonmy or even service innovation economy), where mobilising, developping and harnessing knowledge and expertises is more essentiel than ever, while HR people are aware of it, businesses are facing a dangerous paradox

- one can’t built his career on expertise : even the best expert can’t make is way in the organization without climbing the hierarchical ladder and taking management positions.

- doing so he loses his specific expertise and knowledge while improving his management skills

- the paradox of this system is that it’s designed to kill knowledge and expertise to turn it into control skills. Exactly the opposite of what organizations need today.

- last but not least : the best expert in any field won’t necessary be a good manager (and in some cases in doesn not want to reach such a position but it’s the only way to progress and be recognized). On the other hand there are people who are not the best at any operational thing but have this “little thing” that makes all the people around them do a better job. But these last ones seldom meet the requirements that would allow them to manage a team.

I don’t know if HR have to be in charge of enterprise 2.0 projects, if they have to lead the project alone or share the leadership. But what I’m sure of is that they are responsible for putting the right people are the right place, develop expertises and help managers to develop management and leadership skills that fit today’s needs and context.

Designing the best systems and procedures is one thing….but running them successfully will always depend on people.

évaluation, capital organisationnel, carrière, Entreprise 2.0, leadership, Management, management 2.0, Ressources Humaines, ressources humaines 2.0

Some collaboration lessons by John Chambers (Cisco)

I already mentioned CISCO’s collaborative experience a long time ago. I’m taking advantage of a recent article to share a few things about the “Chambers method” for collaboration.

I’m tempted to say that there’s no miracle and that what the article says is only common sense. Anyway, it’s helps to identify the main lines of any successful change project :

• Start with the “human matter”. A leadership change is not something one can improvise. It needs explainations, people need to be reassured and to be able to imagine themselves in the future situation, to make the change theirs.

• Align systems and remuneration. I often say “tell me how you’re evaluated and I’ll be able to tell you how your work”. Trying to make people collaborate while they’re given bonuses to ignore or even fightt againts each other is useless. In other words, in many cases it will be hard to avoid thinking about evaluation models.

• Think about “articulation”. Chambers talks about structure change, but what I can see beyond that is the necessity not to eliminate the hierarchical structure but implement systems that will help hierarchy to articulate with more horizontal and adhoc work models.

• Frame and explain : explain the future and make it clear. Autonomy and flexibility don’t mean absence of rules. On the contrary, employees who are often mistrustful by nature (and sometimes for good reasons…) need that the rules of the game and the frontiers between what’s allowed and what’s forbidden are clearly set.That’s what will make them focus on their rethought work instead of continuously wondering about “how to work” and “how to implement change”.

• Use social media. I don’t know if it’s done in purpose but even if it’s an essential part of the approach, it comes in last position in the list. Maybe because it’s of no use if nothing is done about the above mentioned points.

The day they (may) stop sharing

Many current projects among enterprises rely on well known beliefs and needs : a better sharing and circulation of information are key to business performance, people share a lot on the web so organization have to provide them with the means to do the same at work.

Experience shows that it’s not that easy. Personal life is one thing, worklife is another one. That’s not because peope adopt some behaviors in one case that they’ll do the same in the other case in a natural fashion. Most of all, everybody now know that only less than 10% are actual content producers on the web. 10% on the web is a critical mass but 10% in an organization can be very few people so it implies to design work-specific approaches.

Anyway, more and and more businesses achieve it successfully. But we can already wonder how long it will last.

[Read more...]

Measuring a system is more relevant than Enterprise 2.0 tools ROI

Before, everything was simple. When people were asking “what’s the ROI”, the answer was “today you are processing this kind of operations with 100 people working with a calculator and a clipboard, it takes one week and the risk of making errors is obvious. With our solution, it takes only one person to enter the datas and calculations are operated in less than a second”. Unanswerable, even if promesses were seldom kept.

Today, in the context of social tools, even if a consensus exists on the principle, finding the formula that turns what a tool can bring into a mathematical model is far from being obvious. The issue is easy to understand : we’re not talking about tool that do a defined set of tasks but about tools that make people more efficient when their job requires them to act out of a model of defined and repeatable actions in a defined human scope.

In brief we can define the ROI of an application that does defined and foreseeable things, not of those who make people more efficient in undefined and unprectable situations. We have to make our thinking model evolve from a “doer application” to an “enabler application”.

Before going further, watch this video. The ROI of the machine and the individual performance are easily calculable. And ask yourself if you day to job still looks like this.

Once done, we have to think about measuring what matters.

[Read more...]

Considering the gap between management 2.0 and enterprise 2.0

I’ve been neglecting the management 2.0 topic for a long time although it was what this blog was about since 2005. Last years I slowely slipped from management 2.0 to enterprise 2.0, even if I find it sad that there were so many people to discuss about of make companies use 2.0 tools than people wanting to focus on building a new management framework in which these tools would make sense. But this question is coming back like a boomerang while companies are slowly realizing that small side adjustments won’t be enough to make tools useful and that a systemic overhaul is needed to make tools serve as catalyssts in a new organization model.

In february’s issue of the Harvard Business Review, Gary Hamel put this issue back to the headlines with an article called “Moon shots for management” which clearly defines management issues for the upcoming years.

Namely :

[Read more...]

Enterprises far beyond enterprise 2.0

A few weeks ago I amused myself proposing a few tracks on what enterprise 2.0 may be in 2009. But I think pushing the reflection beyond would be worth : enterprise 2.0 is only a side of a much complex reality that is enterprise and will be of any use only in a global framework. Since enterprise, and economy in general, can be defined as the place where more and more numerous interactions melts, believing it can be improved by only cosmetic improvements. Evry initiative that’s not aligned with a macro vision that will take all these considerations into account won’t bring anything worthy.

So, let’s put ourselves in the main player’s place.

• The top management

The less we can say is that top management is very worried. Because of the downturn, CEOs are trying to protect the organization. It’s hard to find more revenue so, in order to preserve the result they want costs to be cut. Or spendings, which is not the same thing. In the other hand they know that if they keep on cutting costs, they will soon be unable to make any cent go in the bank so they try to find how to make work more efficient, to work on costs instead of expenses. And, finally, the idea of business networks comes to the surface. But how to make it happen ?

On the other hand, this crises is about something deeper that worries them a lot. Always promising more has its limits and now it seems that these limits have been reached.  Do they have to stop promising the moon since they know organization’s performance have its limit and trying to balance it with financial performance leads to the situation we now know ? Do we have reached the limits of a system and is this crisis the consequence of a management model failure. Do we have to reinvent the way we do business ?

In brief, an increasing demand for more responsability and sustainability in management, that is not so far from a tendency that brings many companies to think their development together with their human ecosystem’s in order not to ruin their tomorrow’s markets.

Many issues that have a lot in common and that, without forseeing the answers that will be given, will have to be taken into account this year.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 : the CISCO case

You must have noticed how many posts have been published about Cisco these late days. The US giant seems to be the first example of global enterprise 2.0 or, at least, to be the first to meet such a recognition for its success. Many things have been writen about that and it will be easy for you to find informations.

In order to understand more globally what happended at Cisco I found an interesting speech Cisco’s CEO, John Chambers, made on the 15th of october at the MIT.

What can we draw from thay ?

[Read more...]

The very nature of 2.0 ratings

When talking about 2.0 ratings, many people jump on statistics tools provide. But enterprise 2.0 being above all a way of doing things, I wondered if, more than measuring people’s 2.0 activity there would not be a 2.0 way of evaluating them on both qualitative and quantitative side.

That reminds me of a Wall Street Journal article about the unseemliness of performance review and the need for getting rid of it. I mainly agree with that, for many reasons :

• Periodicity : having a review every year is ridiculous in 2008. Evaluation and correction has to be made continuously except if leaving an employee out of bearings, saying “if nothing changes I’ll fire him in ten month” instead of handling him as soon as possible seems to be a responsible behavior. And a good employee who’s getting bored and need some carreer evolution will not wait : he will have left before the holy annual review.

• Subjectivity : one person, two reviews, two different conclusions. Reviews are subjectif by nature because it’s nothing but two human being discussing through their own prism.

• Individuality : one person is assessed although his work is in a large part impacted by other people’s. Whatever the result is, he’s not responsible for the whole. Individual reviews, because they put people in a competition, are a true barrier to collaboration.

• One way : the review is most of time a top down process that is more the unilateral expression of a normative and sanction power (I say what is right and I decide to say if you did right or wrong) and not a moment for progression. Before the review, an employee is more likely to wonder what he will be criticized for than to say “great ! this is an opportunity”.

• Partiality : the one who evaluates can’t be continuously on the others people’s back and has only a partial vision of what the employee experienced, what he had to face.

Let’s also add that even managers finds it less and less useful and shortcut the reviews in order to be in line with their team’s activity, which makes the review even more senseless.

Could we say that evaluation 2.0 would be continuous, on the flow, based on a 360° feedback, taking into account the whole context and progres oriented.

Obviously yes..al last for the spirit. With an immediate effect, that’s to say it would not end with promises but with the certainty things would be done. The one who evaluates is not here only to sanction but to provide people with what’s needed to progress, that’s the very nature of a manager.

That’s for the 2.0 spirit.

Considering tools, it’s obvious that enteprise 2.0 tools allow to diagnose a lot of things in real time, like involvement, disengagement, have tangible arguments to make and explaind decision since what was informal and in the air is now translated in readable contents.

If we want to implement evaluations 2.0 it’s the very concept of evalution that has to be redesigned. Then we’ll see what social tools provide in order to deliver accurate datas for a continuous evaluation, more comprehensive and objective.

2.0 ratings for employees : it’s not that simple

Andrew Mc Afee wrote two interesing posts on the need for using 2.0 ratings for employees ( here and there).This kind of concern seems to be more and more actual for companies (I wrote about it there) and it confirms the accuracy of the old adage “tell me how you’re assessed, I’ll tell you how you work”. However putting thoses principles at work and build an assessment system relying on employee’s activity on enterprise social platforms (ESSP) can be more harmful than healthy.

McAfee proposes a multidimensional scale to score people’s participation, see who are the most active and distinguish according to their behaviros (creators, in reaction, raters…). A priori useful. But what for ?

Let me remind you that evaluation has to take into account what we want people to do and the way we them to do on pain to build a system relying on paradoxical injunctions that will cause a loss of sense.

Example : I want you to collaborate on the platform. But as a sales people you’re in competition with your colleagues. Be sure people will focus on the second propostion and get rid of the platform because they will favor what makes sense for them, what they are asked to on a contractual basis. And if one makes sense and the other is what he’ll be evaluated on, be sur he’ll get lost, doubt, and become less efficient.

Consequence : before evaluating anything else than individual performance, a strict alignement has to be set up between employees’ objectives and the way they’re asked to work. Then, and onlu then, it will be possible how objectives are rached and pilot how the platform is used according to stats and people’s acticity in order to undersant why it’s used or not, why it’s used for and try to correlate this with operative results. In two word : evaluation is made through people’s performance and management is made through the plateform’s activity which make it possible to assess who’s got the right attitude and who doesn’t.

In fact it’s harder. Imagine a person who reaches its personnal objectives without being socially active. What to thinj about it ? That social pratices haven’t been implemented in business processes ? Why not. We can also think his individual performance was realized to the detriment of the group (local maximum vs global optimum) and that the evaluation system has failed. Example : an employee’s performance is 100 which is very well. His colleagues performance are 50 or 60. On a global scale, it would the necessary to ask him to take a little time to help the others increasing their performance even if it implies his would drop to 80. As Bob Sutton wrote in “The Knowing Doing Gap”, a salesman whose outperforms his colleagues is not a chance but a danger if he doesn’t go into service with them. It’s often the symptom that shows that a person plays for himself and, at the end, against his company.

Some people may also start participating all over the place without bringing anything valuable to the others. Making noise to show they participate and quickly go back to the old good methods.

Whatever, getting a good evaluation for one’s activity on an ESSP doesn’t mean nothing in terms of business performance which remains the final and only goal.

So, how to make all these things coherent ?

[Read more...]