Enterprise 2.0 needs reverse management

Summary : there will be no enterprise 2.0 without managers 2.0 with new practices and a new way to contribute to collective success. But holding managers responsible for the whole change is a mistake. Managers will need employees 2.0. In return for their new autonomy, employees will have new responsibilities in the management relationship and will need to learn how to manage their manager. But do they really want to ? Not sure at all.

When we talk about management and enterprise 2.0 it’s often about the unavoidable but tough evolution of the role of middle-managers and with a top down approach, focusing on the relationship between managers and subordinates. A role that’s moving toward facilitation, being supportive, someone who says “how can I help you” rather than “that’s the objective, the methodology…now help yourself”, someone who leads by leadership rather than by objectives etc… The least we can say is that this change is not obvious at all for the people in question. First because it goes against everything they’ve been taught for decades, what’s they’ve been rewarded for. Then because the “you just need to….” is easy but, when it comes to actually doing it, they feel rather lonely.

Of course, such a such is hardly possible without a strong support and accompaniment program. But managers also need their staff. Organizations tend to holding managers responsible for the whole change while employees also have a large responsibility and, consequently, a work to do themselves.

It’s not realistic to thing that managers will let things go, rethink the concept of power and how they contribute to collective success while empowered and autonomous employees will live their own lives, do what they want and ring their managers in case of need.

Employees will have to carry  a part of the change for two reasons :

- to support managers that will need signs, evidences that they do their job well, that they are useful.

- because the evolution of management relationships, empowerment and autonomy come with new responsibilities. Employees will have stakes in driving work relationships because they’ll assume part of the leadership to drive things.

In short, employees 2.0 will need to learn how to manage their managers and wear part of the once despised suit that used to be their manager’s one. But are they ready for this change ? Do they want it ?

I remind of a survey I heard of 2 or 3 years ago on french workplaces. It said that even if more than half of the workforce did not like the way their managers were doing their job, less that a quarter would like to be at their place.

Long is the road…

 

With recruitement tests 1.0 you get (outdated) managers 1.0

Summary : Tomorrow’s managers will need to master a bunch of new know-hows and behiavors that fit into a digital workplace, where information comes in flow through several channels. The rarity of such skills is, in a fact, one the the things that prevent organizations to transform work models today. But, while organizations are struggling to deal with this issue and undertake the right actions in terms of training, the deep cause of the problem is often overlook. As a matter of fact, in the meanwhile, many recruitment tests, most of all for managements, are still aiming at validating skills in contexts that don’t apply anymore to today’s workplace.

 

A few days ago, I was chatting about recruitment tests with a couple of friend, one of them being about to go through an assessment center process to be hired by a large organization. It reminded me of lots of memories from the time when I was an HR consultant and had to conduct similar things.

So we talked about the kind of tests applicants have to take in such situations and discussed the fact that, if the scenario and methodologies did not perfectly match the requirements for a given position in a given enterprise and the process not conducted with rigor, the whole process may fail.

Among these tests, one is very usual : the “in-basket test”. It’s a simulation where people are briefed about a “virtual” company, its context and are provided with memos, mails etc…. They have a couple of hours to decide what to deal with first, set up action plans, prioritize or delegate things… The purpose is to assess if one has the competences to understand one environment, prioritize, make decisions in a limited amount of time. I have to admit that the test is often very demanding for energy and nerves and I’ve used to be surprised by the number of people I saw ‘blowing up’ while taking it.

Then my friend told me : “So you really believe that the person who will successfully pass the test will be the right one for such positions ?”. Me “yes…if the whole assessment program is well designed …”. Him : “According to what I know, I seems to be the best way to assess competencies that are not enough and will cause inaction whereas organizations need to reinvent themselves”.

He was right.

[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

A central corporate department is in charge of your enterprise 2.0 project ? Some traps to avoid

An enteprise 2.0 project (or whatever the name it’s given) can be carried by many different kind of people or departments. A dedicated joint team (what is ly prefered choice), HR dept, Communication Dept, IT dept… This is something that has to be thought about upstream but in many cases someone takes the leadership and starts the engine. There is no perfect solution but some traps to avoid when a central corporate department is in charge.

So sum it up in one line : B2E professionals struggle to do E2.E. Don’t worry, it doesn’t matter and it’s logical. The only things to do is take the necessary precautios and everything will be fine. Beyond this abstruse formulating, let’s see what’s the reality behind…

Let’s consider, for instance, a project driven by the communication department or the HR department. They are B2E departments, what stands for “Business to employees”. These departments usually address employees in a vertical and one way fashion. If these departments take the lead on the project that’s often because they can see the limits of their current model and try to improve their efficiency. For instance the Com’ Dept can think that wat matter is not to deliver the message (what is a means) but to ensure that it’s understood by all. Explaining things supposes to know if the message was understood, what are employee’s concerns. This implies a feedback channel and the ability to enegage conversations : hence the interest for 2.0 things when they understand that expressed or not  doubt is a doubt and  the easier way to correct and react is to let the signal come to them. Of course, the scope of the project can be wider but this is the kind of concerns that are often at the beginning of an E2.0 project.

These depts are here for doing vertical stuff, and it’s necessary. The 2.0 logic is a part of a PDCA-like approach that helps to adjust and react in real time to improve their impact on the organization. That’s no that hard to understand provided people know have a clear vision of the expected results and what will happen, what is the best way to avoid last minute fears.

So everyhting is fine….until the day when the project blocks. The reason is known and foreseeable : the question of the possible use of tools par employees, at their initiative, for their own needs arises and, suddenly, projects leaders feel like their loosing control, that their project is running away from them. That’s normal :  as I wrote above, their role is to do “B2E” things, and, even in a 2.0 approach, to keep the lead, the initiative, in one word : keep the process under control even it they try to democratize it. On their side, employees  also need “E2E” stuff (stands for employees to employees” in order to facilitate their workaday work. So it should be an employee-driven process, for their own problems and, necessarily, practical-things-oriented  on subjects on which, logically, and HR or Com dept does not have neither any hold nor any expertise or competence since that’s local management’s call.

[Read more...]

How to understand and position enterprise 2.0 in the real enterprise

It’s time to sum up all the thoughts I had these last months. I tried to start from both the concerns expressed by C level managers asking for a global vision and ground managers who needed a “hands on” vision because they don’t have time to waste to try to understand such nebulous things. Having to focus on day to day delivery and short term objectives, many see such a fallen-from-the-sky (and on their head) gift as a source of misunderstanding and discomfort.

These concerns are not surprising at all : what is it, what does it bring, how does it work, how to position it and integrate it in the organization as it is today… Talking about a new discipline, lots of things were learnt from early adopters who worked on a “try / fail / improve” model and, in so doing, helped to build a knowledge and know-how corpus. As a matter of fact this corpus was build upon failed and successfull implementations that helped to refine some presupposition that were prevailing at their beginning. The whole helped “followers” to benefit from these experiences.

But we still have to be aware that that’s not by saying “that’s that, that’s not that, one must, one must not” that things will improve. Businesses need to undersand the path that lead to these conclusions to make them theirs, and we all know what happens when one content himself with copying a result without understanding what reasonning often leads to  : lack of self-confidence, fear of the unknown, defensive attitude….then failure.

Rather than proposing an attractive future at the end of a vague road, let’s start from what actually exist to build the future. This will also help to explain the “why”, relying on what can be learnt from past experiences.

[Read more...]

Community management Vs Socio-Collaborative management : how to make the right choice

I already wrote how dangerous it was to use community management for every kind of purpose, and that instead of seing communities everywhere (which need community managers), enterprises have to learn to recognize groups who only need a “simple” manager who’s doing his job right.

Using social platforms in the context of teamwork has a purpose : increase both individual and collective performance and I can’t imagine that a manager will let a community manager speak to his staff, start discussions or even try a grab a bit of their time. That’s not the purpose and, anyway, legitimity and competences related issues will quickly emerge. Exchanges, discussions, will be driven by people everyday’s work, by social routine,  and in no way by marketing and communication established as a managent model.

On the other hand, there a cases when the purpose is to make a group emerge, convince them, make them aware of something… where community management is the right choice.

In the on case, a community manager, a “communication perso”, will be needed. In the other, it will be a manager (THE manager) who should has improved his practices, heading to what we could call management 2.0, social management or whatever you want. Reminding of the brillant speach of Andrew McAfee at the last enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston and the discussions that followed, above all on twitter, I’ll suggest socio-collaborative management. Quite a bit longer but more meaningful, and does not sound “buzzy” than social. Anyway, it doesn’t matter since it’s nothing more than a manager with an improved toolbox (on both behavioral and technical sides).

So we need to know what’s the difference between community management and socio-collaborative management in order to make the right choices and apply the right model to each case. By the way, knowing how many people are offering community management services to businesses that are totally lost, it may be a good anti-quack weapon.

[Read more...]

Is Netflix the right example of enterprise 2.0 ?

Netflix recently issued a 128 slides document explaining their culture, their organizational model, their management and the way they work. It attracted a lot of attention and  advise you to read it before carrying on.

View more presentations from reed2001.

According to many people, Netflix issued the reference enterprise 2.0 manifesto, or rather the management 2.0 manifesto.  What may we think of it ?

[Read more...]

Out of the crisis ! How ? Why ?

Rehearsal of some of the problems.We live in a society dedicated to dividends, organization, decision, orders from top to bottom, confrontation (every idea put forth must win or lose) and all-out war to destroy a competitor be he at home or abroad. Take no prisonner, there ust be winners and there must be losers. This may not be the way to better material living.

We live in an era in which everyone expects to see an everyrising standard of living. A little arthmetics sometimes helps to clarify thinking. When cometh the ever-increasing supply of worldly goods that build up an ever-increasing supply of food, clothing, housing, transportation and other serices ? It is gard to understand of a significant economic development could happen in the United States as long as our products are not competitive in our country and in the rest of the world.

How can anyone buy products from others if he can’t manage to sell them his own ones ? The only possible answer is a better conception, higher quality, higher productivity.

Only a better management can bring the necessery improvement. The question is to know how long it will take for managament to assume at last its responsabilities and for a new attitude to bear fruits. The american industry doesn’t have to prepare for restauration but for transformation. Solving problems from day to day and installing gadgets won’t put an end to our difficulties.

[...]

An article in Business Week [...] cited the paradoxal case of an executive who was laid off from his company, even though he had been hired to manage long term planification. The only reason was that the last quarter’s dividends [...] felt off.

CxOs managed to make shareholders believe that dividends were a measurement of management performance. Some business schools teach their students how to maximize short term profits. [...] When will industry leaders learn that they have a moral obligation to protect the capital.

[Read more...]