Motivation | Bertrand Duperrin's Notepad

The other debt organizations may die of : the trust one

November 10, 2011 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

Summary : trust is the fuel that will power new forms of work and management and make change possible. But trust can’t be mandated and has to we won over time. In fact, it’s being lost, day after day, for decades by actions that look anecdotical for organizations but are meaningful to employees who feel belittled and considered as poorly responsible, unworthy of trust and unable to understand the challenges at stake. The trust deficit is very actual and costs a lot to organizations every day, not mentioning it makes changes hard to drive. But they still can change their message and, so, their future.

Debt is very trendy topic these days. Most of times it’s about states, not businesses which have pretty good results. But, as states have refused to consider their financial debt for decades, businesses are exposed to a similar form of risk that is not related to money but another kind of matter.

It’s been said again and again : trust is key to business competitiveness. Because its impacts collaboration, collaboration and knowledge sharing. Because it supports the new forms of management that are needed in such contexts. Because no change program aiming at adopting new forms of work can be successfully undertaken without trust.

But that’s a fact : trust is more and more uncommon in the workplace. Weak between colleagues and nearly non-existent between businesses and employees. And this works in the two ways. It’s hard to tell who, businesses and employees, started the move that is leading the couple into this diabolical helix…But we can suppose that the management and operation models that were born at the beginning of the industrial revolution contributed a lot to the disappearing of trust, because of businesses. By putting trust into the system and not into people who act in the systems, businesses made the gap become wider and wider.

To such an extent that I recently wondered if businesses, abstract entities, did not have their own consciousness, independent from the one of people that are part of it. When you see how people who are deeply humane can consider and treat their fellow colleagues once they’re in a work context you can really wonder. At this moment they are not themselves anymore but a part of the system. A part that treats other parts, those they have authority over, like immature, irresponsible and unworthy of trust people.

I’m not talking about face to face relationships (even if…sometimes….) but systemic relationships. Where the ones make decision that apply to “other” people they don’t even know. Examples are numerous.

The cult of presenteism, which is pillar of the control and command system. People have to be here, no matter why. The myth of “work hours” that makes no sense for more and more occupations. Restrictions to internet access. Policy of use for communication and collaboration tools. I’m not saying that some barriers should not exist. I’m only questioning which ones are legitimate, how high they should be and what words should be used to explain them.

Tomorrow’s enterprise as a galley ?

August 23, 2011 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

I won’t teach anything to anyone by saying that, to make someone understand a concept that’s very new to him, an analogy with something known is often the best way to deliver the message. Note that this means is often an easy way for the “pupil” to help a too passionate teacher to keep his feet on the ground. Of course, we need an analogy that “talks” to the person either because he or she knows the subject well or because that’s about something that’s common to everybody.

The other day I happened to have a discussion with a couple of person and a new angle appeared in the discussion on “social” and things like that. It’s only worth what it’s worth but, after all, it’s summer, holidays so we can take the liberty of giving free reins to our imagination.

Let’s take the example of a galley. You know, a boat with people rowing, other shouting at them and one who rule. Let’s try to imagine what a galley 2.0 would look like.

Organizations between sense of belonging and need to own

January 6, 2011 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 1 Comment

Summary : strengthening employees’ sense of belonging as a major matter for most organizations. That’s a concept that’s understood by everyone but hard to put into action : belonging (…is a a relevant word ?) is the result of a shared support of a big picture while organizations, trying to leave as few room as possible for chance, often try to own their employees. What have consequences that are the opposite of those were pursued. Should we use the words belonging, engagement or anything else, any HR 2.0 policy should focus on reconciliation rather that on isolation, lock-up and ownership. Not obvious.

It’s said that many employees have lost their marks in both their professional and personal lifes…and in how to articulate both as well. They’re looking for things that make sense, things to grab hold of. It’s often “sense of belonging”. Belonging to a group, to a project, to a group involved in a project. For any organization, strengthening their employees’ sense of belonging is a very complex issue.

Talking about belonging is one thing. Knowing to what it applies is another one.

Belonging to the enterprise ? Why not, but is some cultures where mistrust toward employers is the rule, it won’t work.

Belonging to a group ? May be a good thing but it must not mean that one’s private life will be swallowed by professional life, that the difference between a colleague and a friend will blur…even if they have to achieve things together.

Is Mintzberg’s community-ship the answer . Why not because it takes care of each one’s expectations and attitude toward engagement. What makes people get involved into a dynamic is their support of a project, of a corporate vision and that’s what makes employees engage with both the organization that carries the vision and the people who make it a reality. So, what is the base of anything is a project and the related values and not a direct link between people and organizations or other people.

As for them, enterprises have to find new levers for motivation and employees engagement. Improving sense of belonging ? Yes, at least tom some extent. Beyond fashion and buzzwords, all the 2.0 paradigm that aims at considering employees (and even customers) as stakeholders for more co-creation, exchanges and new relationships between the “corporte entity” and each of its members belongs to this logic.

But there will always be a limit : it’s not an exact science but a proposition. Organizations propose, ideally after a listening phase, and employees accept (or not) and choose how this acceptation will be turned into action and its intensity. Organizations don’t create either communty-ship or communities : they capitalize on existing values, desires and expectations.

That’s were a bias appears. Organizations respond to need for belonging with a desire to own. At first sight both are complementary…but in fact they aren’t. According to the above lines, the word “belonging” may even be unfortunate to describe what employees need. Since organizations aren’t sure 100% of their employees will buy their offer, they try to catch and lock in.

Employees have to give all their time to their employer because the latter own it. Hence the temptation of eliminating everything that may divert people from giving everything to their work or make them think of a non work-related thing while at work.
Employees don’t exist outside of the organization. They are not allowed to mention hobbies or even past experiences on their rich profile on the enterprise’s intranet. People are born the day they sign and will die the day they resign. Meanwhile, they’re not supposed neither to have lived before they sign nor to have a non-professional existence during the time they work for the company.
Employees don’t have the right to exist, even personally, on any media or social network. Having employees who are fans of fishing or of the old cartoon they loved when they were teenagers is not good for the company that does not even care of the impact of their own actions on employee’s reputation morale.

What has exactly the opposite result as what was pursued.

By the way…what’s the purpose of all these thoughts ?

I was recently asked some questions on HR 2.0, most of all from a values point of view. Don’t get ourselves wrong : I’m very far away the “care bears” sympathies : employees are here because they are needed to contribute to production activities and not because it’s nice to gather people in the workplace. What means that many things depend on the cost/added value ratio of anyone. Once that said, organizations have to find how to make everyone give their best while blooming, what is the best way to make sure they’ll all contribute to what is the goal of any business : making money today and tomorrow (in fact too many people forget the “tomorrow”). In this approach, anything that looks like an attemps to lock people in is counter productive.

Since I’m not always comfortable with words like engagement that are often used wildly, I’d rather say that the core values of HR 2.0 are rather about reconciliating (vision, people, project) than locking in. And, most of all, organizations should keep in mind that ownership is not the response to “belonging needs”.

Filed Under: Management & HR Tagged With: belonging, Communities, community ship, engagement, Human resources, human resources 2.0, motivation

Corporate e-reputation is the visible part of an impressive iceberg

October 28, 2010 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

Summary : enterprises fear, and sometimes with good reasons, the impact on their reputation of what their employees could write on the web. But this fear is sometimes so disproportinate that it leads to ludicrous situations. New balances have to be found in this domain, but that’s not all. The image of the organization, its business behaviors, ethics, also impact employee’s pride, motivation, engagement…and their propensity for harming their employer. Even worse : beyond the visible part that is made of one’s image and reputation, the same causes impact deeper mechanisms that drives quality, performance and the sustainability of business.

Lots of businesses are careful about the impact of their employees’ behaviors on their reputation. Should something negative appear somewhere on the web and an impressive self-defense system is activated. Employees have already been sharing their opinion about their employer with family and friends for ages and there’s nothing new here. The point is that, now, they can share with so many people that the situation has become critical from a corporate point of view.

In some cases we have to admit that employees are going to far beyond what the law and his employment contract allow. Of course we can discuss the right for privacy but there are things one can’t say publicly…even not at all. Not because the organization is over-sensitive but because law says so. That’s as simple as that and apply to the web as well as to any situation in real life.

But, not being comfortable with this new and unavoidable transparency, businesses are sometimes over sensitive and react to anything that’s said about them, regardless to the subject and context. This may make us wonder about to what extent employees belong their employer and what is the limit to having and sharing an opinion. The following video may look caricatured but it raises actual questions that are not that far from reality.

Would businesses want it or not, employees can impact their reputation but not as much as they may think. Once the moment of panic that comes with the emergence of a new phenomenon has ended, they’ll have to accept what’s unavoidable, learn to know what deserves a sanction and not, what is like using a bozooka to kill a fly and what deserves no reaction. After all the absence of criticism is suspicious and transparency can, to some extent, made the organization more human with its qualities and defaults.

A more human organization…that’s the point…

Is information sharing a visceral need or a lucky good practice ?

July 29, 2010 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

This is the rest of my Milanese conversation with Mark Masterson. By dint of digressing on Yers we came to tacke the so-called sociability of employees. The idea was to go beyond the idealistic common place according to which “everyone wants to share, to open, to connect and those who refuse to go this way are naughty people” and try to have a more objective standpoint in an enterprise context.

First easy answer : “it depends”. Of course, between those who overshare and those who withdraw into themselves there is a wide range of behaviors due to a tangle of complex factors.

Then : “it’s (as usual) a matter of culture”. Everybody nows agree that in some countries people want a clear separation between their professional and private life and what to belongs to one has not to be known in the other.

Then again : “what makes us say that people share information on the web after all ?”. They share statuses, emotions. They answer their contact, give them some help. Does it mean being “social”, obliging and is it enough to make us deduce that people want to be connected and bring something to their fellow contacts ? No.

If we look at what’s happening on the web, the act of sharing information is rather about “I am” than “I give”. “I am at such place (and you aren’t)”, “I want to talk about my experience”, “I have something to say (most of all I want to be heard”. At the end, sharing looks much more like self-promotion that a will to help and share that seem to be only means to a personal strategy. It’s a little bit like people (some politicians for instance) that are very active on the field for 10 minutes and stop at the minute the TV cameras leave. Should we regret it ? In my opion no, if egos contribute to a common good then Adam Smith was right. But we have to admit this is rather show-off than deliberate sharing.

Quoting a good friend I’d say : that’s ego-altruism.

What does it mean in the workplace ?

People Centric Organizations ? Not that sure…

September 24, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

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

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: engagement, Enterprise 2.0, Human resources, information capital, management, motivation, people centrism, personal branding, process, sense, social capital, social media, ugc, unions

HR 2.0 as an ongoing process

May 28, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

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.

From the 5 eras of social web to transforming organizations

May 25, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

I had the chance to meet up with Jeremiah Owyang during his last coming in Paris. He presented us his report on the the future of social web. An interesting discussion followed, then we came to have a drink and carried on.

One thing I used to sense and which was confirmed is the specificity of european and especially french people according about privacy issues. Jeremiah launched the discussion on his blog, feel free to participate. Generally speaking, and I had the opportunity to discuss it many times whith German Friends, it’s obvious that social media adoption is a lot about cultural issues. Local culture on the web, both corporate and local culture within companies even if, considering enterprises, the fact people have to achieve things together, things they are assessed on, may help to unlock the cultural barrier. Language matters too. It’s an issue I’ll tackle in a later post, I just need to throw myself into Geert Hofstede‘s work again for what’s about internal issues. Common sense being enough to explain external ones.

During the presentation, Thierry De Baillon was quicker than me and asked : “the” question : how can these “5 eras” apply to organizations. Jeremiah answered that the model was only about the outside. We got deeper into this point later in the evening.

Jeremiah’s words makes a lot of sense : his work is about of internauts, consumers will behave and businesses have to understand that in order to adapt and not to lose their market. Let me add another point : in order to follow their customers and adopt appropriate strategies toward the outside, businesses will also have to change internally, for many reasons :

• efficiency : it’s impossible to have the needed culture, the vision and implement projects that will be successfull externally if they contradict what the company is, the way the work is done. There will be a moment when the elastic will break, when employees won’t be able to meet customers’ expectations anymore.

• credibility : it’s harder and harder to keep things secret, to make enterprises walled gardens. It’s impossible to be engaged in social dynamics with the market and, at the same time, to have internal practices that isolate people, refuse to accept everyone’s specificities. The only fact the market will learn, understand, how the company operates, to what extent organization and management are not aligned with the marketing promise, will ruin all the undertaken efforts. Would you hire a torturer as a babysitter ? QED. I’ll also add that the impact on employees would be very negative. They surely won’t accept to be less considered than clients, or to be accomplices of a masquerade. Bad for engagement and motivation.

• socilogy : future employees are also players of this under construction social web when the walk through the office’s door. No suprise that they will try to bring their usages inside the company.

In short, businesses will have to adapt to the reality of social web. Articulate with it. The challenge : avoiding to lose their clients and demotivate their employees. This makes me feeling like thinking more about this articulation, about what could be the “5 eras of the social enterprise”. What could they be, in your opinion ?

Thanks to Gil Yehuda for providing me with these few tips to help me getting started.

Typical 5 Era Strategy Phases

View more OpenOffice presentations from gyehuda.

Filed Under: Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: brand, clients, culture, customers, jeremiah owyang, motivation, organization, social enterprise, social-web, strategy, values, web-2.0

Enterprise social networks are not fun if not used to work

March 24, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

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

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: engagement, Enterprise 2.0, enterprise social networks, Human resources, management, motivation, social networks

Story of a professional disconnection

March 14, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

This little story I’m going to tell you is purely imaginary. It’s neither mine nor anybody’s in particular. But it may become ours, one day.

January 2009 :Back to the office after a few days off. I take five minutes to send my greetings to all my friends. Nothing’s like Facebook to do that. I realize that the access is blocked. It doesn’t matter, I can live without facebook at work. Finally I decide to use email but I take care not to use my corporate email but my personal one, through the webmail.

February 2009 : bad news, linkedIn is blocked too. I have to hire two new people this month…awkward. I think that my colleague Rob, who is a salesperson, will be very angry. There’s no one like him to take the most of a network to pass the more insuperable barriers to get in touch with the right people and close incredible deals. He doesn’t have the best results in the company just by luck. I’m sure he must be in a very bad mood.

March 2009 : I’ve heard that the sparks really flew during the individual evaluation meetings. Robert was accused of dilettantism. That’s true that he had to do all his network things in the evening at home since linkedIn is blocked…so he spent hours waiting for the workday to end. I can understand how frustrated he is. The context is difficult and he feels like his employer is playing against him.
April 2009 : Impossible to find a meeting room on my floor and it’s really starting to get me out of my nerves. I can’t undersand why it started a weeks ago. We are not more that before, the activity is rather decreasing… I have to investigate.

[Read more...]