Termination notice: You’ve been replaced By Google!
“In reality, Google has replaced opinions. We used to solicit people’s opinions a lot more often in the workplace because we needed to gather information about how things were being done in other companies where they may have worked in the past. We lacked the huge library of potential solutions that we have today, when a simple Google search can provide us with a myriad of opinions and best practices to choose from. So it no longer makes sense to use our precious talent and resources to try to generate ideas and opinions. I would rather they use their expertise to make the decision work! “
For 90% of people in any organization at any given time, their role is simply to be informed €“ not to make, or comment on, a decision. If you subscribe to the idea that everyone’s opinion has to count, in effect you are handing out veto power to the majority while only a minority has the power to say “yes.” This sets up a paradigm in which it’s very difficult to take positive action. You also create a situation in which people feel buy-in is optional. This leads to resistance that can stall or even sabotage your plans. Reality-Based Leaders are clear that the highest value the talent under their leadership can offer is to implement with excellence. They value action over opinion.
If you are not in the position of ultimate decision maker, offer expertise €“ not editorials. If you are asked your opinion about a potential decision, be proactive. Offer up a variety of ideas to the decision makers, outlining the potential benefits of each course of action along with the corresponding risks, complete with your team’s plan to mitigate the risks of any chosen option.
Criticizing any decision made by another level of the leadership team, especially when times are tough, is a cardinal sin. If I can ask your team member what you think about a decision and they can tell me, you have failed them in one of the worst possible ways. If you don’t buy in and offer up your best effort, why should they?
So, get over it €“ Google has replaced you in the opinion department! Move on and add value in new ways with action that leads to success, regardless of your circumstances or the merit of the plan.
“I do believe that social environments can have a powerful impact on an organization’s “lateral connectivity” so to speak (vs. top-down). As background, I’ve looked at expertise location/automation systems since they emerged in the late nineties with Tacit (recently acquired by Oracle) perhaps being the most well-known.”
In many situations – “the expert” is already very busy and/or there are not enough experts to go around.
the expert is not visible due to policies that prevent communication between different business units, or for reasons related to security.
Management might not want to make the expert visible, or share the expert with others in the organization.
The way managers (and expert for that matter) are incented to complete a project or task-at-hand may make that activity a higher priority than helping colleagues.
While it’s nice to think that people will blog frequently, take on the role of a wiki gardener, etc – these activities are often voluntary.
De-valuing personal brand might be another reason for these tools to be less-than-perfect.
“The core competency here is in terms of facilitating relationships and communications between different parties. There are in fact many different types of interactions that this role takes on. In as such, this means they participate as a part of many different role-interaction patterns. This is significant since when such patterns are frequent and repeated, it becomes almost transactional, and therefore measurable”
“I explained my current interest in social capital and asked Stewart which organisations he thought had strong capabilities that resulted mainly from the relationships between their people, ie capabilities built on social capital, rather than the people themselves, ie human capital, or processes, technologies etc.”
To do this effectively, Booz needs to be able to get teams forming quickly and working seamlessly, getting people on the same page very fast.
Booz pioneered knowledge management but it fell into disrepair and they got into bad technologies – their knowledge system was email sharing stuff on peoples’ hard drives. They’re now getting into 2.0 technologies.
In addition, the firm recognises that people can’t deliver if reward systems aren’t set up to support delivery across practices and geographies. So you have to remove barriers and incentivise usage
“At Lotusphere this year, the contrast between IBM and Microsoft could not be more distinct.
IBM is making it clear it is banking on a strategy that embraces a loosely coupled framework – a foundation based upon principles that are often discussed in the context of the open Web. For instance, as we mentioned yesterday, xPages, HTML5 and RESTful Web services will all be tools that push forward efforts such as Project Vulcan, the next generation of Lotus Notes unveiled here at Lotusphere this week.”
BM’s Web-based approach is distinctly different than the document-centric world of Sharepoint. It’s this Web-oriented, open approach that may prove to be the difference for IBM. We’ll have to see. Microsoft remains the major power in the enterprise. Its future is in proprietary systems. But who knows. As the cloud becomes more a part of doing business, Microsoft may continue to have the upper hand, especially if it can execute on its partnerships with third-party application providers.
Définition de la RH 2.0
““La RH 2.0 est la mise en oeuvre d’usages nés du Web 2.0 pour mieux gérer la fonction RH et pour mieux exécuter les processus RH de recrutement, de développement et d’implication des talents qui composent une organisation.
Ces usages dits “2.0€³ facilitent l’expression et la collaboration des acteurs de la RH (Collaborateurs, Candidats, Managers, Responsables RH) grâce à des outils 2.0 (Blog, Wiki, RSS, Réseau social,€¦) qui rendent interactif le système d’information RH (SIRH).””
Online Community Expert Interview: Rawn Shaw, IBM
“This month’s Online Community Expert interview is with Rawn Shah, Practice lead with the Social Software Adoption team in IBM. He has worked in various roles as a software developer, production manager, a journalist and community program manager in his career. His current focus is on understanding and measuring business value of social computing within the enterprise. As a writer and journalist he has written or contributed to over 280 articles and 7 books, including his latest Social Networking for Business (Wharton School Press, 2010) released this January and available through Amazon and other bookstores and retailers.
Our challenge today is more in trying to figure out ways of working across the differences in cultures and attitudes: job-role specific cultures, geographical or national cultures, and generational cultures. This is ongoing work to learn and understand and, in my view, likely something that will never end. This challenge is what keeps communities isolated, whether in the physical world or online.
The general feeling is that social computing is now finding its way into improving the core way we do business, from everyday interactions to complex decisions.
The best community managers (CMs) that I know have survived the long term are active listeners, strong relationship builders, and see themselves as a voice for the members.
As a new CM it is important to understand not just how you are to serve people, but also what you need to produce or deliver and how to measure them
My suggestion when it comes to metrics is to look for repeatable ideas or artifacts relative to what your community is doing
Exploring the HR Management Framework for Enterprise 2.0
“Because I think no one really knows what a large-scale transition to social computing and collaboration as core work activities really means for today’s (and tomorrow’s) human resources professionals and the management processes and practices they design, implement, coach and manage.
I say that with full knowledge that the last two decades have seen a lot of talk and activity aimed at €˜modernizing’ human resources management practices. There have been regular clarion calls for major change, and waves of interest and activity aimed at transforming HR professionals to become (for example):
* business partners with line management
* proactive change agents
* coaches to managers and professionals
* enablers of change, as opposed to (more traditional) gatekeeper roles”
Web 2.0, Human Nature, and Philosophy
“Is Web 2.0, despite all the hype, really just a crock?
It’s a question that, ironically, is the subject of heated debate at the moment. The irony is that Web 2.0 is a lucrative “sweet spot” in an otherwise traumatized global economy and battered business environment.
Web 2.0 is undeniably hot. Just Google “Web 2.0” or check Amazon for the plethora of books on the subject (including one by me, and another forthcoming). Walk into any luxury hotel lobby these days and you’ll likely bump into a self-proclaimed Web 2.0 guru.
Maybe that’s the problem. Critics claim that Web 2.0 is an over-hyped flavor-of-the-month techno trend that has flung open the gates to a stampede of management evangelists and marketing hucksters flogging their Kool-Aid. Web 2.0 recipes, say critics, are big on marketing nostrums but short on measureable results. In short, where’s the beef?”
This group was early to rush into the Web 2.0 space, mainly due to the Web’s powerful impact on advertising industry dynamics. Marketing & PR professional had to get their heads around Web 2.0 €“ and fast. The stakes were too high for inaction.
Enterprise 2.0 evangelists are confronted with the daunting task of transforming rigid organizational structures and hierarchies. They are essentially in the business of “change management”. That’s a lot harder than concocting videos for viral branding campaigns on YouTube.
The key words in the Enterprise 2.0 school are collaboration, innovation, information and a host of alphabet soup anagrams like , , , and .
n sum, we can say that Enterprise 2.0 is largely focused on strategies for internally oriented approaches towards managing employees inside organizations and communicating with business partners. The goals of these strategies are essentially medium-term €” on the five-year horizon.
We can conclude, therefore, that Web 2.0 evangelists are philosophical optimists who believe in the human capacity to act rationally and collaborate to achieve common goals. Web 2.0 doubters, by contrast, are philosophical pessimists who believe that man’s selfish nature and unblinking pursuit of his own interests at the expense of others will always thwart any effort inside organizations to foster a culture of sharing and collaboration.
This is particularly the case in Latin countries like France, where a rigidly bureaucratic culture and abstracted notion of authority are fundamentally hostile to Web 2.0’s horizontal social architecture and collaborative values. Also, France’s intellectual tradition emphasizes abstract logic over pragmatic considerations €“ not a propitious environment for Web 2.0.
Posted from . The rest of my are here.