Links for this week (weekly)

  • “We announced the winners of the Management 2.0 Challenge (the first of three legs of the HBR/McKinsey M-Prize for Management Innovation) here last week. Those seven entries offer compelling evidence that the undergirding principles, social structures, and social technologies of the Web not only offer up winning business models, they are the building blocks of a new management model for making organizations more resilient, inventive, and engaging.

    Here are just three lessons from our management innovators about leveraging social technologies to create truly social organizations:”

    tags: management management2.0 M-Prize trust

    • Trust your people with the future of the company
      For all of the talk about empowering, involving, and engaging employees, why is it that so many organizations still tap into just a sliver of what individuals have to offer? According to Management 2.0 Challenge winner Jim Lavoie, it’s because too many leaders focus on what they can get out of their people rather than entrusting them with the future of the company.
    • James and Bobby Fishkin argue in their winning hack, The Deliberative Corporation, that it’s not enough to listen to the crowd, it’s crucial to equip it. The Fishkins have developed a powerfully practical approach—including balanced briefings, moderated discussions, and expert testimony—to taking the bias, politics, and knee-jerk emotions out of decision-making in order to get at “what the people would think if they were thinking.”
    • Maximize peer connections
      As important as it is for employees to feel heard and respected by their leaders, it’s the relationship between peers that generates the agility, inventiveness, and engagement at the heart of a truly social organization. A number of M-Prize finalists demonstrated the power of organizing around that principle—none more dramatically than Morning Star, a 40-year old food processing company founded on the belief that “the best human organizations are those in which people aren’t managed by others, but in which participants coordinate among themselves, managing their own relationships and commitments to others.”
    • the network of colleague relationships defines the org chart, rather than the other way around—and reveals the “natural” hierarchy of authority based on expertise and achievement; the drive for performance actually strengthens without traditional oversight; and everything happens more quickly and with less conflict.
    • Capitalize on the Obvious
      Sometimes the simplest lever can crack open the biggest opportunity for change. That’s what Kim Spinder learned when, as an employee for the Dutch ministry, she invented a hack to eliminate government red tape and replace bureaucracy with free-form, cross-agency collaboration. Her simple Web-based booking system, Deelstoel (“share chair” in Dutch), was designed to allow any Dutch government worker from any agency in any location to work at any other government office
    • Instead, says Spinder, she and her team just “capitalized on the obvious”—the need for change, the resources waiting to be tapped, and the basic human desire to contribute to positive change
  • “My charter was to suggest a practical pathway for how HR can become a critical weapon in the arsenal of ‘compete to win in the 21st century’ planning and how the connected enterprise will play a role. As we got to the ‘great,-now-lets-talk-execution” part of this conversation, one of the issues we tackled together was what tomorrow’s Employee System of Record needs to look like if HR wants to become a meaningful player at the strategy table. “

    tags: humanresources strategy systemsofrecord hrperformance performance value findability

      • So I thought I’d abstract that discussion and bring it here.


        “I’m much more than what HR thinks of me, today”.


        The foundational ingredient to craft highly connected enterprises properly is two fold:



        1. The collaborative context that warrants a huddle in the first place, and
        2. Who the right players are to get the job done.
    • The single most important nut we need to crack first is the efficient ‘findability â€™ of people.
    • Intelligence on who to reach out to is arguably the most powerful yet decrepit utility inside organizations today. At worst, its fragmented across multiple, difficult to use systems. Even for those organizations that are fortunate to not have multiple systems of employee records, the information regarding where the best minds hide and what they know is woefully incomplete, overtly guarded and not available at the point in time or location of decision making.
    • assessing the real value of ‘Me’ in the organization needs to be characterized by 4 dimensions that cover not just what HR estimates of me, but also be based directly on the merits of my work.
    • The value of this highly enriched data set on real employee value may well belong to HR as it always has, but the opportunity is much much larger than general purpose human capital insight
    • HR Performance


      You now have the opportunity to fold in important behavioral data such as degree of sharing, helping, engaging, contribution and involvement, giving HR a broader set of data points about the employees allegiance to the firm and dare I say, employee lifetime (with the company at least) value.

    • Line of Business Performance


      Todays customer is expecting us to break through organization silos and rally around their questions and other needs. In terms of business objectives alignment, measuring and dynamically optimizing how different functions come together to support say, field marketing, product launches, customer pitches or support inquiries now becomes much more efficient.

    • Financial Performance


      CFOs mostly learn about failing investments after the fact. In the flow analytics gleaned from collaboration also gives managers distinct insight into how projects are performing as they happen, if the resource mix is right, and again, who to keep, re-place, or remove, before its too late

    • Whilst we in the blogosphere bloviate about Social Business this and Enterprise 2.0 that, remember, this is all first and foremost about the smart identity access and leverage.
  • “In looking at different definitions with different perspectives and a business lens, the one above made the most sense to me. After 16 months, it was time to revisit a diagram created for “A Guide to Understanding Social CRM”. I will not go so far as to call my earlier work wrong, naïve is a better descriptor. The evolution diagram contained my thought process at that time. Without over using the concept, my own thinking has evolved.”

    tags: crm socialcrm data process relationship context interactions

    • For starters, the term ‘Social’ has become a blocker of progress. The attempted isolation of the social components from CRM do both concepts a disservice. The Social CRM discussion has pushed CRM into a bit of corner. How can a relationship exist without social elements?
      • We do not need to evolve to SCRM, we simply need to evolve CRM
      • To say that Social CRM means everyone is a bit over simplistic
      • While we would like to believe it is all about customer defined processes, it is not that simple
      • To believe that customers can set their own hours is great in theory, but let’s be real.
      • It is not simply about the number of channels, rather when and how people use the channels
      • The transaction will never go away, it needs to become a stop along the journey, somewhere near the middle.
      • CRM does need to become outside in, but it does not need to become Social CRM in order to get there.
  • “ocial intranets have changed the rules of successfully launching an intranet. While in the past it was quite helpful to involve employees throughout the process, today it’s a virtual necessity.

    A social intranet becomes an online community space and employees need to feel a sense of involvement and ownership starting early in the project so they feel it really is their community.

    While many of the opportunities for engagement listed below are standard practice for building a good 1.0 intranet, each one represents an opportunity to build a sense of shared ownership and create a shared sense of excitment over the coming change.”

    tags: intranet intranet2.0 socialintranet intranetdesign

  • “There are plenty of blog posts out there that have covered very well the topic of “The Future of the Workplace” and the impact of social computing in helping shape up the business world to become a whole lot more open, engaged, transparent and nimble. However, there is one particular article out there that became one of my all time favourite ones around this very same topic, and more than anything else, because it describes, pretty well, how work has evolved with the emergence of the Social Web in the last few years. “

    tags: socialbusiness socialenterprise work workstyle intranpreneurship

    • The Era of Intrapreneurship. An era, where thanks to the Social Web, whether internal or external, or both!, knowledge workers, for the first time ever, are now in charged of their own productivity, of their own workflows and personal business relationships with others, of their own responsibility not only towards the work that needs to be done, but also towards the fellow peers they collaborate and share their knowledge with
    • It’s that social revolution and transformation that will help us all understand how critical it is for each and everyone of us having the right access not only to relevant information and content resources, but also access to the people behind it by nurturing and cultivating those relationships and networks on a regular basis in order to make better, smarter, more sensible and more informed decisions, regardless of wherever we may well be, whether in a physical office location, or while working from home, while travelling or while at a customer site
    • he workplace has been transformed into something so empowering as helping employees take a bit more co-responsibility of their own workflows, without having to wait for orders, or being told what they would need to do.
  • Almost all leadership concepts start with the assumption that a key role for the leader is to set direction. This usually means designing and communicating a vision and a set of goals. Traditionally the roles of vision and goals have been there to help people to understand the direction of the enterprise and how they can contribute to it.

    Today we need something more.

    tags: enterprise2.0 leadership vision management socialbusiness creativity intelligence knowledgeworkers

    • As almost all organizations are becoming increasingly diverse and network like, and as all boundaries are increasingly flexible, the notion of what brings people together becomes even more critical.
    • Creative individuals need both the independence and the interdependence to do their best work. A creative organization thrives on the tension that arises from widely different but complementary abilities and views working with one another.
    • In industrial management, individuals were taken for granted and had no choice or voice. The foundations of work relationships are still largely built on asymmetrical relationships between the employer and the employee, the manager and the worker. This antagonism already affects labor markets in developed countries: firms are finding it increasingly hard to hire good people. Younger people are more and more attracted to self-employment and entrepreneurial possibilities instead of joining a corporation.
    • The social business is very different from the industrial corporation. In order to be successful, the firm needs to listen and involve people in the same manner that we are today trying to do with one group – the customers.
    • Knowledge workers want to have a say in what they do in life; where and when they work and most importantly – why and with whom!
  • “nterview avec Anand Pillai, Senior Vice President chez HCL Technologies. L’entreprise indienne de services IT a mis en place il y a cinq ans une méthode développée par son PDG et basée sur la valorisation et l’écoute des collaborateurs.”

    tags: hcl casestudies humanresources management engagement motivation empowerment productivity turnover

    • Après de nombreuses délibérations, nous avons conclu que c’était les employés et que nous devions les responsabiliser et les engager pour améliorer notre productivité.
    • Par exemple, un portail de discussions appelé “U&I” entre les employés et la direction a été ouvert. Ils peuvent y poster des questions, des commentaires sur n’importe quel sujet à propos de la compagnie. Nous avons aussi créé le “value portal” où les employés peuvent évoquer des solutions concernant des problèmes liés aux clients. Une équipe évalue alors la faisabilité de l’opération, et permet à l’employé ayant posté l’idée de mener des tests et de réunir d’autres collègues. Ce, quelle que soit sa position initiale dans la compagnie.
    • Nous avons amené beaucoup de transparence au sein de l’entreprise. Rien n’est confidentiel. Nous établissons un dialogue permanent avec nos employés pour comprendre ce qui les motive réellement. Résultat, nous avons calculé que la satisfaction et la productivité de nos employés sont passées de 30% à 70% depuis 5 ans
    • Nous nous sommes aperçus que les projets proposés par les employés étant tellement bons que nous en avons exécuté la plupart pour un total de 11 millions de dollars. En 2009, nous avons reçu le prix du meilleur employeur en Asie et en Inde par Aon Hewi
    • Les chiffres parlent d’eux-mêmes, nos revenus ont quadruplé en cinq ans et notre profit a été multiplié par trois.
  • “Type “innovation” into and you will get nearly 4,700 results. For many ills, innovation is seen as the panacea — management’s equivalent of motherhood and apple pie — and few would challenge its significance. Indeed, one recent news article described it as today’s equivalent of the Holy Grail, so to suggest dropping it from your company’s vocabulary may come as a shock. Many of you will see it as deeply heretical, particularly riding on the coattails of the recent posts extolling Steve Jobs’s innovative genius.”

    tags: innovation productivity convenience speed choice benefits security prices value valuecreation

    • The word “innovation” comes from the Latin word “novus” meaning new. Creating something new is the goal of most innovation initiatives, but new does not mean valuable
    • Once you start thinking in terms of increasing value to customers, numerous potential enhancements reveal themselves, creating a range of options that extend far beyond adding new features or extending performance on existing dimensions. At a high level, there are eight ways to create value for custome
    • Thinking in terms of creating value for customers rather than innovation ensures the focus is on customers rather than the company. Success requires starting with the desired end in mind, not the means of achieving it.
    • Innovation experts will argue that when done rationally and properly such traps are avoided. But as pointed out in my previous post, we have learned from behavioral economics that assuming rationality is irrational.
    • Over the past ten years, innovation has become an industry in itself. Innovation experts are the first to encourage businesses to be heretical and challenge the widespread assumptions of their industry. Perhaps it is now time to do the same with innovation?
  • “I’ve always been a big believer in using results as the differentiator between success and failure. You either achieve your goals or you don’t. Energy, creativity, and activity are all good things — but they don’t create value unless results are achieved.

    Most organizations take the same stance. They put a great deal of emphasis on reporting and celebrating quarterly and yearly results — with the assumption that there is a huge upside to being perceived as a winning company. After all, positive results attract investors, raise stock prices, reinforce customers, draw talent, and more.

    But only athletic events produce clear winners and losers in the short-term — and most organizations are not actively engaged in those. In fact, in many cases, the immediate “results” are in reality unknown, ambiguous, or disconnected from current performance.”

    tags: performance results scorecard scoreboard longterm dialogue

    • This is not to say that we should abandon any of these ways of viewing organizational performance. Rather, we need to better understand how these numbers were achieved and what they are actually saying about a company’s long-term health. In other words, metrics are starting points for dialogue rather than conclusio
    • As individual managers we do not have the luxury of personal analysts, so we have to interpret the true meaning of results ourselves. But all too many managers avoid or ignore this part of their job — either because it takes too much time, is too difficult, or will lead to uncomfortable discussions. So instead they treat scorecards like scoreboards, with black and white numbers that they think tell the whole story.
    • Unfortunately without dialogue, interpretation, and reflection, numbers on a scorecard often lead to a distorted picture of performance — with too much, too little, or misplaced credit given for achievement.
    • Obviously, not every result requires deep analysis and interpretation. But without at least some amount of dialogue, we run the risk of misunderstanding what is really going on.
  • “Imaginez qu’une partie de votre salaire dépende de la satisfaction de vos clients. Si vos clients utilisent massivement votre site Web pour acheter vos produits et services, votre préoccupation sera alors de détecter les dysfonctionnements qu’ils rencontrent, et de les corriger le plus vite possible. Au-delà de cette amélioration continue de l’expérience client, vous souhaiterez aussi dialoguer avec vos clients et innover avec eux pour mieux répondre à leurs attentes. C’est la mission confiée à la LoveTeam de que j’ai eu l’occasion de rencontrer.”

    tags: socialcrm customer customerrelationship casestudies SNCF Loveteam NPS customersatisfaction

    • La mise en place de ce type de dispositif suppose de faire de la satisfaction des clients un enjeux partagé par tous les collaborateurs de l’entreprise. En effet, les clients rencontrent toutes sortes de difficultés en ligne
    • La LoveTeam est ainsi née de la reconnaissance de l’importance de la satisfaction client, en complément du suivi des ventes. Et pour cela, il était nécessaire de combiner les efforts de trois métiers : la relation client, la technique et le marketing.
    • Sur le plan opérationnel, la LoveTeam est composée d’une équipe de volontaires s’appuyant sur des relais dégageant 30% de leur temps dans les directions métier concernées.
    • Cette équipe se réunit tous les lundi matin avec le DG et propose des arbitrages d’actions à mener, en s’appuyant sur un scoring suivant quatre grands axes : relation client, business (promesse client, résultat business), juridique, et technique. Les actions à mener peuvent couvrir la correction d’anomalies et de petites évolutions sur tous types de terminaux, et aussi l’alimentation des autres entités de l’entreprise avec les remontées client qui ne sont pas directement liées à l’expérience vécue sur le site.
    • 100 000 verbatim par mois sont analysés.
    • Les équipes opérationnelles sont alimentées en projets d’amélioration concrète, provenant directement d’idées proposées par les clients et répondant au mieux à leurs attentes
    • Tout d’abord, la mobilisation d’une équipe dédiée animée sous l’impulsion du DG est indispensable pour donner du rythme et pérenniser l’action.
    • Ensuite, la coordination permanente de la relation client, du business, et de la technologie, animée lors d’un comité hebdomadaire, assure l’ancrage opérationnel des décisions prises. Ancrage favorisé par une communication en interne des impacts d’un dysfonctionnement sous forme de métaphore, illustrée par des verbatim clients.
  • “There’s a bogus belief that gets in the way of managers when they evaluate performance. That myth says that in order for an appraisal to be objective, assessors must have quantifiable metrics to support their assessment judgment.

    That’s just not true. What is a performance appraisal? The straightforward answer: A performance appraisal is a formal record of a manger’s opinion of the quality of an employee’s work.”

    tags: performance performanceappraisal metrics performancereview opinion humanresources management objectivity subjectivity

    • Writing a performance appraisal requires managers to be fair, unprejudiced, and objective. But the fairness requirement doesn’t mean that you’re restricted only to using quantitative, numerical metrics in making your assessment. Your opinions, feelings, and judgments are what the appraisal process demands.
    • In every other area of managerial activity, the ability to make good decisions in spite of limited and perhaps even conflicting data is what they get paid for. Only in the case of performance appraisal do we feel unnerved about the fact that examples, experience, and judgment — not quantitative and provable metrics — are used
    • as long as you can provide solid examples to back up your assessments and ratings, then your appraisal is objective, even if quantitative measures aren’t available.
    • And despite the myth that objectivity requires metrics, people generally want to know their supervisor’s opinion of their performance
  • “Last week I asked if you were engaged in your work? Another post-Labor question is whether your job should have defined hours. This is the question asked by Mathew Ingram at Gigaom. Many people already do not have defined hours and I am one. However, I do not think there is a blanket answer. For example, many customer facing service jobs require either constant coverage or coverage during defined hours so the staff proving this coverage needs to be scheduled and coordinated. In addition, work that requires synchronous teamwork such as factory production lines need coordinated schedules.”

    tags: management humanresources workhours timemanagement productivity flexibility flexiblehours

    • . Hours used to be a way to determine productivity and for many jobs it is now results, not hours.
    • They place a focus on attendance rather than results.
    • I offer these examples to help make the case that for some types of work set hours are counter productive
    • The responsibility for making the transition to flexible hours lies with both workers and employees.
  • I think trying to define something is a very good exercise to understand what you are dealing with or what you are trying to do it for. It also helps to communicate internally. And regardless of what many say, I don’t think there are enough definitions of (Social) CRM, at least not good ones.. But that is a personal opinion, not relevant to today’s post.

    tags: socialcrm process strategy philosophy mindset capability technology practices performance customer relationship

    • I think trying to define something is a very good exercise to understand what you are dealing with or what you are trying to do it for. It also helps to communicate internally. And regardless of what many say, I don’t think there are enough definitions of (Social) CRM, at least not good ones.. But that is a personal opinion, not relevant to today’s post.
      • Regardless of the definition you’ll read or try to tweak, it will be one that fits into the following 6 (valid and viable!) concepts of CRM:



        1. (Social) CRM as a process (or function)
        2. (Social) CRM as a strategy
        3. (Social) CRM as a philosophy (or mindset or logic)
        4. (Social) CRM as a (cap)ability
        5. (Social) CRM as a technology
        6. (Social) CRM as a practice (or as practices)


        OR, as a combination of all or some of the above concepts, in a non-alphabetical order.

    • CRM is more successful in highly commoditized industries, because there it provides a way to differentiate oneself from competition.. (yes.. CRM is what people mean they need when they say that Customer service must be a differentiator. They just don’t always realize it..)
    • CRM is at its best when it is supportive of a business strategy of differentiation and/or cost-leadership.
    • This is an important reality check.. Research shows as much as two thirds of your Customers do not really want a relationship with you.
    • And the worrying part is that it’s mostly the young and wealthy people who are not  interested in these relationships.
    • Most Customers are just connecting on-line with brands for the purpose of getting a perk or discount. They are not there for the engagement.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Head of People and Business Delivery @Emakina / Former consulting director / Crossroads of people, business and technology / Speaker / Compulsive traveler

Recent posts