thanks,
http://www.nannytoyou.com

Anyway, the experience permanently scarred my entire outlook on corporations and I’ve been self employed ever since. Jumping forward to 2008, the business climate has become even more suffocating with employers Googling prospective hires before and during employment, using keystroke loggers, email spying, and using other spying software to monitor their employees activities. Where is the line drawn for invasion of privacy if an employee is being productive and performing well for their company. That same energy should be used by HR
and upper management to further the company’s interests rather than acting as activity police!

My 2 Cents

Steve

Said this, some people are afraid of change, whatever the change may be. One of the strategies we have seen is to help the company understand their facilitative role in guiding the conversation. For larger communities positive facilitation is one of the most important strategies for results. It can help companies unearth their issues and strategic gaps to come up with positive solutions.

Another strategy is accountability – associate people with their comments and activity. Not many people would like to lose their job over a blog post.

Finally, examples of companies successfully doing this (internal E2.0 efforts) are emerging and getting attention. This will inspire others to make the leap and overcome their fears. We have seen some really great success stories.

I see tremendous value in lateralizing the value creation process in all companies. It is a matter of choice (and time) as to how one goes about doing it. Having said that, when a company sees the value (of lateralization) outweighing everything else (including security), it will go all-out for it!

Since I attended the session you are referring to I thought I would add my observations. My one big takeaway was that most Fortune 500 organizations are taking a “wait and see approach” to E2.0 and are hesitant to embrace lateralization right away. I think many companies fear the loss of control that comes with lateralization. That said, I also feel that companies recognize that E2.0 and lateralization is the future/inevitable and so they will slowly begin to experiment and dip their toes in the water. Like any new technology, there will be your early adopters and late adopters. I think E2.0 adoption will escalate when companies figure out just how it adds value to them either in terms of interacting with customers or allowing for more effective collaboration and innovation. As company leaders hear of more examples of the positive results of lateralization, I think you will see more widespread adoption. Companies that want to become Next Generation Enterprises will ultimately move to the use of E2.0 platforms internally and externally to connect with partners and customers.

Internaly there is “only” the promise of better communication, collaboration and thus rised employee productivity. Things that I find of high value, but that don’t get very much attention in many companies… also (sometimes especially) in HR…

Therefore I was also astonished by what these HR-Managers said. But that’s great – so there’s hope!

You ask: “Are the companies you know well more comfortable with lateralization on the Intranet than on the public Web site?”

I can speak for my own company and companies for which I have worked in the past, namely Plumtree Software (now part of BEA Systems, a big proponent of enterprise social computing). I can also speak for a large government site which I’ve been helping architect and build for the better part of the past five years.

The answer is a unilateral yes: executives and government policy-makers are more comfortable allowing people to engage in lateralization through social software either 1) behind the firewall or 2) in online communities that are restricted to employees/gov’t personnel (despite being part of the internet cloud for easy accessibility).

And: “If so, why do you think this is?”

I’m reminded of a truism used against gun control: “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” While the statement is true, it has a huge flaw in that it’s a lot easier to slaughter tens — if not hundreds — of people with an automatic weapon than it is with a handgun, a knife or a sharp stick.

The same can be said for Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 software. The 1s and 0s are not the source of the problem. It’s the people. We are highly unpredictable and erratic creatures that are prone to all sorts of odd behavior. Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc. simply make it easier to expose yourself (and your employer) to serious harm based on inappropriate posting in public forums.

Employers are naturally paranoid — and they should be — because Web 2.0 has made it easier than ever to expose sensitive or defamatory material to a wide audience. However, they would be best suited in focusing their concerns on the human resources problem, i.e. how do I keep my employees happy, productive, engaged and loyal rather than worrying about restricting access to Web 2.0 tools that can cause harm, inside the firewall or out.

Unlike automatic weapons, the same tools we can use to defame our employers or leak sensitive information are — ironically — the tools that I hope will make us happier about our jobs so that we don’t feel a need to do something destructive!