Last week at the Enterprise 2.0 conference I moderated a panel of early adopters. The conference organizers assembled a true group of all-stars: Pete Fields, SVP in Wachovia’s eCommerce division; Simon Revell, Manager of Enterprise 2.0 technology development at Pfizer; Ned Lerner, Director of tools and technology at Sony Computer Entertainment, and my friends Don Burke and Sean Dennehy, Intellipedia Doyen and Evangelist, respectively, at the CIA.
The first question I asked them, and the one on which we spent most of our time, was essentially "If Enterprise 2.0 tools and approaches really are so beneficial and powerful, why haven’t they spread like wildfire?" I suggested three categories of impediment: managers, technologies, and users, and asked the panelists to hold forth.
In their initial responses all of them identified users, not bad managers or inadequate technologies, as the biggest barriers to faster and deeper adoption of Enterprise 2.0. Entrenched practices and mindsets, some degree of technophobia, busyness, and the 9X Problem of email as an incumbent technology combine, they said, to limit the pace of adoption. These factors slow the migration from channels to platforms and necessitate continued patience, evangelism, and training and coaching.
I didn’t expect the panelists to say that the Enterprise 2.0 tooklit is so incomplete as to hinder adoption, but I was a bit surprised that none of them identified management as a real impediment in their first round of comments. So I pressed the point by saying something like "I didn’t hear any of you point the finger at the managers in your organizations. Were you just being polite, or are they really not getting in the way of Enterprise 2.0? The new social software platforms are a bureaucrat’s worst nightmare because they remove his ability to filter information, or control its flow. I’d expect, then, that each of you would have some examples of managers overtly or covertly trying to stop the spread and use of these tools. Are you telling me this hasn’t happened?"
That is in fact what they were telling me, and I didn’t get the impression that they were just being diplomatic. They said that managers were just another category of users that needed to migrate over to new ways of working, and not anything more. In other words, the panelists hadn’t seen managers in their organizations actively trying to impede Enterprise 2.0.
This surprised me. I’ve thought that since E2.0 tools and approaches have no inherent respect for existing organizational hierarchies and boundaries the people who have ascended the hierarchy within the boundaries might be actively hostile to them. For the organizations represented on the panel, this does not appear to be the case. The most counterproductive behaviors mentioned were the reflexive desire to work in private, and the temptation to build a large number of mutually inaccessible walled gardens of user-generated content.
The panelists represented large organizations, most of which had been around for a long time and had large numbers of managers who were used to, and probably comfortable with, the status quo. Yet no examples surfaced of these managers trying to thwart or sabotage E2.0 efforts, and no panelist told a story about a managers darkly hinting to their groups that participating in the new social software platforms might not be the best thing for a career.
I can think of three possibilities why not. First, managers in these organizations could be unaware of E2.0′s profound indifference to hierarchy and facilitation of transparency. Second, managers could be aware of these trends and displeased about them, but see themselves as powerless to stem the tide of freeflowing social information. Or third, managers could be aware and in favor of (or at least unbothered by) these developments.
This final possibility, of course, is the most optimistic. It suggests that even in large, well-established, and conservative organizations the hierarchy is not full of bureaucrats, in the narrow and negative sense of the term.
In your experience and opinion, is this accurate? Or is one of the first two scenarios above what’s actually going on? Or is something else entirely taking place? Leave a comment, please, and let us know your thoughts and stories about management’s reaction to Enterprise 2.0…
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I think you’ve presented 3 viable scenarios to explain the lack of opposition to E 2.0 among the managerial “establishment.” However , I think that option number one presents the most reasonable explanation.
In my experience, changes I have recommended have always been met with genuine excitement. However, the reaction to and adoption of these technologies has been painfully slow. The larger the organization, the less nimble and responsive they are to organizational and structural changes. This is not an instance of managers fearing the adoption of such technologies, but rather their managerial priorities. Perhaps they like the idea, but just haven’t seen the first-hand evidence to motivate them into action.
Just one of the many reasons I prefer smaller companies to big. Responsiveness to new ideas.
I agree with the panelists on both points – managers are just another group of users and they’re not the true impediment to adoption.
I’ve worked in large and small companies and have implemented some small version of Enterprise 2.0 technologies in both (sometimes covertly, sometimes not.) In all instances, the explicit barriers came from IT/IT management; they didn’t want to install/run/support new software and/or they didn’t want to allow access to any software/tools outside the firewall. More implicit barriers to adoption came from the users themselves – they didn’t like these new tools, didn’t know how best to use them, didn’t see the benefits – and without significant leadership or evangelism around these tools, they quickly faded.
My thought regarding management interference or the lack of, would be possibly due to insufficient knowledge of what comprises E2.0. From a consulting standpoint, I have seen a tendency over time where management will have a “see-no-evil” attitude especially towards something they feel they have a lack of competence in using or understanding. In this arena, I expect to see instances of managers attempting to shut the barn door after the horses have escaped; once these tools and activities become more prevalent, they will no longer be able to ignore them and may revert in many cases to the very bureaucratic thought processes that you mention.
Another brief thought is that perhaps E2.0 is not spreading in part because of managements’ “unawareness”…there is no effort to encourage use of these tools, so many users will not pro-actively try to incorporate them and be seen as outside the mainstream, or “boat-rockers”.
I tried to answer your points : “managers in these organizations could be unaware of E2.0Â’s profound indifference to hierarchy and facilitation of transparency” on my blog post – How to get people excited about Enterprise 2.0 – http://www.bluethots.com/2008/06/20/how-to-get-people-excited-about-enterprise-20/
To a certain degree, many managers may have heard about Enterprise 2.0 or web 2.0, but many also lack the understanding and experience of the concept and application of such concepts and technologies. The way I went about doing it was to answer their specific day to day problems and show them how enterprise 2.0 can help.
Very interesting!
This statement in particular struck me as a symptom of the root cause:
“The most counterproductive behaviors mentioned were the reflexive desire to work in private, and the temptation to build a large number of mutually inaccessible walled gardens of user-generated content.”
It’s the organizational culture – which (you could argue) is the result of what management tolerates and/or rewards. I suspect that in organizations that highly value teamwork and collaboration, that Enterprise 2.0 tools have been quickly adopted.
I think your image of corporate managers is a bit outdated. There are not too many “bureaucrats” are still around, most managers today are of operational creed and most would not stand on the way of something which make their team more productive. The reason these technologies are not adopted more is that there are not all that useful in a practical sense. Yes, the notion is attractive, but it takes some effort and original thinking to make these technology produce actual measurable value for participants. People try it, but quickly loose an interest and stop using it. It is much more meaningful to watch adoption of business applications, which incorporated Web 2.0 technologies into their processes IMO.
While I agree that managers are ” just another category of users that needed to migrate over to new ways of working” I disagree that some of them don’t try to thwart E 2.0 I am often called in to clients to talk to some senior exec who is apprehensive about social computing and without whose consent a project can’t proceed.
I also think that the perceived risk of provoking a command and control reaction is an inhibiting factor for adoption even if not actually called into effect.
In my experience, there are three types of reaction from managers that negatively affect the adoption of social media in business: open hostility, mixed messages, and disinterest. Open hostility is pretty rare; managers giving off mixed messages, e.g. supporting the tool in meetings but not actually using it or encouraging staff to use it, are quite common; but most common of all is rank disinterest.
Treating managers just has another set of users ignores their political power to affect the way those they manage behave. Yes, they have to be convinced of the benefits just like any other user, but they also have to aware of their ability to inspire and influence. They need to use the the tools themselves, and actively work to help their people understand why social software is useful.
But the biggest problem management has in rolling out social tools is that they so rarely actually think about what it is that they are doing, why, and how. Without a well-considered adoption strategy, social tools are liable to languish. Getting the early adopters on board is easy, but mainstream users are much more resistant to change.
(This is a summary of what I’ve just written on my blog, but I don’t think that my trackbacks are working!)
in the ic, there is an abyss of ignorance. and with a lack of awareness of the benefits of web 2.0 tools, there is the lack of desire to adopt them.
there is a gross undervaluation of just how significant technology impacts daily work routines and behaviors. a great example is information overload; most people would identify this as a root problem, when in reality it’s a symptom of not having the appropriate tools to filter, sort and vet the data/information.
viral adoption of tools and even new patterns of operation requires 1) access to the information/knowledge and 2) a desire to learn that overcomes the fear of failure. if you look at an org that is dependent on emails from hierarchal lines of leadership, unless top level leadership sends out an email with the subject line “IMPORTANT: EFFECTIVE [insert date here], YOU WILL USE THE WIKI,” it’s highly unlikely it will happen.
even when management is exposed to information and can see the added benefit of web 2.0 adoption, individuals must then overcome the stigma of failure. in my experience, this is the silent killer of adoption. rss is a perfect example. i’ve heard and seen countless examples of how managers have “clicked the little orange box” only to be stymied by a total lack of understanding of how rss works. you can almost hear the proverbial child cry in desperation.
Andrew,
Surprising feedback from the panelists. I would have expected more management resistance. These results make me more optimistic about Web 2.0 will be received in my company.
I wonder however if we in Europe, especially in France, will experience more manager resistance than in the USA where organizations, even established, older organizations, tend to be flatter and more democratic.
I have two data points from my own company.
First, as we have deployed a group-wide employee directory, we have had strong resistance to letting employees update their own contact information and photo. This is considered “HR data”, and as for photos, people could do stupid things if we let them post any photo they want. I’ve finally gotten the okay to allow the employee self service updates, but it was difficult.
Second, in France we have very strong syndicates or unions, and several people have expressed fear of what could happen if these unioned employees start blogging. We wouldn’t want to give them a channel to rage against the machine.
But that said, I am optimistic that we will move forward and have the support of senior management (CFO, CEO) because there are some very compelling arguments.
At the Cognizant Community event in London this week (at which you presented), futurist Andrew Zolli (www.zpluspartners.com) talked about a study that showed that employee productivity and earnings-per-employee increase with an employees ability to reach into (and across) his organisation to get his job done. They essentially measured the average “reach” of an employee’s network (tool-enabled or otherwise) with the organisation. As reach increased, so did productivity and earnings. Key message : you want to increase the reach of your employees.
How do you do that? By providing tools that enhance the weak and potential ties that you often discuss. Web 2.0
So these two arguments create a clear and compelling message for senior management showing them that they have to move in this direction to survive, and damn the organizational resistance.
As an added benefit, the network effects of web 2.0 in the enterprise benefits larger organizations over smaller, as Carlos Diaz of BlueKiwi pointed out to me Wednesday night.
Manager and organizational resistance at some level is normal, but I think the potential benefits are sufficiently compelling that the organisation will move forward anyway.
I am in a “well established organization” (IBM) and it has been my experience that management does see the benefits of getting out of the way and allowing the free flow of information. We are eating our own dog food and currently I am working on a project to allow salespeople to share information using Louts Connections (namely Dogear).
Andrew,
I’d like to lend some added perspective to this question. I too don’t think that managers (at least mid-level managers) are an impediment to adoption of Enterprise 2.0 tools. Some of the fault certainly lies with users, especially when you start to look at usage versus population demographics. The older, more experienced users who have the most to contribute are often the ones who are less apt to participate. But I think there is another, more basic influence. You can’t adopt what isn’t made available to you.
As an example, my company, Palantiri Systems, is a vendor of a software platform for equipment manufacturers that extends Enterprise 2.0 environment out to their customers as well as their intelligent devices. (By intelligent devices I am talking about the “things” that are used as a critical part of doing business – e.g. medical diagnostic equipment, printing presses, gas pumps, factory automation equipment, etc. These devices are full participants in the social network. They blog, publish activity streams and other information, share files, and even participate in instant messaging conversations.) Because what we offer has many touchpoints within an organization I often interact with the engineering, service, R&D, marketing, and IT departmental management. Generally, but by a far margin, the department most unreceptive or at least tentative towards our concept of an extended Enterprise 2.0 is the IT department. I often wonder why this is since the other departments are wildly enthusiastic about the concept and the potential value seen in such a solution.
I think there is possibly two interrelated underlying causes. First is the charter of the departments I mentioned. In today’s OEM world, engineering, marketing and service are all tasked with growing revenue, cranking out new products/features that are snapped up by customers. (For a lot of service organizations, this is something new, as they were typically perceived as cost centers and more focused on efficiency.) With performance metrics focused on growth rather than cost savings, they may be more receptive to trying new ideas, especially ones that can lead to a more engaged customer base. Essentially they are looking to make good things happen. IT tends to be more focused on operations, efficiency, and security. Essentially, they are tasked with preventing bad things from happening, thus making them much more conservative. This conservatism leads to slow adoption an availability of the types of tools we are discussing. This isn’t said to denigrate IT, their reaction is simply human nature given the goals that are put in front of them. Rather this is to point out the second, and what I beleive is the central issue – executive management’s view of IT and understanding of the impact that Enterprise 2.0, and by association the IT department, can have on revenue growth.
I think it is up to executive management to both craft and communicate a strategy of fostering customer engagement in order to drive both “connectedness” and innovation, which in turn drives growth. Built in to this communication effort has to be the notion (and backing incentives) that all departments have to play a role in this and that innovation and risk taking are to be encouraged. My biggest concern is that the executive office still doesn’t quite “get it”. The common examples of Goldcorp and P&G not withstanding, there is still not enough understanding of the both short and long term value that can be had through adopting the collaboration focus of Enterprise 2.0. So yes, I think management is the problem, but probably not in the fashion or at the level you first posited.
I agree with Scott Kelley, I am a business owner and if i did not allow information to free flow I dont think that my company would be able to communicate the way it does currently, let alone survive.
Frankly, based on what I’ve seen as a business consultant is that management still doesn’t give a hoot about E2.0 and won’t until they have to put their name on the line in front of higher-ups who will expect results. I think for now, most of them are content to allow their employees to move toward something like E2.0 as long as it isn’t high visibility. In the mean time, E2.0 looks a lot to the those not in the know like just another version of smart “regular” practices.
In the link to your post on the 9X Problem, you describe the endowment effect as “valuing items in our possession more than prospective items that could be in our possession, especially if the prospective item is a proposed substitute”.
I had not come across the endowment effect until I read about it in this week’s Economist (June 21st – 27th). A huge light bulb went on in my head when I read that article.
My expertise is new ways of working. It has baffled me that we know so much about what is effective in creating workplace environments and support systems that encourage and facilitate learning, innovation and sharing. Recent research on employee engagement and the take-up of new working practices is discouraging. Enterprise 2.0 technologies are not alone in slow dissemination.
I anticipate that I will have my work cut out for me as I seek to grow my business (working with senior executives to evaluate and implement management innovation). Just because the medicine is good does not mean that the patient is willing to take it.
As the Economist article concludes, “All in all, the rational conclusion is that humans are irrational animals”.
My first question would be how do we define “wildfire” growth? Based on my experience, the first year you should see 1000-2000% growth and the second year 200-400% growth. After that, you might settle down into 60-90% per year. I have often said the first year of growth isn’t hard but by the fourth or fifth, that’s when you separate the wheat from the chaff.
However, the real question you asked was what these gentlemen stated about their implementation accurate. The clear answer is yes but with a slight twist. What you are hearing is the “Culture Myth”. Theorist and even consultants tend to grasp on to the popular thoughts of the day. Take a look around the Internet and you will find no shortage of people discussing the cultural issues of deploying Web 2.0 within the enterprise. Contrast this with people who are actually doing it and a different message emerges. Yes, in any large scale implementation you will have cultural, social, and political issues to deal with. What people don’t say is that the percentage of these when compared to the user issues is relatively small. Based on my implementations, I would say less than 5% of your success or failure will be determined by culture. Hence, we see the “Culture Myth” emerge and continue to live on.
Reality aside, itÂ’s still more fun to talk about culture, social, and political issues than to focus on the real needs of the user. Users need to be aware of the offering, they need to be educated on the use, and they need to mature in how they utilize the applications.
Managers are part of the problem in command-and-control types of organizations – they may not be outright against collaborative tools, but they discourage their employees to venture outside the “proper channels” of communication.
They also bring up many of the questions listed in your June 30, 2008 posting, which delays or stops the implementation of collaborative tools.
In my organization, the most resistance has come from Human Resources and other managers, not from IT.
Permit my differing in opinions on the 3 reasons that was given. I would feel that the Internet is so widespread that it is more or less a way of life, Enterprise 2.0 being an extension of Internet to the business world IMHO is seen as a natural development, given the widespread and pervasive use of the Internet. It would seem that the managers expect this to happen as something that will be naturally evolved and hence no barrier to their implementation.
Prof McAfee,
let me add a different perspective that I have come across as an entrepreneur trying to implement a W2.0 solution.
Many managers see the benefits of free information flow. They know their judgment is impeded because they are operating on limited information or the “happy talk” which makes it up the corporate communications chain. They love the idea of free flowing information. They have one major difficulty, they have to solve business problems.
Costs from poor information don’t show up in any accounting measure, so allocating funds to investigate “information improvement” approaches is very difficult.
W2.0 vendors have not made their lives any easier. Many vendors lack the patients and understanding of business budgeting processes and fair to articulate the value of their products in ways that make trying them palatable.
If you look, there are a good number of corporate bloggers at the VP and EVP level. Clearly they understand the communications problems and are trying to address it.
A W2.0 company has three challenges:
1. Articulating their products value in a way that businesses can budget for it.
2. Creating a business model which allows for a price point which is acceptable.
3. Have the patients and constancy of purpose to survive the six to eighteen month sales cycles which are probably necessary to make these sales.
Understanding and then making those three challenges align has occupied a lot of my attention over the last fifteen months since I started my business.
Of course, I could be missing something…
no, the person who handle is the one who make problem..
I was just going through this post and found it really very interesting, thanks for posting such a high class post, I just loved reading it, looking forward to read more of you. Keep interesting posts like this coming.
I never heard about http://www.wachoviabank.com like this before. Thank for this.
There is another link under the category of personal finance but it has nothing to do with finance. If you have difficulties in making payment, you can click the link named wachoviabank.com. You will have an expert helping you to fix your problems and you don’t have to go out of your home to get the service. What you need to do is to choose a button between the two “call us today” and “we’ll call you”. Don’t you think this service shows the attentiveness and consideration of the Wachovia? It’s really good in my opinion.