I ended my talk at last month’s Enterprise 2.0 conference in San Francisco (viewable here; free registration required) by trying to be cute: I gave advice about how to fail with E2.0. My goal, of course, was to talk about good practices by highlighting bad ones. I gave six bad ideas:
- Declare war on the enterprise
- Allow walled gardens to flourish
- Accentuate the negative
- Try to replace email
- Fall in love with features
- Overuse the word ‘social’
On the last point, I said this about ‘social’ as a descriptor for the technologies of Enterprise 2.0:
“It’s technically accurate… [but] I have rarely come across a word that has more negative connotations to busy, pragmatic line managers inside organizations. The best thing it is is neutral… the worst thing it is is a sign that we’re going to use these tools to waste time, to goof off, to plan happy hour, to do all these social activities. The impression I get from people who make decisions… is ‘I’m not running a social club. I’m trying to run a business here.’ ” (I accompanied this monologue with a picture intended to convey what flashes through an executive’s mind when he hears the word ‘social.’)
I was responding to a newish thread in the Webwide conversation about enterprise use of emergent social software platforms (ESSPs). I came across it in a post by Stowe Boyd:
In particular, Web 2.0 as a phenomenon is strongly tied to social tools — social networking, social media, and so on — in which the individual is primary, and asymmetric networks of relationships with other individuals form the principal mechanism for connection and information flow…
We need to switch our attention to the shifting nature of work itself, and how business needs to be reconsidered in a rapidly changing world (which includes a revolutionary social Web, notably)…
So, I have come to believe that this is the place where companies need to focus their attention: socializing the business, not adoption of Web 2.0.
And in the mission statement of the newly-formed Dachis Group:
Social Business Design is the intentional creation of dynamic and socially calibrated systems, process, and culture. The goal: improving value exchange among constituents.
Blogger and do-er Euan Semple posted that he’s in favor of ‘social business’ as both a movement and a term, and describes my “Enterprise 2.0″ as “too narrow, too corporate and too managerial”
Which would sting if it weren’t accurate. My definition is narrow, corporate, and managerial, and I’m glad to have it labeled as such. I think it’s both prudent and responsible to be circumspect about one’s claims, and I think it’s neither to assert that the old rules of society, culture, or business no longer apply because of the appearance of a network, some software that sits of top of it, and a large number of (primarily younger) people who like using it. As I wrote a little while back, Enterprise 2.0 is not THAT big a deal.
But whether or not it’s a big deal, it’s not going to be ANY deal until ESSPs and their attendant practices make their way inside organizations. And the point I was trying to make in my talk, and the one I still believe, is that keying the message / sales pitch / marketing / education effort around the word ‘social’ is a bad idea.
I didn’t know it at the time, but Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff evidently agrees with this. According to an article in The Industry Standard:
Salesforce was careful to position [its new offering] Chatter as a collaboration tool, not a “social this or social that” because there’s such a glut of social networking tools, [Benioff] said, and customers are more willing to pay for collaboration software.
“We really want to talk about collaboration, because that really is a budget item for our customers,” Benioff said…
Another Salesforce co-founder, Executive Vice President of Technology Parker Harris, also stayed on message with the collaboration concept in a talk with ZDNet editors (see video below). “I think about our platform as a collaboration platform,” Harris said. “You’re building applications to collaborate around data in the enterprise on a trusted system.”
The article points out that Chatter at present looks very much like Facebook-ish social software, but Benioff and his colleagues were taking pains to describe it and its value using narrow, corporate, managerial words. Does anyone want to make the case that these guys don’t know how to convince organizations to adopt new tools?
What do you think? Is social a helpful or harmful word when talking to enterprises and their managers about the new digital tools and the business practices that make use of them? Leave a comment, please, and let us know.
{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Mbt trainers show a new stylelife,i am satisfied with Mbt sport shoes & Mbt m walk.
Late to the party as ever (I'm on holiday) but I agree with Stowe and Euan.
Also, isn't it the role of academics to provide validation to the tactics of people like salesforce.com rather than the other way around? I don't get why you are so into tactical considerations rather than, say, research or breaking new ground. I am no longer even sure whether you intended your Woodstock and socialism slides ironically (i.e. the Woodstock generation grew up to pursue skewed business goals, resulting in the corporate socialism of TARP etc.), or whether you actually believe businesses are right to think about hippies and socialists when they hear the word social.
For me, the goal of social business is better business, not just change for its own sake, or change to make businesses nicer. If I were a tool seller, it might be logical to sell spades labelled as 'large trowels' if that made the buyer comfortable; but I am not, so I don't. Instead, I try to seek out smart people and smart companies who see competitive advantage in building Twenty-First Century organisations that take advantage of the affordances offered by contemporary technology, culture and practise, just like the the Twentieth-Century corporations did with the telegraph, railways and other innovations of their time. And, of course, the term competitive advantage would be pretty meaningless if they all got it
Surely, from an academic point of view, the word social is a least a correct descriptor of the new way we are using technology, as a previous commenter suggested regarding the term social capital? Older terms such as collaboration or CSCW are not going to cut it, in particular because they describe only direct, intentional collaboration and not (for example) collective intelligence, ambient information sharing and other forms of indirect socialisation. That which is helpful in the short-term may be harmful in the long-term.
I don't disagree with peoples' motivations here or their freedom to use whatever terms that work for them (FWIW I don't think we need consensus either), but I am surprised by the defeatism of not using a term most of us seem to agree is factually correct because it might frighten the horses.
I think that ‘social’ will become a less loaded word over the next couple of years and that its current ‘goof off’ connotation will evolve. However, until that happens, replacing it with ‘collaboration’ is incorrect and misleading. People who have some relationship with each other collaborate when they work together to produce a result. That result is usually a document of some type. Modern collaboration systems aim to make it easier for people to work together on those documents, and then make the results easy for others to find and use.
The ‘social’ side comes into the equation when we talk about people who have a relationship with each other. These people are likely to be part of a large organization or geographically separated (and possibly in different time-zones), or they may work for loosely connected entities. Social (from a business/ROI perspective) means building tools that let people who SHOULD have a relationship find each other and then, once found, deepen that relationship as a means to improving the opportunities for and the quality of their resulting collaboration.
‘Social’ is a term that will evolve and, as others note below, context needs to be set. In the mean time, we use the term ECM (Enterprise Content Management) for the document side of the equation. I like ERM (Enterprise Relationship Management) for the social side.
It smells like the big meta-question is what you are selling to whom. If you are trying to sell software to enterprises and want to reduce objection-oriented discussions, then avoiding the word “social” probably makes sense.
On the other hand, if you're trying to either change the ways that enterprises think about people and processes, or that people outside enterprises think about the future of economies and organizations, then a rich discussion about embracing implicit knowledge and human pattern-recognition and emergent group-forming, all via loosely-structured social software, seems more appropriate.
Late to the party as ever (I'm on holiday) but I agree with Stowe and Euan.
Also, isn't it the role of academics to provide validation to the tactics of people like salesforce.com rather than the other way around? I don't get why you are so into tactical considerations rather than, say, research or breaking new ground. I am no longer even sure whether you intended your Woodstock and socialism slides ironically (i.e. the Woodstock generation grew up to pursue skewed business goals, resulting in the corporate socialism of TARP etc.), or whether you actually believe businesses are right to think about hippies and socialists when they hear the word social.
For me, the goal of social business is better business, not just change for its own sake, or change to make businesses nicer. If I were a tool seller, it might be logical to sell spades labelled as 'large trowels' if that made the buyer comfortable; but I am not, so I don't. Instead, I try to seek out smart people and smart companies who see competitive advantage in building Twenty-First Century organisations that take advantage of the affordances offered by contemporary technology, culture and practise, just like the the Twentieth-Century corporations did with the telegraph, railways and other innovations of their time. And, of course, the term competitive advantage would be pretty meaningless if they all got it
Surely, from an academic point of view, the word social is a least a correct descriptor of the new way we are using technology, as a previous commenter suggested regarding the term social capital? Older terms such as collaboration or CSCW are not going to cut it, in particular because they describe only direct, intentional collaboration and not (for example) collective intelligence, ambient information sharing and other forms of indirect socialisation. That which is helpful in the short-term may be harmful in the long-term.
I don't disagree with peoples' motivations here or their freedom to use whatever terms that work for them (FWIW I don't think we need consensus either), but I am surprised by the defeatism of not using a term most of us seem to agree is factually correct because it might frighten the horses.
I think that ‘social’ will become a less loaded word over the next couple of years and that its current ‘goof off’ connotation will evolve. However, until that happens, replacing it with ‘collaboration’ is incorrect and misleading. People who have some relationship with each other collaborate when they work together to produce a result. That result is usually a document of some type. Modern collaboration systems aim to make it easier for people to work together on those documents, and then make the results easy for others to find and use.
The ‘social’ side comes into the equation when we talk about people who have a relationship with each other. These people are likely to be part of a large organization or geographically separated (and possibly in different time-zones), or they may work for loosely connected entities. Social (from a business/ROI perspective) means building tools that let people who SHOULD have a relationship find each other and then, once found, deepen that relationship as a means to improving the opportunities for and the quality of their resulting collaboration.
‘Social’ is a term that will evolve and, as others note below, context needs to be set. In the mean time, we use the term ECM (Enterprise Content Management) for the document side of the equation. I like ERM (Enterprise Relationship Management) for the social side.
It smells like the big meta-question is what you are selling to whom. If you are trying to sell software to enterprises and want to reduce objection-oriented discussions, then avoiding the word “social” probably makes sense.
On the other hand, if you're trying to either change the ways that enterprises think about people and processes, or that people outside enterprises think about the future of economies and organizations, then a rich discussion about embracing implicit knowledge and human pattern-recognition and emergent group-forming, all via loosely-structured social software, seems more appropriate.
There are a number of passionate and thoughtful comments here. I appreciate the time everyone's spent offering up perspective. As someone within an organization who are deep in the work of adoption (and having a great deal of success thanks) the argument is a little silly to me. I know where I can and cannot use the term social. Some are ready for it, some are not. We've got that. Over time this argument will only become increasingly irrelevant.
I also think it's silly to assume that we can simply write off users/leaders who aren't getting it as being “bone headed” or in any way irrelevant. Inside of a vast enterprise we've got a spectrum of users/leaders to deal with. Many of which have no idea what we are talking about. That doesn't make their buy-in any less needed. If they aren't responsible for the decisions, they are likely responsible for a large bit of information the organization will want to retain at some point. I'll need them as a user. Waiting until they retire to experience less resistance isn't the answer. We have to find actionable ways to bring them into the fold. Often that means that I have to speak their language, and not the other way around. It's negotiation. We all do it.
We are all very passionate about our ideas on E20. The guy down the hall could care less. He's got work to do. Just give him a tool that works. Can we get back to work now?
Thanks a lot, I really took time to read the whole article and I must say that it is well written. This is a very valuable resource!
There are a number of passionate and thoughtful comments here. I appreciate the time everyone's spent offering up perspective. As someone within an organization who are deep in the work of adoption (and having a great deal of success thanks) the argument is a little silly to me. I know where I can and cannot use the term social. Some are ready for it, some are not. We've got that. Over time this argument will only become increasingly irrelevant.
I also think it's silly to assume that we can simply write off users/leaders who aren't getting it as being “bone headed” or in any way irrelevant. Inside of a vast enterprise we've got a spectrum of users/leaders to deal with. Many of which have no idea what we are talking about. That doesn't make their buy-in any less needed. If they aren't responsible for the decisions, they are likely responsible for a large bit of information the organization will want to retain at some point. I'll need them as a user. Waiting until they retire to experience less resistance isn't the answer. We have to find actionable ways to bring them into the fold. Often that means that I have to speak their language, and not the other way around. It's negotiation. We all do it.
We are all very passionate about our ideas on E20. The guy down the hall could care less. He's got work to do. Just give him a tool that works. Can we get back to work now?
“Social” seems to imply 'not work'. But, social networking and communications is an integral part of business today. Computing solutions have focused on the more structural and procedural aspects of work. Hence, the attraction of “business process management” and “business process re-engineering”. “Structural”, another S word. Also hierarchical.
Structural processes can benefit from collaborative technologies that we call Enterprise 2.0 – such as documenting why a procurement or hiring decision was made.
Social processes involve creativity, brainstorming, seeking out expertise, outreach to employees + customers etc. Most pre-E 2.0 tools to accomplish these functions were structural in context, about 'command and control'. These have proven somewhat inflexible in driving innovation and improved customer service.
Perhaps the way to show value for E 2.0 is to describe the limitations of the other S word
expansion on my views of “Social” and “Structural” at http://www.freebalance.com/blog/?p=711
“Social” seems to imply 'not work'. But, social networking and communications is an integral part of business today. Computing solutions have focused on the more structural and procedural aspects of work. Hence, the attraction of “business process management” and “business process re-engineering”. “Structural”, another S word. Also hierarchical.
Structural processes can benefit from collaborative technologies that we call Enterprise 2.0 – such as documenting why a procurement or hiring decision was made.
Social processes involve creativity, brainstorming, seeking out expertise, outreach to employees + customers etc. Most pre-E 2.0 tools to accomplish these functions were structural in context, about 'command and control'. These have proven somewhat inflexible in driving innovation and improved customer service.
Perhaps the way to show value for E 2.0 is to describe the limitations of the other S word
Andy,
[Following up on my last comment]
I propose to address the “S” [Collaborative v Social] issue by leveraging the “Purpose Brand” concept offered by Clayton M. Christensen, Scott Cook, and Taddy Hall in their Harvard Business Review “Marketing Malpractice: The Cause and the Cure” article:
http://harvardbusiness.org/products/R0512D/R051...
This concept can be applied to Enterprise 2.0 by answering the following questions:
1) Who are the Enterprise 2.0 Customers?
2) What jobs do they want to get done?
[These jobs should be framed in terms of “quarter-inch holes” and not “quarter-inch drills”.]
3) What Enterprise 2.0 products or services these customers can hire to perform those jobs?
I think this conversation will likely produce the correct positioning for Enterprise 2.0. It will also facilitate development of more effective and marketable solutions.
Thanks,
Arie.
I couldn't agree more with Gil on this point. And here's why:
1. As professionals in this area, we need a common framework within which to operate. This gives us a common language and an understanding of what's required to investigate, evaluate and deploy the tools that Enterprise 2.0 promises. So yes we need to come up with some language and jargon to use with each other.
2. However as internal evangelists, who need to bring the value proposition inside the company, it is our job to know our company. We need to do our homework, know our culture, know our strategy and talk the language of our execs and our stakeholders. If that means “Social Collaboration” sells, then that's what we, as internal evangelists should use as we shape and sell the business case inside our company. If “social” is a no-no word, then you use something else, “Enterprise 2.0″, “Business Collaboration”, etc.
But I feel we talk and worry too much amongst ourselves about whether we use social or not. The reality is that there is great capability in these new tools that companies have wanted for years. We need our employees to collaborate, break down silos, find experts, and collapse time zone barriers.
We need to worry more about painting this picture for our executives and making this picture so compelling in our business case. We need to tell the story of how these tools do these very important things. When we focus on this part of our business case – then it’s less about what you call it – and more about value for the business.
This is ‘talking the executive’s language’ that I place so much emphasis on. And doing that is unique for each one of us as all of those variables (culture, politics, company strategy, etc) are all different for each of our companies. There’s no cookie cutter way to make the business case.
So I suggest that it is the job of the internal evangelist to translate the jargon to something that uniquely fits one's own company strategy and culture.
expansion on my views of “Social” and “Structural” at http://www.freebalance.com/blog/?p=711
As a student from business school Bangalore, this seems to me as the definition of Social Media Marketing techniques (when the word “Social” is repeated many times in this blog post), is this the same or it differs from the one which you are speaking about in this particular blog post. Please give out more information regarding the same, and do let us know the difference between both the things.
Andy,
[Following up on my last comment]
I propose to address the “S†[Collaborative v Social] Positioning issue by leveraging the “Purpose Brand†concept offered by Clayton M. Christensen, Scott Cook, and Taddy Hall in their Harvard Business Review “Marketing Malpractice: The Cause and the Cure†article:
http://harvardbusiness.org/products/R0512D/R051...
This concept can be applied to Enterprise 2.0 by answering the following questions:
1) Who are the Enterprise 2.0 Customers?
2) What jobs do they want to get done?
[These jobs should be framed in terms of “quarter-inch holes†and not “quarter-inch drillsâ€.]
3) What Enterprise 2.0 products or services these customers can hire to perform those jobs?
I think this conversation will likely produce the correct positioning for Enterprise 2.0. It will also facilitate development of more effective and marketable solutions.
Thanks,
Arie.
I couldn't agree more with Gil on this point. And here's why:
1. As professionals in this area, we need a common framework within which to operate. This gives us a common language and an understanding of what's required to investigate, evaluate and deploy the tools that Enterprise 2.0 promises. So yes we need to come up with some language and jargon to use with each other.
2. However as internal evangelists, who need to bring the value proposition inside the company, it is our job to know our company. We need to do our homework, know our culture, know our strategy and talk the language of our execs and our stakeholders. If that means “Social Collaboration” sells, then that's what we, as internal evangelists should use as we shape and sell the business case inside our company. If “social” is a no-no word, then you use something else, “Enterprise 2.0″, “Business Collaboration”, etc.
But I feel we talk and worry too much amongst ourselves about whether we use social or not. The reality is that there is great capability in these new tools that companies have wanted for years. We need our employees to collaborate, break down silos, find experts, and collapse time zone barriers.
We need to worry more about painting this picture for our executives and making this picture so compelling in our business case. We need to tell the story of how these tools do these very important things. When we focus on this part of our business case – then it’s less about what you call it – and more about value for the business.
This is ‘talking the executive’s language’ that I place so much emphasis on. And doing that is unique for each one of us as all of those variables (culture, politics, company strategy, etc) are all different for each of our companies. There’s no cookie cutter way to make the business case.
So I suggest that it is the job of the internal evangelist to translate the jargon to something that uniquely fits one's own company strategy and culture.
“Salesforce was careful to position [its new offering] Chatter as a collaboration tool, not a “social this or social that†because there’s such a glut of social networking tools, [Benioff] said.” Fair enough, and seems smart to me.
But Andrew, why then did they call it Chatter?
All the positioning in the world can't change the tone the name sets.
As a student from business school Bangalore, this seems to me as the definition of Social Media Marketing techniques (when the word “Social” is repeated many times in this blog post), is this the same or it differs from the one which you are speaking about in this particular blog post. Please give out more information regarding the same, and do let us know the difference between both the things.
Sorry for coming after the battle but I'm on Holiday where the lack of reliable access to the net makes me become less…social.
I rencently listed social as one of the 2.0 words that have to be used cautiously with “real” managers. http://bit.ly/5UBrR5
I have to admit that, whatever my opinion on the word could be, using it is not always comfortable.
In the one hand, I find the word relevant because I understand what it means and all the context around. It won't be the first word having different (and sometimes opposite) meanings.
In the other hand I have to admit that not everybody understands it as we do. I thought it was essentially an European (and mostly French) issue but it appears that even elsewhere “social” has a not-work-related, not serious and sometimes counter-work connotation. Gil mentioned his speech at the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Germany and it's the same in many countries. I won't list what “social” makes french managers and entrepreneurs think about (despite it would be quite funny) but one example will be enough ; the expression we usually use for being on strike is “social movement”.
This makes me think of two things :
- since we're having global discussions for global issues at global companies, we may be aware of having cross-cultural (buzz)words. As Gil mentioned, even if we understand the english meaning, it's sometimes impossible to translate it into foreign languages that have their own subtleties.
- what are we trying to achieve ? If it's to have experts discussions between us, social is relevant and we can close the discussion. If we have to convince, explain and help businesses to change the way they do things and adopt new tools, it may be different. I'm not saying that social is irrelevant in this case, I'm only saying that we have to speak a language the people we're trying to help understand and accept. If I'm asked something about “social” I answer social, if it's about “collaboration”, I answer collaboration, if it's about “2.0″….
For the people who need it, what matters is not the name but what it does (provided the name does not scare them first). The proof can be found in google requests : how many people reach our blogs by searching social anything or anything 2.0 ? How many use “traditional” words ?
I think the right word is not the one we'll find all together through our discussions. It will be the one that will make each manager think “there's something here that will help me to improve things”. So it will be different for every person.
That said, I don't think there is relevant or irrevant word. We only have to be aware that we have to use the right one not depending on what we want to say or what we know but depending on the issue our interlocutor has to solve, how and what is culturally relevant to him.
Everything happens through conversations and discussions. It implies a common language can be found and I think the lingua franca (at this time) is the traditional business language.
Interesting. Firstly, we have to ensure we are not sounding like collaboration and networking are been introduced into business and organizations by either Web 2 or E2.0 – what ever the label. Networking and collaboration have always been a part, an important part, of business and organizations. Over history, they have gained more attention at some times, than other times. But this is not new. What we are seeing though, is new and perhaps paradigm shifting tools to facilitate networking and collaboration. I am not convinced anyone has a complete grasp on all these as yet.
In regard to terminology, networking and collaboration are terms that have been around, largely accepted and understood in the business community. Why not stick with them. Social activities are also understood, but that is not the connotation that really is trying to be capitalized. It seems the business tools are emerging out of the social networking tools, but the concept in business is a different shade than in the personal world. The Web 2 etc terms are good in more academic discussions, but in a business context what we have are tools to improve the networking and collaboration of our business, perhaps in ways not known or engaged before. From there we need narrative more than 'a term' to explain it in a business or organizational context.
Sorry for coming after the battle but I'm on Holiday where the lack of reliable access to the net makes me become less…social.
I rencently listed social as one of the 2.0 words that have to be used cautiously with “real” managers. http://bit.ly/5UBrR5
I have to admit that, whatever my opinion on the word could be, using it is not always comfortable.
In the one hand, I find the word relevant because I understand what it means and all the context around. It won't be the first word having different (and sometimes opposite) meanings.
In the other hand I have to admit that not everybody understands it as we do. I thought it was essentially an European (and mostly French) issue but it appears that even elsewhere “social” has a not-work-related, not serious and sometimes counter-work connotation. Gil mentioned his speech at the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Germany and it's the same in many countries. I won't list what “social” makes french managers and entrepreneurs think about (despite it would be quite funny) but one example will be enough ; the expression we usually use for being on strike is “social movement”.
This makes me think of two things :
- since we're having global discussions for global issues at global companies, we may be aware of having cross-cultural (buzz)words. As Gil mentioned, even if we understand the english meaning, it's sometimes impossible to translate it into foreign languages that have their own subtleties.
- what are we trying to achieve ? If it's to have experts discussions between us, social is relevant and we can close the discussion. If we have to convince, explain and help businesses to change the way they do things and adopt new tools, it may be different. I'm not saying that social is irrelevant in this case, I'm only saying that we have to speak a language the people we're trying to help understand and accept. If I'm asked something about “social” I answer social, if it's about “collaboration”, I answer collaboration, if it's about “2.0″….
For the people who need it, what matters is not the name but what it does (provided the name does not scare them first). The proof can be found in google requests : how many people reach our blogs by searching social anything or anything 2.0 ? How many use “traditional” words ?
I think the right word is not the one we'll find all together through our discussions. It will be the one that will make each manager think “there's something here that will help me to improve things”. So it will be different for every person.
That said, I don't think there is relevant or irrevant word. We only have to be aware that we have to use the right one not depending on what we want to say or what we know but depending on the issue our interlocutor has to solve, how and what is culturally relevant to him.
Everything happens through conversations and discussions. It implies a common language can be found and I think the lingua franca (at this time) is the traditional business language.
How well said, and pictured: sure: I'm a (middle) manager now, never had time to enjoy things like Woodstock, had to earn my degree and pay back my student loan, and now you expect me to PAY for social activities at work?
The ‘S’ word by any other name is still just as Sweet.
This discussion has been simmering across the social-sphere (or whatever you want to call it) and has now percolated here. I believe *what* to call this ‘social-ness’ that is perplexing us is not as important as *how* companies are going to execute around it. We can talk all we want, debate, critique, revise, rename – it’s a healthy exercise – but in the end it’s not about what we call it, but how we use it that counts.
More real world examples of how Enterprise 2.0/social/collaborative software is being used and to what benefit would help the “name†issue enormously. Remember, all sorts of good things have some really bad names. But as the “brand†develops around a name or concept, the debate switches from whether the name is good or bad and moves to whether the concept is working or not. So let’s promote real benefits by real companies solving real problems, and my bet is that the naming thing will take care of itself.
You’ll notice, there are many companies with their heads down, going through the trial and error process of finding out how E2.0 is going to work for them. They’re less likely to be engaged in the debate of what it is – because they are in the process of defining it for themselves, and reaping its benefits.
http://inmagicinc.blogspot.com/
Interesting. Firstly, we have to ensure we are not sounding like collaboration and networking are been introduced into business and organizations by either Web 2 or E2.0 – what ever the label. Networking and collaboration have always been a part, an important part, of business and organizations. Over history, they have gained more attention at some times, than other times. But this is not new. What we are seeing though, is new and perhaps paradigm shifting tools to facilitate networking and collaboration. I am not convinced anyone has a complete grasp on all these as yet.
In regard to terminology, networking and collaboration are terms that have been around, largely accepted and understood in the business community. Why not stick with them. Social activities are also understood, but that is not the connotation that really is trying to be capitalized. It seems the business tools are emerging out of the social networking tools, but the concept in business is a different shade than in the personal world. The Web 2 etc terms are good in more academic discussions, but in a business context what we have are tools to improve the networking and collaboration of our business, perhaps in ways not known or engaged before. From there we need narrative more than 'a term' to explain it in a business or organizational context.
How well said, and pictured: sure: I'm a (middle) manager now, never had time to enjoy things like Woodstock, had to earn my degree and pay back my student loan, and now you expect me to PAY for social activities at work?
'Social,' 'Collaborative,' 'Innovation,' 'Engagement,' 'Adoption,' and many other buzz-words seem to be in the press these days. However, not much interest seems to actually be focused on process. How are businesses actually changing the way they organize themselves to fully access the power of 2.0 methodologies? The top-down business hierarchy still seems to be the norm, even in 2010!
Adoption seems focused on numbers, not quality or people building new 'social' networks. Value seems to always be found in the numbers (ie ROI). In the coming decade, I foresee much more value in things less number-focused. We are all one human-body. An organization is an network, an organism which outstretches into customers, society and the world.
With this being said, the aversion to the word 'social,' I believe comes from the typical mindset of most business sorts, the 'number cruncher' type. Businesses are to be concerned with growth (a number), profit or return on investment (a number), or some other number not mentioned [says the number cruncher.] The concern of the number-cruncher is typically not: how do we grow our knowledge in our organization? how do we promote learning or true innovation?
Example: Distributive teams seems like a 'machine-like' term to me. Can we fit social somewhere in that term? Everyone knows that the team and the people in it are what allow projects to be successful or not.
For me, I am not ashamed to use the word social, because it is what it is.
'Social,' 'Collaborative,' 'Innovation,' 'Engagement,' 'Adoption,' and many other buzz-words seem to be in the press these days. However, not much interest seems to actually be focused on process. How are businesses actually changing the way they organize themselves to fully access the power of 2.0 methodologies? The top-down business hierarchy still seems to be the norm, even in 2010!
Adoption seems focused on numbers, not quality or people building new 'social' networks. Value seems to always be found in the numbers (ie ROI). In the coming decade, I foresee much more value in things less number-focused. We are all one human-body. An organization is an network, an organism which outstretches into customers, society and the world.
With this being said, the aversion to the word 'social,' I believe comes from the typical mindset of most business sorts, the 'number cruncher' type. Businesses are to be concerned with growth (a number), profit or return on investment (a number), or some other number not mentioned [says the number cruncher.] The concern of the number-cruncher is typically not: how do we grow our knowledge in our organization? how do we promote learning or true innovation?
Example: Distributive teams seems like a 'machine-like' term to me. Can we fit social somewhere in that term? Everyone knows that the team and the people in it are what allow projects to be successful or not.
For me, I am not ashamed to use the word social, because it is what it is.
“The article points out that Chatter at present looks very much like Facebook-ish social software, but Benioff and his colleagues were taking pains to describe it and its value using narrow, corporate, managerial words. Does anyone want to make the case that these guys don’t know how to convince organizations to adopt new tools”
I love the way that in many ways facebook is a step ahead, and in fact is starting to operate as an increasingly pure-business model. More traditional organisations need to wake up and smell the proverbial lest they be left picking up the electronic crumbs.
“The article points out that Chatter at present looks very much like Facebook-ish social software, but Benioff and his colleagues were taking pains to describe it and its value using narrow, corporate, managerial words. Does anyone want to make the case that these guys don’t know how to convince organizations to adopt new tools”
I love the way that in many ways facebook is a step ahead, and in fact is starting to operate as an increasingly pure-business model. More traditional organisations need to wake up and smell the proverbial lest they be left picking up the electronic crumbs.
Jeff, great insights, and I agree mostly with you, but you have to realize that the “number crunchers” are the C-Level leaders of the company and the number they're so interested in is $$$. Companies are groups of people with a pretty distinct purpose: make money. Whatever else you want to say, if money isn't being made, the group dissolves. So when you start talking about “social” things, the (I think appropriate) response by an executive is: what monetary effect does it have? If we start making _less_ money because of social tools, then I wouldn't use them. I do think there's great monetary gain to be made for a business – it's just hard to quantify – and that therefore it might be prudent to use terms other than “social” if for nothing else but to sell this to executives.
On a sidenote: the word that really irks me is “evangelist” – it means “preacher of the Christian gospel.” Obviously we use it in a different context when describing the work that we do within companies, but the religious connotation is still there. Whatever your feelings on that subject may be, I think the fundamental different between a religious believer and a scientist is one of faith-based vs. evidence-based belief. So calling ourselves “evangelists”, in my mind, is a bit like advertising that we believe in the wares we advocate on faith alone, instead of advocating them based on rational, analytical facts and evidence. And this has in some case really been the case in this field, hasn't it? One of the primary challenges is convincing the “ROI-types” that social technology is inherently good; we ask them to take a leap of faith, as it were.
All that aside, I do think we are coming to a point where the value of social technology is more easily demonstrable and the business value more clear. However, the term evangelist irks me nonetheless. I will not adopt a technology on faith alone, and we shouldn't give anyone the impression that we are asking them to do just that either.
Jeff, great insights, and I agree mostly with you, but you have to realize that the “number crunchers” are the C-Level leaders of the company and the number they're so interested in is $$$. Companies are groups of people with a pretty distinct purpose: make money. Whatever else you want to say, if money isn't being made, the group dissolves. So when you start talking about “social” things, the (I think appropriate) response by an executive is: what monetary effect does it have? If we start making _less_ money because of social tools, then I wouldn't use them. I do think there's great monetary gain to be made for a business – it's just hard to quantify – and that therefore it might be prudent to use terms other than “social” if for nothing else but to sell this to executives.
On a sidenote: the word that really irks me is “evangelist” – it means “preacher of the Christian gospel.” Obviously we use it in a different context when describing the work that we do within companies, but the religious connotation is still there. Whatever your feelings on that subject may be, I think the fundamental different between a religious believer and a scientist is one of faith-based vs. evidence-based belief. So calling ourselves “evangelists”, in my mind, is a bit like advertising that we believe in the wares we advocate on faith alone, instead of advocating them based on rational, analytical facts and evidence. And this has in some case really been the case in this field, hasn't it? One of the primary challenges is convincing the “ROI-types” that social technology is inherently good; we ask them to take a leap of faith, as it were.
All that aside, I do think we are coming to a point where the value of social technology is more easily demonstrable and the business value more clear. However, the term evangelist irks me nonetheless. I will not adopt a technology on faith alone, and we shouldn't give anyone the impression that we are asking them to do just that either.
This paradigm shift has been going on for quite a while. The authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto started talking about it over 10 years ago… “the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked.”
Bertrand Duperrin said earlier in the comments that “Everything happens through conversations and discussions. It implies a common language can be found and I think the lingua franca (at this time) is the traditional business language.”
I agree, we do have to speak to our business audiences in their own vernacular. To many business people it will be 'collaboration or Enterprise 2.0', but to many in THEIR OWN target market audience it will be 'social'. The words we use enable or disable us according to the situation. We need both positions to get our concepts across.
Enterprise 2.0 or whatever you want to call it is INEVITABLE. We must help business managers and leaders grasp this by speaking in a recognizable human voice.
In summary it's already been said:
“Corporate firewalls have kept smart employees in and smart markets out. It's going to cause real pain to tear those walls down. But the result will be a new kind of conversation. And it will be the most exciting conversation business has ever engaged in.” -The Cluetrain Manifesto
Want to be taken seriously? Shun 'social' and use 'collaboration' instead. http://bit.ly/9SCnnb << We're not your typical humans, we mean business!
This paradigm shift has been going on for quite a while. The authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto started talking about it over 10 years ago… “the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked.”
Bertrand Duperrin said earlier in the comments that “Everything happens through conversations and discussions. It implies a common language can be found and I think the lingua franca (at this time) is the traditional business language.”
I agree, we do have to speak to our business audiences in their own vernacular. To many business people it will be 'collaboration or Enterprise 2.0', but to many in THEIR OWN target market audience it will be 'social'. The words we use enable or disable us according to the situation. We need both positions to get our concepts across.
Enterprise 2.0 or whatever you want to call it is INEVITABLE. We must help business managers and leaders grasp this by speaking in a recognizable human voice.
In summary it's already been said:
“Corporate firewalls have kept smart employees in and smart markets out. It's going to cause real pain to tear those walls down. But the result will be a new kind of conversation. And it will be the most exciting conversation business has ever engaged in.” -The Cluetrain Manifesto
Want to be taken seriously? Shun 'social' and use 'collaboration' instead. http://bit.ly/9SCnnb << We're not your typical humans, we mean business!
wedding dresses,wedding gowns,bride dresses,bridesmaids dresses,evening dresses,bridal gowns,flower girl dresses
Wedding Gowns
Formal Gowns
Cocktail Gowns
Find the wedding dress designer and wedding dress that's right for you! Browse dresses from
Bridesmaid Gowns
Evening Gowns
View our selection of exquisite, handmade gowns and dresses for your wedding
Wedding Dresses, Wedding Shoes and Wedding Accessories from wedding shop, the UK's finest collection of designer wedding dresses.
Use the wedding dress and
cheap wedding
wedding dresses
wedding shop
wedding dresses,wedding gowns,bride dresses,bridesmaids dresses,evening dresses,bridal gowns,flower girl dresses
Wedding Gowns
Formal Gowns
Cocktail Gowns
Find the wedding dress designer and wedding dress that's right for you! Browse dresses from
Bridesmaid Gowns
Evening Gowns
View our selection of exquisite, handmade gowns and dresses for your wedding
Wedding Dresses, Wedding Shoes and Wedding Accessories from wedding shop, the UK's finest collection of designer wedding dresses.
Use the wedding dress and
cheap wedding
wedding dresses
wedding shop
tiffany jewelry
Choose, buy and shop for on sale tiffany jewelry including Tiffany & Co Silver Necklace, Pendants, Bangles, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories.
tiffany co
Tiffany Jewellery offering bangle Jewellery, bracelet jewelry, eardrop jewelry, necklace jewelry, ring jewelry, finger ring jewelry and earring jewelry
tiffany
tiffany and co
links of london
links london
Tiffany Style Silver Jewelry: Rings, Earrings, Necklaces, Bracelets and more Tiffany Jewellery at low prices.
Thanks for recommend link.
Thanks for recommend link.
How well said, and pictured: sure: I’m a (middle) manager now, never had time to enjoy things like Woodstock, had to earn my degree and pay back my student loan, and now you expect me to PAY for social activities at work?
← Previous Comments