I’ve just been looking over the 40+ comments left in response to my post “The S Word,” which was about leading with the word ‘social’ when talking about the benefits and possibilities offered by Enterprise 2.0. And I’m just blown away by the thoughtfulness and careful thinking on display, as well as the civility and respect for others’ positions. It’s one of those instances where the comments far surpass the post itself, and it’s become my exhibit A for how 2.0 technology like a blog can generate discussion and knowledge from a heterogeneous and highly dispersed group.
I strongly encourage you to look through these comments; they’re a great way to get up to speed on the state of the debate on what’s going on, and what to call it. A number of people made the point that when engaging in marketing, education, sales, and outreach efforts 2.0 advocates need to use language that will resonate with the target audience. To the extent that ‘social’ resonates, then, use it by all means, and avoid using it when it doesn’t. I particularly liked Gia Lyons’ image of a tag cloud of marketing words. ‘Social’ is absolutely part of this tag cloud, and in my original post I was cautioning against overusing it, not against using it at all.
A second main thread in the comments concerned how we 2.0 enthusiasts talk about the phenomenon not with those we’re seeking to bring on board, but rather among ourselves. In other words, do we agree that a social revolution is taking place in business today? That corporate hierarchies are being replaced by self-organizing and -governing networks?
If they are, I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen plenty of examples where formal org structures have been supplemented by informal ones (whether tech-enabled or not). It’s also quite common for formal, pre-defined business processes to be supplemented by ad hoc and emergent ones, especially when the formal ones aren’t working perfectly.
Every time this happens, it’s social. But it’s not revolutionary. It’s not even new.
What would be new is a trend of companies throwing out altogether their org charts, management hierarchies, reporting relationships, job titles and descriptions, formal roles and responsibilities, review and promotion processes, and other aspects of classic, old-as-the-hills organizational structure and replacing them with an entirely new social contract. I’ve not seen or heard of a single example of this taking place.
I’ve certainly seen some recent complements to classic org structure. These include Google’s 20% time, Cisco’s deliberate push to become more collaborative, and the abandonment of formal vacation policies by Hubspot, Crowdcast, and Netflix (disclosures at end of post). I think these are innovative, cool, and laudable. They come from enlightened leadership and are made possible in part by modern technology. But none of these companies, as far as I’m aware, has abandoned any of the classic elements of org structure listed in the previous paragraph. None of them, in other words, is using the social as a wholesale substitute for the formal.
I’m aware that Wikipedia has none of these elements (except for a process to promote editors to the ranks of administrator and beyond). But Wikipedia is not a company; it’s a Web collective. When companies start deliberately refashioning themselves as Web collectives I’ll start to believe that there’s a social revolution taking place in business. Until then I’ll keep repeating that Enterprise 2.0 is not THAT big a deal.
Am I missing something? Do you know of existing companies that are throwing out all or most of the aspects of org structure listed above and replacing them with a configuration that’s entirely (or at least largely) amorphous and emergent? I don’t, but I’d love to learn of them.
I love William Gibson’s insight that “the future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.” In my field research I’ve seen a business future in which the social / collaborative / informal / emergent is a larger complement to the impersonal / regimented / formal / planned than it is at present. I think this is a great thing, but I don’t think it’s a social revolution. I’d love to see early indicators of a more revolutionary future if they’re out there. Please show them to us…
(Disclosures: I have no financial interest in Google, Cisco, Hubspot, or Netflix. I am on the advisory board of Crowdcast, and have a small amount of stock in the company. Cisco is a sponsor of the Center for Digital Business at MIT, where I work. Brain Halligan, CEO of Hubspot, is a friend of mine who has invited me to Red Sox games)
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree this is not a revolution, more of a gradual evolution towards (or is that a switch back to?) organisations where hierarchies are less relevant than networks and ideas (but they are still important, someone has to carry the can when it all goes wrong for example).
People will find themselves at the 'front' of networks, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design depending on a number of factors; the most critical of which I think are their network capital, the quality of their ideas and their 'leadership' skills. Although in the new environment 'leadership' is probably a lot more Humphrey Lyttelton and a lot less Jack Welch
Gareth Jones and Rob Goffee (http://www.thinkers50.com/profile/49/2009) are articulate and ahead of the curve on this topic – particularly in their books Clever (http://www.thinkers50.com/book_extracts/rob_gar...) and Why Should Anyone Be Lead by You? DEMOS (a UK think tank) also published an excellent paper called Disorganisation a while ago (http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/futureoforg...).
The basis for our relationship is a disagreement on this issue of revolution. http://bit.ly/6TPDFT. The “something new under the Sun” is more about a quiet revolution that is unfolding in enterprise. No one is storming prisons and severing heads, but the masses are restless. Control and hegemony will be overthrown. Watch this space
Part of the issue, I think, is this: social equates, at some level, to fun. Many ideas to improve the workplace (including the ones you mention from Google, Netflix, etc.) are intended to remove some of the drudgery from work and make it more… um… fun.
Yet deep inside us we resist the notion that work is supposed to be fun. Work is work, and fun should be kept outside. We measure productivity, and fun is not in and of itself productive. (It may lead to productivity breakthroughs or radical new ideas down the line, but today, in the moment, it's unproductive.)
We are at a major turning point. If companies don't move from factory management methods to methods that honor and respect the entire person, including the value of fun (whether that's social fun, fun through engagement, or choosing when I want to work and from where), they will find themselves obsolete. People will simply choose to “work” elsewhere.
regards, John
One resolution of the “Social” enterprise controversy would be to give the *credit* to Clay Shirky, Lee Sproull and others who accurately use the term to refer to analysis of how the means of communication used by groups, organizations and communities effects human behavior and vice versa (http://bit.ly/tPjN4).
Anyone who doesn't believe that introduction of the telegraph, telephone, fax, copier, email, classic enterprise applications and Web haven't radically changed informal as well as formal patterns of work and communication isn't paying attention. The new medium is an enabler, but the valuable and interesting change is how people adapt to changes in technology and invent new patterns – as social animals as well as toolsmiths and managers in Peter Drucker's sense of the word.
I agree that introduction of new technology is unlikely to result in organization's throwing out their existing organization structure, but believe that the pattern you refer to as Enterprise 2.0 will result in a bigger changes in practice and opportunities for creative organization change than any of the previous technical changes (How big a deal is Enterprise 2.0? What do you mean by “Big”? http://bit.ly/6ieiCn).
Give the *blame* to lazy marketeers who use “social” as just a hot modifier, along with those who use “X Management” for whatever X they want to sell to people who happen to be managers, and “X 3.0″ as a cheap alternative to “New and Improved”.
Unfortunately I believe the bozo's outnumber the good folk, making it hard to to use “social” without provoking smirks or offering a clear explanation for use of the term. This seems fair and useful when it leads to good discussion.
Greg, thanks once again for your sharp commentary. Like you, I'm eager to see just how big a deal E2.0 is for orgs. To be a bit flip, I think it'll change how bosses evaluate subordinates, but not the fact that there are bosses and subordinates. See what I mean?
John, I think there's a lot of truth to what you say, but I also think that in an time of high unemployment and high job anxiety many people are thankful to have a job, whether or not it's fun. Some orgs will realize that fun is highly compatible with productivity and profits, and some won't. Will the latter type all go out of business? I'm not sure…
Susan, our relationship is based on so much more than that…
I'll check that work out – thanks!
I do not believe that e2.0 will create a revolution where “corporate hierarchies are being replaced by self-organizing and -governing networks.” That would be Management 2.0. (or lack thereof). [On a side note - How would shareholders deal with an emergent management structure?]
However, I do believe that e2.0 is creating a revolution in information flow and among Enterprise software companies. In the companies that we work with, e2.0 is a big deal because it changes they way people work and how productive they are. It's a big deal to them and that's what counts.
Is it a big deal in the sense of the “wheel,” or “fire.” Well no.
Andrew,
revolutions do not happen in one day. Even the French Revolution was prepared by Diderot's Encyclopedia and Voltaire's writings, 50 years ahead. What we are seing today is a radical discrepancy between how people interact, work, learn, and an org structure inherited from early TQM and CMMI days, to say the least.
The recent financial crisis failed to entice us to follow a new path. But for how long?
Past will always cohabit with present (and future), but is this a reason to negate the fact (as you quote yourself), that it is already among us? People are suffering all around from a bad work environment and outdated relationships to hierarchy.
Technology is just an enabler, but so powerful we usually fail in predicting which will prevail just a year ahead from now. And a lot of people are ready to step into the bandwagon. Not managers, of course, but when in the whole history did the ruling class sketch the future?
Yes, understood. I believe in your Berkman talk last month you said something like: “I'm on the side of those who want to be more successful making and selling widgets – what works.” And then said something like the fact that E2.0 also seems to address some of the problems of dysfunctional organizations is icing on the cake.
Attempting to summarize: It's great to feel good about the effects of E2.0, even though the reason for advocating the E2.0 approach is a belief that it works and delivers valuable results.
That why I like Peter Drucker's work combining analysis and a moral purpose, even for tough cases like analysis of specialization which can lead to the pain of outsourcing and the costs of innovation. Drucker saw the practical value of practices that can make organizations more agile and responsive by providing better motivation and satisfaction to employees – particularly when managing knowledge work.
Anne Marie McEwan just wrote a blog post “Collaboration by Design” (http://bit.ly/8xSnwi) which references Hertzberg's work on motivation and seems relevant:
“Job design emerged in the 1970s from Hertzberg ’s theorising on motivation. He claimed that the environmental factors like pay and working conditions which he called hygene factors, while important, are not motivators. Motivators, he said, are job characteristics that are consistent with people’s psychological need for recognition, achievement, responsibility and growth. Hertzberg differentiates between job enlargement and enrichment. He thinks enlargement, for example through job rotation or multi-tasking, is problematic because such efforts do nothing more than expand “the meaninglessness of already meaningless work”.
Andy, I agree that this is a time when workers are anxious about their jobs and not looking too high up Maslow's hierarchy. Companies shouldn't misinterpret that as an endorsement of the status quo, though. Labor markets shift constantly. Younger workers will bounce back the fastest, and will also have the least tolerance for old-style practices.
The companies that hang onto the old ways won't go out of business, perhaps, at least not right away. They may set themselves up for a long, slow, GM-like decline.
Andrew,
there is one company which, i guess, is preparing itself for a social revolution – the aussie software house Atlassian. This company covers social aspects from 20% time, charity events and develops the social enterprise 2.0 tools itself. Human resource management doesn't exist anymore – they rather have a “social people management”.
Check out Atlassians values – http://www.atlassian.com/about/
Please note, I'm not an employee of this company, however I'd love to be one.
Charlotte
I can't help but think about the amazing industrial democracy Ricardo Semler created at Semco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler) in Brazil all those years ago. And his revolution was realised without any of the software collaboration tools discussed here!
I guess an important way to demonstrate the value of collaborative or social tools to businesses is the “what's in it for me factor” (WIIFM) factor. By demonstrating actively and cheaply how these tools/networks/systems can positively modify and improve existing business processes and structures we could get more momentum and reality behind this, at times, noisy revolution.
I believe it needs to happen big time…patience Iago, patience!
While I have heard of dramatic changes within a company, nothing that I would call revolutionary.
Having this debate the other day, some argued that we were in a period that would be looked back upon as revolutionary. I disagreed. I think we are at a point where the evolution of the business world, and IT, is accelerating at a more noticeable rate. I think we will look back on this period as the beginning of a period of continuous, and ever more-rapid, change.
In 10 years, we will scoff at our own conceit to ever think that this was a period of revolution. We will remember the late 00s and early 10s as when it all began.
-Pie
Probably e 2.0 is not something which would bring about a change so that the entire way of thinking about organizations today goes out. Probably the two are going to exist. Basically, social computing is not going to replace hierarchies. The two would probably co-exist, with social computing, 2.0 or whatever name you give, influencing the structure and role of hierarchies?
I have tried to write about this … http://thoughtsandme.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/s...
Basically, as Luis Suarez had written in a post some time back, this is something which is probably going to happen over the next maybe 20 or 50 years. Lets look at it this way … something which has developed over the last century or so will take some time to adapt, change, and in the meantime there would be a series of different forms that would come?
The data are showing pretty clearly that the rate of change in business is picking up, and that dispersion / spread / variation in corporate performance has increased in recent years. My guy tells me that these phenomena are going to become more pronounced, not less, in the future, but we'll have to keep watching. I trust data a lot more than I trust my gut.
I've just commented on a couple of posts by CV Harquail. Her point, which I agree with if I've understood it right, is that neither flatter hierarchies or self-organizing and -governing networks bring on her social change / your social revolution. What's most needed is the right intent / overarching goals / mojo. If you've got this, you can achieve dramatic change in the way benmorrell notes Semco has done. Flatness, networks, web 2.0 all may help, but they don't do it on their own. What we're lacking is intent.
CV's posts:
http://authenticorganizations.com/harquail/2010...
http://authenticorganizations.com/harquail/2010...
In my opinion, business is by its very nature 'social', in the sense that organizations are human social systems. I like to think of them as “social computers” in the sense that we buid them to solve specific problems. In the past when the problem were relatively predictable, or in other words the business environment was stable and predictable, it was possible to build designs which were correspondingly stable and structured.
Now, the business environment being what it is, we necessarily have to come up with new designs. However, this is not and either/or approach. The environment is not completely unpredictable or ambiguous. So we do not have to throw away the designs of the past. They just work for a fewer situations, and there are several where we need the so call 'social approaches'. In my opinion “Open” is a better word for what is happening than “social”.
I wonder what would happen if most organizations would adopt “20% time” for creativity and innovation. I work full-time, attend full-time as a PhD student, and try to take care of basics at home. I have interests in starting a consulting firm, a start-up social media site, and to play golf. For me to have the space for any reflective time to create is most difficult. The majority of students I speak with complain of the same thing, too much to do, with too little time. I ask them about research interests and what they are thinking about. Get this, they say they do not have time to think. They have to read literature, write papers, and go through the hoop of a dissertation. I think we all need some down-time (dont let command-and-control managers here me say that) so that we can have time to think. By the way, I know I really cannot complain about my lack of free time as all of you probably know this intimately as well. But, why is down-time seem as so evil?
I think people have many hidden assumptions with down-time, or fun time as you say. America workplace ethics are founded on the mechanistic principle of always busy, always producing, always moving forward. Although, many of the great scientists would argue that their best work came from self-reflection, down-time, fun, and being out in nature.
?? baidu
?? baidu
http://www.minimal-coverage-swimwear.com/
In other words, it wasn’t a plus
size swimwear. It was a plain underwire bikini that she tried to disguise as a
bandeau. Unsuccesfully.
plus size swimwear
Hi buy cheap commodity is the china wholesale bailey button name give their mistakes.wholeslae china classic boots sale online dvds is what you get when you don get what dvd wholesale cardy you want. sale commodity keeps a dear dvd mini school, yet fools will learn in no other
Sometimes it seems like we’re moving from a culture of innovation to a culture of maintenance.
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.
How about W.L. Gore & Associates, its management style seems to be totally new?
How about W.L. Gore & Associates, its management style seems to be totally new?