Management 2.0 developing social capital

More from the CIPD conference – developing a culture of…

2009-11-24T14:55:00.000-08:00

There were quite a few sessions at the conference about developing a culture of something, eg of:

Coaching (Jane Turner, Newcastle Business School)
High performance (David Smith, ex-ASDA)
Homogeneity in a global context (Mark Adams, Abbey / Santander)
Innovation (Jaideep Prabhu, University of Cambridge)
Integrity (Roger Steare, Cass Business School)
Leadership (Anete Jajkowska, Microsoft)
Resilience (Rebecca McIntosh and Claire Jelley, also at the University of Cambridge, but internal this time).

However, there wasn’t any linking between sessions these even thought the actions organisations need to take to develop each one of these cultures are largely the same thing!

Basically, there are two or three key steps:

1. Decide what / how you want to be

Organisations can’t do everything, so the key question is which of the capabilities from the above list are most important for you? Having a clear BHAG or mojo will make this easier for you.

Describe the required capability in detail – what behaviours and actions will you expect to see when this capability is in place? This becomes what McIntosh and Jelley referred to as their North Star.

This is, of course, where things between each of the culture types are a bit different, and where some knowledge of the particular type of culture, and what attributes / behaviours support it, is required.

For a culture of innovation for example, Jaideep Prabhu suggests that organisations need three particular attitudes:

Future market focus
Willingness to cannibalise
Tolerance for risk.

Once these three things are in place, innovation should follow.

Actually, I think there’s probably a bit more too it than this ( read my post on Hal Gregersen’s presentation, and listen to the last Talking HR show where I discussed developing innovative cultures with MOK from the Innovation Beehive).

2. Decide on the actions which are going to lead to the required attitudes (and them do them)

For innovation, Prabhu suggests the following:

Product champions
Asymmetric incentives
Internal markets.

Once again, I think it’s a little more complicated that this! In fact, it’s the actions Prabhu doesn’t mention, that are common to the development of all these different types of culture that are the most important.

So, what are these?

Hard issues

Well, there are a few ‘hard’ issues, such as getting your ducks in a row, ie linking all of your HR and management activities to the required capability, and then monitoring these activities (see Microsoft’s system model, and people scorecard):

You might even want to produce a few T-shirts?

Soft issues

But the soft areas are the harder ones (if you see what I mean).

David Smith did a good job of describing some of these in connection with ASDA’s journey:

Hire for attitude
Communicate, communicate, communicate
Listening
Engaging style of management and leadership
Remove your underperfomers, push your talent
Recognition
Fun / buzz and a sense of community.

But I think Roger Steare captured what’s at the heart of changing these soft issues even more accurately. For him, good behaviour and culture is when:

People stop and think
People talk about shared values
People unite around a common purpose
People act fairly for the common good.

Out of these, it’s talking (- particularly about what’s important - see Emmanuel Gobillot’s ‘narratives’) which is at the hear of culture change. There was a good post on this in Harvard Business / Peter Bregman’s blog How We Work, this Summer. This put culture change down to the way we tell stories:

"You change a culture with stories. Right now your stories are about how hard you work people. Like the woman you forced to work on her wedding day. You may not be proud of it, but it's the story you tell. That story conveys your culture simply and reliably. And I'm certain you're not the only one who tells it. You can be sure the bride tells it. And all her friends. If you want to change the culture, you have to change the stories.

I told him not to change the performance review system, the rewards packages, the training programs. Don't change anything. Not yet anyway. For now, just change the stories. For a while there will be a disconnect between the new stories and the entrenched systems promoting the old culture. And that disconnect will create tension. Tension that can be harnessed to create mechanisms to support the new stories.”

It emphasises, I think, that much of what we mean when we talk about culture change is actually social capital (which I define as the value of the connections, relationships and conversations taking place between people in an organisation).

And which brings us straight back to the importance of Connectivity again!

Technorati Tags: Culture,coaching,high performance,global,innovation,integrity,leadership,Jane Turner,Newcastle Business School,David Smith,ASDA,Mark Adams,Abbey,Santander,Jaideep Prabhu,Roger Steare,Anete Jajkowska,Microsoft,Rebecca McIntosh,Claire Jelley,Peter Bregman,CIPD,Manchester

Cross posted from Strategic HCM.

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com
.

CIPD conference summary: Connectivity

2009-11-22T15:30:00.000-08:00

Jackie Orme didn’t include this as a theme, but it was certainly one for me. And I think it builds upon the previous three: transparency, authenticity and sustainability. And behind this is the fact that we live in a social world – and this came through strongly too:

In ‘Leadershift’, Emmanuel Gobillot suggested that leadership needs to be connected
In ‘The Future of Work and Organisations’, Richard Worsley from the Tomorrow Project noted that knowledge is a social activity
In ‘Harnessing the Power of Social Media’, Nick Shackleton-Jones explained that learning is largely social too (that information comes with emotional tags)
And in ‘Coaching to build Innovative Mindsets’, Nick Jankel from wecreate positioned social collaboration as a basis for innovation.

Social connecting also came up in presentations from:

Callum Petrie from Philips Electronics, where connecting with employees is seen as a basis for performance (see slide)
Kathryn Pritchard and Judy Noonan from iris, for similar reasons
Jacky Simmons from TUI, where interrelating is positioned as the centrepiece of an approach to developing organisational resilience. Interrelating consists of:
- Connecting across the organisation through the development of strong networks
- Collaborating by developing shared plans, cooperating and sharing knowledge.

But probably the most powerful argument for improving connectivity was provided by Andrew Kakabadse from Cranfield in his presentation on the divisions between members of top teams.

Kakabadse’s research suggests that banks knew about the credit problems 15 months before the financial meltdown, but that division, denial and paralysis had become the cultural norm. More broadly, he suggests that Boards often share few penetrating insights and have little shared view of differentiation and competitive advantage.

If this is the case, how likely will it be that employees will all share one common view?

So what can organisations do to develop greater connectivity and improve collaboration? I’ve already posted on the role of social media, but there are many other opportunities too. In his session on organisation design, Andrew Campbell from Ashridge suggested that organisations need to guard against these blockages on collaboration:

Unclear objectives
Differing objectives or incentives
Competition for money, people, promotion, praise
Unclear authorities
Transfer prices
Physical or cultural distances
Interfering bosses
Control freeks or secrecy.

And in her workshop on ‘Facilitating OD Interventions’, Sylvia Baumgartner suggested that we need to influence group dynamics, particularly as work becomes increasingly situational and less routine. Appropriate OD interventions include:

Diagnostic activities
Team-building activities
Survey feedback activities
Education and training activities
Structuring activities
Process Consultation activities
Third-party mediation activities
Competency development
Coaching and counselling
Life and Career Planning activities
Planning and Goal Setting activities
Strategic Management activities
Organisational Transformation activities
Organisational Effectiveness
TQM (Total Quality Management)
Conversations…..

All of the above issues and activities are things that I deal with on this and my other blog, Strategic HCM.

It’s why I was rather critical of the session on Next Generation HR. The rise of connectivity is leading to much bigger changes that those identified there.

These include the social business (enabling organisations to connect with their people) and social HR / HR 2.0 (the move to facilitating rather than managing HR outcomes).

And it’s also why I was delighted with Shaa Wasmund’s description of me in her tweet:

(This post is cross posted from Strategic HCM.)

Technorati Tags: Emmanuel Gobillot,Richard Worsley,Nick Shackleton-Jones,Nick Jankel,Callum Petrie,Philips,Kathryn Pritchard,Judy Noonan,iris,Jacky Simmons,TUI,Andrew Kakabadse,Andrew Campbell,Sylvia Baumgartner,collaboration,social

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

CIPD09: A New Leadership Paradigm (Part 2)

2009-11-19T11:06:00.000-08:00

Live blog from the CIPD 2009 conference final panel keynote:

CIPD09: A New Leadership Paradigm

And it’s a wrap!

This post has been cross-posted from Strategic HCM. Also Also see part 1 of this post there.

Technorati Tags: Christopher Kelly,Steve Easterbrook,Shaa Wasmund,John Humphrys,Leadership,CIPD,Manchester

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

CIPD09: A New Leadership Paradigm

2009-11-19T00:37:00.000-08:00

I enjoyed day 2 of the CIPD Conference more than day 1 (I met some people who thought the reverse, so of course it’s a personal thing, partly depending upon which sessions you attend, and a whole heap of other things as well). I particularly enjoyed Nick Baylis on ‘the Rough Guide to Happiness’ and Sarah Redshaw from Unilever on ‘Building Transformation through Engagement’. I’ve not blogged on these sessions, but you can see plenty of tweets from me and others on Twitter, using the hashtag #CIPD09 (if you don’t know what this means, you really should you know).

The highlight from today should be the end of day keynote, ‘a New Leadership Paradigm’. The outline certainly looks interesting (and just seeing John Humphrys live should be good):

Public respect for leaders has hit an all time low. The exposed inadequacy of those in leadership positions has brought current thinking on leadership and the established models into question.

Today, it seems that there is a substantial lack of ‘real’ and successful leaders equipped with both the resilience and capability to deal with the complexity and pressures of the ever changing global market. So are we now at a cross roads? Is this an ideal opportunity to challenge the current view of what it takes to be a good leader and to establish what behaviours and competences will be needed to lead organisations and societies into our uncertain future?

Join us to debate:

Why and how have traditional models failed?
How can we learn from the past and build on its successes?
How can we re-establish leadership credibility?
What skills and attributes will successful leaders of the future need?

I’ll be live blogging from the session, but here are a few thoughts to warm-things up.

Firstly, I think it is a really big and important question. I do think existing leadership is failing. Look at Hay’s stats from yesterday, or simply the end results (the recession we’re now in). And we know that leadership accounts for a significant part of this (Jim Collins’ point that leaders can destroy organisations on their own).

I agree that resilience and capability are part of what needs to be fixed. But I think attitudes need changing too. We need to look again at what we mean by leadership and change the way that leaders lead.

And we’ve had a few pointers during the conference, particularly from Jim Collins on Level 5 leadership, and the need for leaders to act through others to create greatness; and Emmanuel Gobillot on the connected leader in his session on Leadershift.

Leaders may have a particular role but they achieve success through their community.

It seems to be a view that’s taking off.

I was talking about this with Jonathan Austin at the Best Companies exhibition stand yesterday too. He had just attended a session with Edgar Schein where Schein had been talking about leaders as ‘humble engineers’ who need to work through others to make their organisations work. And I’ve already posted on Social Advantage on Henry Mintzberg’s concept of Communityship.

Emphasising that companies are not collectives of human resources, but communities of human beings, Mintzberg suggests that traditional views of leadership isolate people in leadership positions, thereby undermining a sense of community in organisations. He believes leadership and communityship go hand-in-hand: "A community leader is personally engaged in order to engage others, so that anyone and everyone can exercise initiative".

And it’s by developing this sense of community that individuals become bound to each other and start to want to focus on developing the productivity of their organisation as a whole, rather than acting purely out of self-interest.

That’d be the basis of my answer if I was on the stage today. And it’s also one of the things I write about at my other blog, Social Advantage, and you might want to check over there.

Join me for the live blog if you can!

This post is cross posted from Strategic HCM.

Technorati Tags: CIPD,Manchester,New Paradigm,Leadership,John Humphrys,Jim Collins,Level 5,Emmanuel Gobillot,Leadershift,Edgar Schein,Humble Engineer,Henry Mintzberg,Communityship,Jonathan Austin,best Companies

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Using social media at CIPD09

2009-11-18T23:00:00.000-08:00

My favourite session yesterday was Nick Shackleton-Jones (@shackletonjones) on the use of social media supporting online learning at the BBC. I was going to blog on this, but Rob Moss from Personnel Today got their first, so see his summary on this.

Instead, I thought I’d write about the use of social media at the CIPD conference itself.

There have been quite a few of us blogging and tweeting, and in many ways, this has led to the development of a small community, sharing experiences and learning with everyone else through social media, but also face-to-face between ourselves. At times, it’s felt like a conference within a conference.

So, thanks for a great conference everybody!

Martin Couzins (@martincouzins) and Rob Moss (@robmoss) plus Kat Baker and Louisa Peacock from Personnel Today / XpertHR (@PersonnelToday / @XpertHR / @HRSpace), all busy in the Press Office:

Charlie Duff (@charlie_elise) from HR Zone (@HRZone) :

Adrienne Fox (@foxlondon)writing for HR Magazine (US):

Jennifer Liston-Smith (@listonsmith) writing for the BPS:

Mike Morrison from RapidBI (@rapidbi) on the right, also with Nick Spindler from Nationwide:

(Check our Mike’s notes from the conference at cipd2008.blogspot.com)

Steve Bridger (@stevebridger) from CIPD Communities (@CIPDcommunities):

Last night, we met up at the CIPD’s tweet-up.

Julia (Twitter username pending!):

Mike (@rapidbi) with Klothilde (@kganzer):

Steve and David (sharing @RightwayCWS) with Irsa (username pending)

The CIPD’s Natalia (@NAlexandrou or @CIPD_Events) with Charlie (@charlie_elise or @HRZone) and Steve (@stevebridger or @CIPDcommunities):

Well done to the CIPD for raising the role of social media this year. There’s still a way to go, but it’s been a very good start.

A few other non-Twitter peeps (I won’t say ‘muggles’ again!).

Perry Timms from the BIG Lottery Fund before his session ‘Communicating with Impact’:

Former colleague, Alison Crossley:

The Elsevier stand – my book’s just about visible on the back shelf:

Technorati Tags: Social media,social networking,web 2.0,HR,learning,CIPD,Manchester,Nick Shackleton-Jones,BBC

Cross-posted from my Strategic HCM blog.

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

HR & social media workshops

2009-11-16T07:40:00.000-08:00

I’m doing quite a few workshops on HR’s use of social media over the next few months.

One session I’ve just agreed on is going to be with the HR Society (not till March though).

I’m going to be looking at the 3 parts of the agenda I believe are important:

The Social business – what this is, and why it’s a great opportunity for HR
Social HR – how HR can use social media tools to support recruitment, learning etc.
Social media practice – an experiential session ensuring all participants have some personal understanding of how they might use the tools themselves.

If you’re a member, do ensure you’ll come along, and if not join! – or ask me to do a session just for you and your organisation etc.

Technorati Tags: Social media,web 2.0,social networking,social business,enterprise 2.0,workshop,training,development,HR,HR 2.0,HR Society

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Enterprise 2.0 conference: Connecting the Dots

2009-11-09T22:05:00.000-08:00

In his comment to my last but one post, reviewing Andrew McAfee’s book and his presentation at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in San Francisco, Mike Ricard, Enterprise 2.0 Community Manager at Reed Elsevier responds to my view that Enterprise 2.0 needs to be much broader than IT by stating:

“Those tools are social enablers. The alternative I have seen HR suggest are people networking 'get togethers'. That's OK if you are in the same country and you can manage to coordinate your schedules, but what if you are not and you can't? And often it is the same A-types who dominate the proceedings.”

I have responded that:

“I don't mean to trash web 2.0. I agree it an absolutely key social enabler. But I think there are more... and that HR can do much more than organise get-togethers too.”

I hope to take this argument to the next Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston next Summer. I’ve submitted my proposal (the first one on the site) and you’ll have the opportunity to vote for it from early next year.

Here’s the text:

Connecting the Dots to Competitive Advantage

Session Description

Enterprise 2.0 can increase efficiencies and help meet business objectives but it can also generate competitive advantage. To create higher levels of value, the use of social technologies needs to be linked to other organizational enablers, eg HR practices, OD interventions, facilities design etc. This session will show how.

Professional Biography

Jon Ingham consults with organizations to help them develop human and social capital as a key source of competitive advantage.

He generally works with employers that already have sound management approaches and helps them extend their agendas to gain further improvements in the capabilities and engagement of their people, and the effectiveness of their organizations. He is based in the UK but works on a global basis.

Jon also works as a researcher, speaker, trainer and writer. He has recently spoken in the US, Europe,Africa, the Middle East and Asia. He has also lectured in strategic management, change management and human resources on executive MBA courses in both West and East Europe.

Jon started his career in Engineering, then spent six years working in IT before moving into Change Management where he has spent most of his career. He has also worked internationally as an HR Director.

Jon has a BA in Psychology, a Masters in Engineering and an MBA. He is a Certified Management Consultant, a member of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and its occupational psychology division, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (RSA).

Company Background

Strategic Dynamics Consultancy Services Ltd is a human capital and change management consultancy with a difference. What makes us unique are our beliefs that:

People are a key source of innovation and competitive advantage - we use this insight to help transform people and organisational capability
People are the focus of effective change – we work with, not against, the quirks of human spirit and the dynamics of human behaviour
People work best in open, challenging, collaborative relationships – our consultancy services are based on this approach.

The consultancy is led by Jon Ingham, an experienced business manager and consultant, and is supported by a small team of employed and associate consultants.

Technorati Tags: Enterprise 2.0,conference,Boston Consulting Group,2010

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Andrew McAfee on measuring social media (and ROI)

2009-11-06T15:13:00.000-08:00

The other section of his book that I think McAfee has written very well is the one on measurement.

I haven’t always been a fan of his approach on measurement which, like his general conceptualisation of Enterprise 2.0, seems to me to focus too much on activities (use of web 2.0 tools) and business benefits with very little focus on the intermediary stage of outcomes (social capital) which I consider to be the most important aspect of this field. See for example this quote from one of his blog posts:

“Why not measure instead what we’re really interested in – innovativeness, productivity, service levels, etc.? For one thing, they can be hard to measure… So I advocate measuring and evaluating people based on their contributions to E2.0, and have some faith that E2.0 helps with innovation, productivity, service, etc..”

However I do like the way that, in the book, McAfee suggests organisations should measure progress, not ROI:

“It’s possible to quantify many things about an Enterprise 2.0 initiative: the number of blog posts and comments; the number of wiki edits, editors and new pages; the population of tags created; the volume of trades and traders in prediction markets; the number of members in a technology-facilitated social network and the volume of updates they share with one another; the popularity of all these ESSPs as measured by the number of times they’re viewed; and so on.

It’s also both possible and smart to collect case studies; anecdotes, and examples over the course of the effort to demonstrate the values of ESSPs.

I do not, however, advocate that decision makers should ask for quantitative ROI analyses, either before approving an Enterprise 2.0 effort or to assess its progress.”

To support this view, McAfee includes a quote from Kaplan and Norton that I also include in my own book (p145) to explain the same point:

“Improvements in intangible assets affect financial outcomes through chains of cause-and-effect relationships.”

These relationships mean that valuing benefits is always going to incur “estimates, at worst pure speculation”, particularly in separating impacts from “contemporaneous individual-and organisation-level changes”.

McAfee recommends that instead, Enterprise 2.0 advocates put together a business case that has three main elements:

Stages in my value chain	McAfee elements
Input	“Cost and time lines: The cost portion of the cost-benefit analysis.”
Activity	“Technology footprint: A technology’s footprint is its geographic, divisional, and / or functional reach.”
Outcome Impact	“Benefits expected: When describing benefits, it’s often useful to include short case studies or examples of the results of other ESSP deployments.”

McAfee concludes:

“A discussion of whether it’s worthwhile to pursue Enterprise 2.0 should revolve around whether these benefits are worth the cost, not whether the ROI figure for the project clears some hurdle rate. I have never spoken with a leader or participant in a health Enterprise 2.0 initiative who wishes that she had calculated an ROI figure, whereas I have spoken with many people who have described their ROI exercises as unproductive uses of time and effort.”

I agree 100% with the conclusion, although I retain my concerns about not splitting out Outcomes and Business Impacts to make these benefits clearer still.

Photo credit: At.morey.tota

Technorati Tags: Andrew McAfee,Enterprise 2.0,measurement,ROI

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Andrew McAfee: Enterprise 2.0 (beta)

2009-11-05T13:05:00.001-08:00

I’ve been following proceedings at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in San Francisco this week (and wishing I was there – or actually anywhere but here given the weather at the moment).

And I’ve also been reading the rest of Andrew McAfee’s book on Enterprise 2.0 (McAfee’s presentation at the conference is available on E2TV).

What I like about the book:

The technology

I really like McAfee’s explanation of the technology and its uses. As a regular reader of his blog, there’s a not a lot new here for me, but it’s still interesting stuff.

And that’s it on that - I’m going to move on because McAfee’s views on the technology aren’t something I’d want to criticise either positively or negatively as he clearly knows an awful lot more about all of this than me.

Adoption of the technology

And in any case, my favourite sections of the book are those chapters (6,7 and 8) at the end of the book dealing with adoption of web 2.0 tools (ESSPs: emergent social software platforms):

“I’ve noticed that concerns around Enterprise 2.0 fall into two broad categories: fears that people won’t use the newly available ESSPs , and fear that they will. The latter, which stem from the lack of upfront control common to ESSPs, tend to crop up first. When first exposed to these technologies, business decision makers voice concerns about what happens when direct control is surrendered and many people can freely contribute to information platforms. The scenario of broad participation in these platforms behind the firewall gives rise to a consistent set of worrying questions:

What if employees use their internal blogs to post hate speech or pornography, or to harass a coworker?

What if blogs are used to denigrate the company itself, air dirty laundry, or talk about how misguided its leadership and strategy are?"

etc (it’s a good, and quite a long list!)

However, McAfee notes that whilst he deliberately looks for horror stories, he has yet to find any that make him question whether the risks associated with web 2.0 tools outweigh the benefits.

The risks are normally mitigated by:

Comments being attributable
Self-policing
Role modelling and intervention by formal leaders
Most people knowing how to act professionally, including when they’re online.

Behavioural problems in adoption

The second of McAfee’s concerns seem more appropriate. Take-up of web 2.0 tools is not always fast and spontaneous:

“It’s easy to be impressed by the large, dynamic, and vibrant Web 2.0 communities on the Internet and so to overlook the fact that they’re actually quite tiny when expressed as a percentage of all Internet users. A key challenge, then, for all Enterprise 2.0 advocates is… to understand why the ‘ ambient percentage’ of contributors to organizational ESSPs isn’t higher.

Are the technologies themselves too primitive, or are they difficult to learn and use?

Do some managers in an organization actually act to block Enterprise 2.0, because they don’t want information to flow more freely?

Or are the real roadblocks internal, rooted somewhere in the heads of individuals [users]?”

McAfee reports that the main barrier isn’t technology. And it’s not managers (other than as another category of user) – something that surprised him (and me). It is getting people to change the way they work, and “their choices, biases and endowments”. This is hard, and therefore:

“Many organizations, especially larger ones, have found that ESSPs remain a niche technology even well after their introduction, used by only a relatively small portion of the workforce, and lagging far behind the universal deployment of older channel technologies like e-mail.”

What I like less

The starting point

The first thing I’m less positive about is McAfee’s answer to the key question that organisations ask: “how should we start?”.

“I respond by asking them to talk a bit more about what they mean by Enterprise 2.0 and by introducing the concepts of the tie strength bull’s-eye and the set of possible benefits. I have found that these frameworks help focus the discussion about ESSPs for the enterprise in productive ways.”

Now, I do like McAfee’s discussion of social ties, but I don’t like the way he allocates different web 2.0 technologies, and his case studies, with the different types of tie.

The choice of application is about purpose (connecting / collecting) not context (tie strength)

(The main difference between the VistaPrint and Serena Software examples isn’t one of tie strength. To me, the difference is between connecting (people) and collecting (knowledge). Wikis are for collecting (Vistaprint) and social networks are for connecting (Serena).)

Purpose becomes clear if organisations answer their question using my model instead of McAfee’s (see this post or the slides from my recent Social Media in Business presentation).

It’s not not about being social

I’m cheating here, as this comment is about McAfee’s Enterprise 2.0 conference presentation rather than the book, but I do disagree with him that there is danger in the word ‘social’.

I’ve already dealt with this, so check out this post for my thoughts on this.

It’s not not not (not?) about technology

But my biggest concern is that I still think McAfee’s focus on technology in Enterprise 2.0’s is too heavy (particularly given his comments on the limited take-up in many organisations).

MacAfee seems to recognise this, explaining that Enterprise 2.0 is not primarily a technological phenomenon.

But then he still says that Enterprise 2.0 is the phenomenon that occurs when organisations adopt the tools and approaches of Web 2.0. If that’s not putting IT at the heart of his definition, I don’t know what is!

And this leads us to the central problem with Enterprise 2.0 which is that it’s still IT which is making all the running in this field.

Why is it that it’s someone from IT’s who has written the standard text on something that’s basically about behavioural change.

Why isn’t someone from HR writing this. Oh wait, they are! And I hope to start sharing some drafts of it with you in a couple of month’s time.

Also see:

Andrew McAfee’s blog
Andrew McAfee: Enterprise 2.0 (the alpha version of this post)
Enterprise 2.0 crock? Depends how you define it…
Enterprise 2.0 / the Kumbaya zone

Photo credit: Alex Dunne

Technorati Tags: Andrew McAfee,Enterprise 2.0,book,conferences,#e20conf

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Looking back to November 2008

2009-11-01T07:16:00.000-08:00

You may also be interested in these posts from the end of last year:

Or even the year before?

My contact details:

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

From human to social capital

2009-10-31T03:23:00.000-07:00

I’ve got an article, ‘Building Human into Social Capital’ in the new issue of Strategic HR Review.

This is an excerpt:

Building social capital

But what about social capital? This is another outcome and refers to the connections, relationships and conversations between people working in an organization. The differences between this and both human and organizational capital are important, as each need developing in different ways.

Social capital is developed by paying attention to how people are relating to each other – to the spaces between people on the organization chart. However, social capital is highly intangible and the links between it and the activities that develop it are complex and distant in time and space. It is not something that is easy to measure or develop and, because of this, it tends to get ignored.

However, the point of performance in most organizations is the team, not the individual. So it is social capital, rather than human capital, that is the greatest enabler for competitive success. Consider these two examples to illustrate its role:

Developing a culture of innovation. Changing culture depends on having a big idea and aligning everyone in an organization around it. However, this is not just about behavioral and attitudinal change. Encouraging people to be more innovative is also about helping them create new types of meaning about their work – and meaning is established through conversations with other people. So if you change the conversations (part of the social capital), you change the meanings and, therefore, the culture too.
Knowledge management. Many businesses have tried to manage the explicit knowledge residing in their databases but a lot of these organizations are now realizing that much more important is the tacit knowledge in their peoples’ heads. Knowledge management in this paradigm is about connecting the right people and enabling them to participate in effective conversations (social capital again) to share and build on the knowledge that exists.

See the journal for more from the article (or keep tuned to this blog for more of the same).

Technorati Tags: Social capital,Strategic HR Review,article,Jon Ingham

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

My Social Media in Business presentation

2009-10-23T11:39:00.001-07:00

Social media: First Violin (not the whole Orchestra!)

This is the presentation I gave at the Social Media in Business conference earlier today.

Jon Ingham Smib Presentation

View more documents from Jon Ingham.

The key points are that:

Organisations create value (and drive competitiveness) through social media by focusing on capability, particularly social and relational / customer capital
- Not by focusing on the technology
- Not by focusing on business results
  - Saying “we need to think about the behaviours resulting from the technology” is still focusing on the technology!

We need to be able to articulate the type of capability we want to create (ie what are the groups, connections, relationships, behaviours, conversations etc)
Once we have done this, we should be able to look forwards in the strategy map / value chain to estimate the business impacts of having this capability
And look backwards to identify the organisational processes that can be used to create the required capability (and which may, sometimes, be supported by social media).

Although the afternoon sessions was designed to to focus on measurement, I didn’t get time to do talk about this – or I think really, I forgot – it would have only take another few seconds to have said:

“Measurement is easy – it’s setting objectives (articulating the type of capability and identifying the most appropriate processes, tools and interventions) that’s hard”!

And ROI is just a calculation based on the Investment and Impact stages of the value chain.

Technorati Tags: SMiB09,social media,business,competitive advantage

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
Contact me to create more value for your business
jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Social Media in Business interview

2009-10-20T11:07:00.001-07:00

I’ve been interviewed by Benjamin Ellis in preparation for Friday’s Social Media in Business conference:

Technorati Tags: Social media in business,SMIB09,Benjamin Ellis,social capital,competitive advantage

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Visa Europe: What do you want to be when you grow up?

2009-10-15T03:22:00.001-07:00

Did you get through yesterday’s rather monster ‘HR in the Social Business’ carnival? Well, apologies, but I think this is going to be an even longer post… (it’s well worth reading though!)

I recently attended a great event, ‘Delivering Outstanding Performance’, organised by Michelle Lawton from Consult HR and ‘MOK’ from The Innovation Beehive.

Opening the event, MOK suggested that to contribute to their employers’ success, people need to be clear about what they want to be, who they are, and how that fits with their organisation.

We then had a presentation from Derrick Ahlfeldt, SVP HRM at Visa Europe with a case study from his organisation that demonstrated these points. In fact, Derrick’s story provided a great demonstration of much of what I’ve been blogging about here over the last couple of years too.

So I’ve gone a bit to town in describing Derrick’s presentation – and have also provided some notes / links to previous thoughts that support and occasionally challenge some of this case study:

Visa Europe story	My perspectives (NOT Derrick’s necessarily!)
As an association, Visa Europe is about developing the whole market (the European credit card business) through collaboration. By 2004, following a major restructuring and re-engineering, people had initiative fatigue. There was a need to re-engage people and gain additional discretionary contribution. Since then, the company has been working to become a ‘Peak Performing Organisation’.	Derrick didn’t present it like this, but I’d suggest that collaboration is Visa Europe’s mojo. External collaboration is clearly critical to the company’s success and I think they understand (implicitly at least) that because of this, internal collaboration is equally as important.
A major part of this shift has been creating an environment in which people are put at the centre of the organisation – an environment in which people don’t feel they are ‘being done to’, but are ‘doing it for themselves’ – ‘making ownership and accountability personal’.	Visa Europe has clearly been ‘putting human capital first’ – treating people as providers of critical human capital rather than simply (human) resources (my Strategic HCM blog is all about putting people and human capital first). This is absolutely appropriate for an organisation whose mojo is about collaboration as people will need to take accountability in order to trust each other in order to support collaboration (the other way of saying this is that building human capital is a pre-requisite for effective development of social capital… - see below).
Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saachi and Saachi, suggests that a ‘Peak Performing Organisation’ has a ‘sense of family’ within the team. This has been another part of Visa Europe’s recent shift.	Visa Europe has also been developing social capital around a sense of family. Again, this is absolutely appropriate for an organisation whose mojo is about collaboration (my Social Advantage blog is all about developing the right social capital to support an organisation’s mojo).
This shift has been supported by documenting: · An inspirational dream (“to be the world’s most trusted company”) · Shared spirit (“what makes Visa Europe different to other organisations?” eg competitive yet collaborative, trusted, multi-cultural family) · A common set of beliefs (eg empowering and investing in the individual, nurturing the dynamics and diversity of the Visa family) · The “Greatest Imaginable Challenge” (an extraordinary stretch target which is unique to the organisation and inspiring to its people) · Focus It took over a year to “wordsmith” this document in order to ensure that everyone was comfortable with it.	I think this process demonstrates the need to develop a solid push behind whatever a company is trying to do (whether this is articulated through a BHAG, mojo or something else) as a way of translating this intent into organisational capability. I particularly like the way that Visa Europe’s shared spirit and common beliefs blend human and social capital (competitive yet collaborative, individual and family). I presume the “Greatest Imaginable Challenge” which Derrick didn’t want to discuss is Visa Europe’s BHAG. But note that this is developed from the mojo (an inside-out approach) rather than the other way around. I also think Derrick probably under-sold the work he and his team did to socialise this document – in my experience, the process of creating a joint ‘vision’ for the organisation is more important than the document it produces. It’s about creating a shared mindset, rather than a wordsmithed document!

The ‘Peak Performing Organisation’ programme

My perspectives

The programme currently consists of two phases:

Phase 1 - Individual

Visa Europe has made participation in this phase of the ongoing programme voluntary in order to create a different dynamic from the past.

This phase consists of:

· Plenary introduction sessions (in the first year of the programme, Visa Europe ran three events, each with 150 people, which was helpful in getting the programme started – they now run just four smaller sessions per year)

· Three small group sessions (6-8 people) facilitated by an inspirational player (someone who has “been there and got the T-shirt”)

· Development and communication of a personal values-story, identification of implications and creation of an action plan

The key questions that individuals consider in this values story are:

· Given you are this person and these are your skills and talents, what can you bring to this organisation?

· How does this link? (are you doing what you wanted to do when you grow up?)

· Are you in the right job and the right organisation?

(A volunteer kindly described for us his story – including his ‘home me’ and his ‘CV me’ – explaining that once he had identified his talents from this story and discussed this with his group, his ‘CV me’ became the ‘real me’ – the distinction was removed:

“I’m now more passionate and enthusiastic for everything I do in life directed to what I’m good at and would like to do anyway.”)

I think this phase of the programme provides a really nice (whoops – sorry MOK) explanation of a human capital vs a human resources approach.

Ie the phase is about employees as individuals, not the business. However, there is a limit to this.

Derrick was keen to stress that employee empowerment should not lead to organisational chaos – employees still need to do what the organisation needs them to:

“It’s about understanding what the opportunities are and trying to do more of what they want within their existing or another role”

(Or as MOK described it, it’s about “total freedom in a gilded cage”.)

I’d suggest the next stage might be to open the door of the cage and see what happens…

The phase also starts to develop social capital too (via sharing values stories within the team).

There are some really good examples (eg Herman Miller) where sharing this type of information has had a very powerful team boosting effect.

Phase 2 – Team

In this phase, a whole team is taken away to consider:

· Alignment – the team purpose, customer dreams and nightmares:

o The team as a whole considers what they want to achieve

o They then get some customers in to describe what keeps them awake at night

o The team discusses what it wants to achieve for its customers

· Values – realigning purpose based on customer input

· Implications – barriers and challenges for action planning

Another good approach – this time to develop social capital. But could it be even more strongly based upon the existing capabilities of the team (what the team can do rather than what customers currently need)?

The results

My perspectives

People have generally been very positive about the change. However, disbelievers are tolerated as long as they do the job they are expected to do. And some people have left the organisation.

I think people are always going to leave organisations during a transformation like this. And if they’ve left with a better perspective of whom they are and where they should be, this can only be a good thing for them, and is probably a good thing for the organisation too. If they’ve left because they’ve found the whole thing a bit too ‘fluffy’ then I think that’s a shame for them.

But I’m convinced that doing this sort of thing will gradually become part of everyone’s normal expectations.

Since 2004,

· Survey completion rates have increased from 83% to 96%

· Overall engagement has increased from 72 to 90%

· External customer satisfaction has increased from 6.8 to 8.1

There are other positive statistics too, but what the Chief Executive says is also important are the stories and what he’s seeing in the organisation.

The CEO’s focus on both quantitative and qualitative evidence is totally appropriate. Not everything that’s important can be measured, and I think this applies particularly to organisational capability, ie to both human and social capital. However, clearly when something important can be measured, it makes sense to measure it.

And what’s behind Visa Europe’s success? I’ve discussed the role of mojo, organisational capability / human and social capital and making a solid investment behind this. The other two aspects that I believe are particularly important are:

· Alignment – between each of these different concepts and Visa Europe’s programmes and practices

· Best fit – the things that Visa Europe has been doing won’t apply for all organisations, but they apply for this organisation, with its focus on trust and collaboration, superbly well.

So the message isn’t do what Visa Europe’s done. It’s applying the same level of insight and sharpness to your own organisation. And if you do this, you should gain the same levels of Human and Social Advantage too.

Phase 3?

We didn’t talk about this at all, but I’d suggest Visa Europe’s next step is towards even greater liberation of individual employees and of teams.

Derrick explained that as a result of the first two phases, Visa Europe is now confident that every person and every decision is linked with a golden thread to the organisation vision.

That’s great, but it still sounds rather too top-down?

I agree that they do need to manage performance against the organisation’s vision and objectives (top-down) but they would also benefit from taking ever greater advantage of the potential residing in each of the company’s employees – leading performance instead of just managing it (I’ll be talking about this in Greece next week) – ie bottom-up.

At the team-level, I’d suggest that Visa Europe continue to build social capital – perhaps by emphasising links across teams (bridging capital) as well as within the teams (bonding capital).

So I’d suggest they look at different opportunities that will help them do this – recognising that these may range from organisation development to social media; social events to reward practices; and social network analysis to facilities design.

Note - and I’ve emphasised this quite a few times - that the ‘social business’ (if this is what Visa Europe is) isn’t just about the use of social media.

So, for example, Michelle described a nice example from the BBC where people have been given the opportunity to go and experience different areas of the organisation for a few weeks (“the hot shoe shuffle”).

Note also that this isn’t in any way supposed to be criticism of Visa Europe’s story. They’ve done much more than most organisations would even dream of. I’m just explaining the direction I personally feel they should go.

Anyone else any suggestions for Derrick?

Thanks to MOK and Michelle for the invite to the event, and to Derrick and his IT colleague for the story.

Photo credit: Joe Mabel

Technorati Tags: Derrick Ahlfeldt,Visa Europe,MOK,Innovation Beehive,Michelle Lawton,Consult HR,Kevin Roberts,Peak Performing Organisation,human capital,social capital

This post is cross-posted at Strategic HCM.

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

The HR in the Social Business Carnival

2009-10-14T07:46:00.001-07:00

Introduction

My previous carnivals - the super s*** one (I don’t want to offend anyone this time around!), and the Italian one, were both ‘implicitly themed’, ie I drew out the theme from the posts that were submitted to me.

However, in the last edition of the carnival, we were asked to think about an explicit theme (talent management in the improving economy), so I thought I’d be a bit more explicit here too.

And the thing that has been exercising my mind recently is ‘the social business’. Partly because there’s been a lot of commentary on it recently (see below), and partly because it relates very closely to the focus of my new(ish), or at least less well known, blog: Social Advantage.

So, I’ve asked that contributors to this carnival might like to submit posts relating to HR’s role in the social business, or at least “posts that have a social networking aspect to them, eg anything about teams (team performance, team reward etc), HR and web 2.0, social psychology, social network analysis, etc)”.

And we’ll start with this – the meat of the carnival:

HR in the Social Business

So what is the ‘social business’? Most of the bloggers contributing to this carnival will know, but most other readers probably won’t – as discussion has been largely confined to the blogosphere so far. If you don’t know, check out my post Views on HR News: HR’s Role in the Social Business at HR Zone (free membership required).

Jo Jordan continues the theme with Give HR a strategic stake in business with social media at Flowing Motion.

Matt Alder considers Social media and HR – arch enemies or vital partners? at Recruiting Futurology.

Anne Marie McEwan posts on Second Wave Smart Working: What Role HRM? at the Smartwork Company blog.

Gautam Ghosh posts on Tomorrow’s HR professional at Gautam Blogs.

And Jessica Miller-Merrell describes HR & the social media battlefield at Blogging 4 Jobs.

If you want to learn more, then yes, you can learn about social media using social media, but you can also learn from conference attendance too.

Mark Bennett discusses (social and community) Thinking at HR Technology 2009 on TalentedApps.

And Michael Vandervort shares his learnings from IZEAfest in Be a Guru, Not just a Swami! at The Human Race Horses.

Then we’ve got some posts looking at specific social networking sites

Sharlyn Lauby posts on Facebook games and its business applications at Restaurant City on the HR Bartender.

BP Rao posts on another social network: 43 Things at A Social Network To Achieve Goals on People at Work and Play.

Steve Boese posts on IBM’s social network, Beehive, in Work and Networks at his Technology blog.

And Stacy Chapman builds on Steve’s post, noting the use of Social Networking Data in Workforce Planning at Strategic Workforce Planning.

Convinced this is something HR needs to get involved with yet? Well, check out the following posts as well:

Lance Haun writes Let’s Stop Talking About Social Media Experts at Rehaul.

John Agno considers The Way We Communicate at Coaching Tip.

Andy Headworth suggests Social media stops talk. Here are ten ways to help you build that conversation again at Sirona Says.

Susan Heathfield highlights a disturbing trend recently, asking Do You Snoop Online On Prospective Employees? at Guide to Human Resources.

And responding to the same issue, Laurie Ruettimann warns against being a chump in Question: Social Media, Employers, and Passwords at Punk Rock HR.

The most obvious application of social media within HR is in recruitment, and we also have a few posts on this:

Amit Bhagria asks Is Social Networking an Effective Recruitment Strategy? at the Young HR Manager.

Peter Gold describes How job boards killed job ad creativity and how Twitter brings it back (maybe) at the Social Workplace Blog.

Cathy Missildine-Martin responds to Dear Job Seeker in Human Resources at Profitability through Human Capital.

Susanna Cesar asks Will you be ready to recruit when the recession ends? – including through technology - at Recruitment 2.0.

But of course, the social business isn’t all about technology, and The HR Store answers a manager’s question about real (vs virtual) world teaming in Team member skips meetings regularly.

Ready for the mustard? (English of course – or British at least)

Other UK HR blogs

We’ve already had quite a high proportion of social business related posts from the UK, and we’ve got these additional contributions too:

First of all, have you heard about the Times journalists rant against the HR profession recently?

Rick asks If HR is so crap, why does it continue to exist? at Flip Chart Fairy Tales.

Graham Salisbury also addresses this issue but then moves on to ask What keeps American HR Managers awake at night: the thought of bare legs at HR Case Studies.

Other stories include the one about Mike the Rooster. Heard it? Bay Jordan tells all in Crowing Management at Zealise blog.

MOK focuses on Innovating in the Global Recession at The Innovation Beehive.

And Nick Jefferson suggests that There's Just No Accounting For HR at Jeffersonia Unlimited.

Time to get the party started?

Leadership posts

Mick Collins posts on Leaders are Expensive, but Poor Leaders Cost Exponentially More at InfoHRM blog.

Wally Bock provides The Third Grade Teacher Model of Leadership at Three Star Leadership.

Steve Roesler helps managers and HR pros to think diagnostically about Coaching? Three Choices To Consider at All Things Workplace.

Dan McCarthy describes What HR Wants From an Executive Coach at Great Leadership.

And Mary Jo Asmus responds with What Executive Coaches Want From HR at Aspire CS.

Strategy post the recession posts

Frank Mulligan posts on China Recruitment - All on the Up (Slowly) at Talent in China.

Amit Avasthi discusses Beyond the Recession at HR Bytes Blog.

And Gireesh Sharma notes some Post-Recession Challenges of Talent Management at Talent Junction.

So there’s good news in Chindia at least!

Measurement posts

Alice Snell posts on talent analytics in Staying, Going, Returning at Talent Management Solutions.

And Jay Jamrog and Mary Ann Downey post on the Future Trends of HR Metrics at I4CP’s Productivity Blog.

Reward and Engagement posts

David Zinger provides The 14 Keys of Employee Engagement.

Chris Ferdinandi discusses Sick days, flexible work, and the law of unintended consequences.

Anne Bares posts on Top Three Reward Strategies for 2009 at Compensation Force.

Paul Herbert emphasises that Reward Programs are NOT About Manipulation at Incentive Intelligence

Other HR stuff

Lisa Rosendahl asks Do I Look Like A Dinosaur To You? at Simply Lisa.

Mike Haberman asks Should Recruiting Get the Boot? (from HR) at HR Observations.

Chris Young encourages you to Take Ownership For Your Own Professional Development at Maximizing Possibility.

A few late revellers:

People and companies posts

Melissa Prusher posts on Ten Minutes with John Sumser – Industry Expert at Devon Group’s blog.

Vishveshwar Jatain posts on Career lessons from Barney Stinson at Benifys blog

And how many times did you come across references to Zappos in these posts (there’s at least a couple)?

This is just part of a bigger trend according to Jessica Lee at Fistful of Talent who asks whether we should love Zappos (this is actually a two-part post:

First Tim Sackett discusses How Zappos Ruined HR ...

And then Kris Dunn follows up with If I Drank All the Zappos Kool-Aid, Wouldn't My Teeth Be Green?).

That’s it (finally!). I hope you liked it!

You’ll have noticed that following Becky Robinson’s lead in the last leadership development carnival, I have provided contributors’ Twitter usernames above and hope you will find these useful. And like Becky, I have also created a group so you can follow all the Twitter users who contributed to this carnival… see http://tweepml.org/HR-Carnival/.

Next time, the carnival calls in with Sharlyn Lauby at the HR Bartender.

Photo credits: M.Minderhoud, Infrogmation (1, 2 and 3) and David.

Technorati Tags: HR Carnival,Social Business

This post is cross-posted at Strategic HCM.

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Social Learning (Talking HR 020)

2009-10-12T18:04:00.000-07:00

So Talking HR is finally back with a new show on Social Learning.

What’s that? Well, in the show I started to define social learning as something more than just the use of social media to support learning. But I’d now like to elaborate on this (I didn’t want to go on about this before or this one point could have taken over the whole show).

My main point is that learning has always been social. So social learning can’t just be the application of social media. But it has to be something different to what learning has been before.

This is a similar argument to the one I’ve used t suggest that HR 2.0 and management 2.0 are approaches aimed at the development of social capital.

And I’d suggest that learning 2.0 is probably about social capital as well. But I think it’s about one form of social capital in particular – and this is ‘the learning organisation’.

I read somewhere that when the learning organisation first became popular (via Peter Senge and others), it wasn’t really achievable. Social media has made it much more so.

But I’d suggest that there’s an important distinction between learning that uses social media, and learning that aims to create a learning organisation.

The other way of looking at this, which I also mention on the show, is that when we talk about social learning, we really should mean social learning, ie learning of the social unit (the team or the organisation as a whole) and not just learning socially (generating, co-creating and sharing content, collaborating etc).

It should be about developing a common understanding, a common way of doing things, a new culture even, between people in a team.

This is the real reason that social learning is so important.

I also attempted to link Honey & Mumford’s learning styles with Li and Bernoff’s social technographic profiles (the ladder from Groundswell – pictured).

Listen to the podcast and read the show notes at Blogtalkradio. You can download the podcast to your hard drive or play it streaming from the web.

Subscribe to the show at itunes.

Talking HR is hosted by Krishna De and Jon Ingham and you can contact them with your thoughts and feedback about the show at talkinghrpodcast(at)gmail.com.

This post is cross-posted at Strategic HCM.

Technorati Tags: Social learning,learning organisation,Talking HR,podcast,Blogtalkradio,Jon Ingham,Krishna De

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Carnival of HR in the Social Business

2009-10-12T00:17:00.001-07:00

*** THE CARNIVAL IS NOW UP HERE ***

The new HR carnival will focus on HR bloggers’ posts that have a social networking aspect to them – eg anything about teams (team performance, team reward etc), HR and web 2.0, social psychology, social network analysis, etc. It will be posted here, and at Strategic HCM,on Wednesday.

If you’ve got a blog looking at HR in the social business, I hope you’ll submit a recent post to be included.

Please send your submissions to info [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com by midnight Pacific Time on Tuesday 13th.

3 modes of web 2.0 implementation

2009-10-06T16:02:00.001-07:00

I’ve posted previously (1,2) on the challenges of implementing web 2.0 / social media. However, there are actually three separate modes of implementation, each with their own set of challenges - and organisations need to be clear about which of these modes apply to them in order to identify and prepare for the appropriate challenges:

Mode 1: Technology inspired implementation - an example of what I refer to as ‘value for money’ (in the value triangle)

Organisations often introduce new technologies in order to keep abreast of new development and opportunities. This happens particularly frequently with social media as there is so much hype around its benefits.

So, for example, an organisation may launch a new internal social network, hoping perhaps to encourage and enable more internal conversations (maybe even as an alternative to going undercover?). Or it might introduce a wiki to replace document distribution in order to improve knowledge sharing, productivity etc.

However, there is usually no real link to the business strategy behind using social media in this way. But this doesn’t mean that it’s not a useful thing to do. And it may also provide an important basis for using social media in the other modes.

Implementing social technologies in this mode is best done by introducing the appropriate system across the organisation (to maximise participation), and making it easy and attractive for people to get involved, for example, by letting them use it to support personal vs business needs, and enabling use of pictures and videos etc.

Once people have got used to this technology, the organisation may then go on to introduce another web 2.0 system in the same of a different mode.

Social media is also often introduced this way, ‘under the radar’, when there is no business sponsorship for any other use of the technology.

Examples:

Mode 2: Business driven programme support – an example of adding value

The second mode is one which social media is used to meet particular business needs, for example to improve collaboration or innovation on a particular business project.

This doesn’t mean that the implementation can’t include personal applications, but the main focus is on the business.

In this mode, social media is best introduced by using one or a combination of systems, probably with a particular group of employees, in a way that very clearly supports the identified business need.

It’s much more likely that social media will be introduced as part of a major business programme when in this mode. But the business programme should focus on the need which is being met, rather than the technology that is being used.

Examples:

Microsoft Academy Mobile (I’d argue this was about a business need because Microsoft needed people to up to speed with this for external as well as internal reasons.)

Mode 3: Creation of organisation capability – an example of creating value

This mode is quite similar to mode 2. But here, the focus is on the intangible capability, the type of social capital that is being created.

It’s likely that the programme creating this social capital will receive an even bigger launch, will involve all or at least most people in the organisation and that social media will form a much larger part of this programme, than in option 2.

It’s therefore likely that culture change will be central to this.

Examples:

IBM
Cisco

Photo credit: Henningklevjer

Technorati Tags: Web 2.0,implementation,BT,Microsoft,IBM,Cisco

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

HR’s responsibility for social capital / media

2009-10-05T03:50:00.001-07:00

The new Leadership Carnival is now up at Mountain State University’s Leader Talk. Becky Robinson has assembled a fine collection of posts (including mine on the Undercover Boss), so do check them out.

Most interesting to me is a post by Sharlyn Lauby, the HR Bartender: Is Human Resources Capable?

Referring to a post by Chris Kieff at 1 Good Reason – Social Marketing, Sharyln considers whether Marketing or HR should be responsible for social media in their organisations.

One reason for having this blog is to get away from HR, so I’m not going to dwell on this, but my main thoughts on this are:

Someone, other than the Chief Executive, needs to take responsibility for the accumulation of social capital in an organisation
Many HR functions are already developing separate / more strategic roles focusing on human capital – it makes sense for this role to also take responsibility for social capital
The major challenge in the implementation of social media is behavioural, so this also gives HR a role
However, social media also has a focus outside the organisation, which is not within HR’s remit, and there is obviously a technological aspect too, so IT and Marketing also have to be involved
So, HR should take responsibility for social capital, including how social media is used to develop this. I’m less fussed over who actually has operational responsibility for social media, but probably IT.

You may also want to check out this previous post on this as well:

Photo credit: Achim Hering

Technorati Tags: Leadership Carnival,Mountain State University,Leader Talk,Becky Robinson,Sharlyn Lauby,HR Bartender,Chris Kieff,1 Good Reason – Social Marketing,HR,responsibility,social media

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

At MLab with the Undercover Boss

2009-10-02T14:42:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year, Channel 4 broadcast two documentaries / reality TV programmes featuring senior execs, suitably disguised, spending time with members of their workforce in order to better understand the situation on the ground.

I saw both shows and was impressed with the openness, integrity and attitude of both Andy Edge from Park Resorts and Stephen Martin from Clugston Group.

But broader opinions were divided. Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist was one of several bloggers questioning the efficacy of, and particularly the environment that had enabled, this approach.

“Could your CEO go undercover to figure out what was going on within the front lines of your company? I've got a couple of reactions to that. First, if they could do that, the fact that the visibility of your CEO is that low might be part of the problem. Notice I said "might", because there are multiple ways you could spin that....

So, here's the point when it comes to the CEO going undercover. Not only did Martin go undercover, but he's going to make a TV show about it. That raises the ante in the minds of employees. It's one thing to go undercover, but now you're making a TV show about it. So work with me here: in the eyes of the employee - you came undercover, brought a film crew under false pretenses, then documented the stuff that was wrong.”

Kris’ post was actually made before the show, and I thought I’d wait until I’d watched the programme to respond to it. Of course, I then forgot to do so. However, I’ve just sat through a presentation made by Martin at MLab - Gary Hamel and Julian Birkinshaw’s Management 2.0 think tank. So here goes.

Taking a decentric view

Some background first of all (the following section provided my summary of Julian Birkinshaw’s presentation):

In their meeting in Half Moon Bay last year, Birkinshaw and Gary Hamel asked their band of revolutionaries to score the series of challenges they had developed (and which then led onto Gary Hamel’s Moon Shots) in two ways:

How important is this? (and most people scored the challenge between 8 and 9 out of 10)
How much progress have you made (and people scored it between 2 and 3).

The challenges for which there were the greatest difference between importance and progress were:

Depoliticise decision making
Reduce fear and increase trust
Retrain managerial minds
Dramatically reduce the pull of the past
Expand and exploit diversity.

They had over 1000 qualitative comments explaining the problems in meeting these challenges and in reviewing and coding these, they identified the following main barriers:

Limited bandwidth: not enough time and too few resources -19% of comments
Old and orthodox thinking- 15%
Disincentives to act – fear of change, executive self interest -14%.

What these barriers make clear is that management is the problem and the solution.

One of the reasons for this is that in general, we have little insight into the feelings and views of the people we are managing (fear, confusion, disinterest and distrust all get in the way).

So how do we overcome this lack of insight?

Birkinshaw suggested that we do this by taking a decentric view of the world – trying to understand how management is being perceived from the employee’s POV.

(Evidence for this lack of insight is provided by the fact(?) that the only management books which have been written from the employees’ perspective are ‘Dilbert’ and ‘Who moved my cheese?’!)

This is where Stephen Martin steps in.

The case for going undercover

Martin explained that when he was first approached to do a reality TV show he said no, but the opportunity to gain an understanding of his workforce was just too great. Normally he feels as if he is in an ivory tower – everything gets filtered through levels of management. He needed to understand how the business was going from employees perspective.

One example Martin gave us was a pay cut that Clugston needed to make recently. HR had tried to explain this by sending employees a letter! The business hadn’t understood how this action would be or had been interpreted by its workforce.

So, was this a good idea or not?

Both Martin and Edge, and their businesses, clearly gained from their experience. Martin identified some previously unknown talent, and made some significant changes, for example around their apprenticeship programme. Edge, if anything, experienced even deeper revelations, starting the programme thinking that staff simply needed a pay rise and finishing it with a deeper appreciation of the other things that Park Resorts could be to engage and recognise its staff.

But does this justify their deception?

In an ideal world. certainly not. But many businesses do many worse things with their staff. If going under cover can help develop a better / decentric perspective on a workforce, and reduce the other damaging things they do, then I’d suggest this may be a worthwhile trade-off.

Of course, the aim must be to go beyond this. Asda is a good example. Their former HR Director, David Smith, who also presented at the event, explained that he always used to spend one day a week talking and listening to his staff.

It needs a level of trust to be able to do this. But I think it shows that there are even better opportunities than going undercover.

Others include:

Develop a culture focusing on role vs grade so that people get used to communicating openly
Create a shadow Board
Find opportunities for reverse mentoring (eg on the use of social media) to encourage two-way relationships
Encourage un-moderated social networking within the organisation.

What other ideas would you add to this list?

See my other post on the MLab Engagement event: http://moon-shots.ning.com/forum/topics/m-lab-the-art-of-engagement

And posts on the previous MLab Management 2.0 event:

Technorati Tags: Management Lab,MLab,Gary Hamel,Julian Birkinshaw,Undervover Boss,Andy Edge,Park Resorts,Stephen Martin,Clugston Group

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Don’t get made sick by the social

2009-10-01T03:42:00.000-07:00

I’m looking forward to joining Bertrand Duperrin for a pre-Enterprise 2.0 summit (ie the European conference) video call later on today to discuss the impact of national specificities on enterprise 2.0 adoption.

One of the things Duperrin is going to be discussing is that “the word ‘social’ makes execs feel sick”. This reaction is something I’ve noticed quite a few other comments about recently.

In his Enterprise 2.0 book, Andrew McCafee explains why he rarely if ever uses the word social when discussing Enterprise 2.0:

“The adjective social is often applied to the technologies discussed in this book. This label is accurate, but unfortunate. When some managers hear talk of social technologies, they immediately think of technologies that facilitate activities like happy hour, fantasy sports league drafts, and office gossip. They hear “social,” in short, and think it means not work-related, or time wasting, or productivity-draining.”

And commenting on this in Stowe Boyd's post on the Social Business, Tammy Erickson notes:

“‘Social’ is perhaps accurate, but it is also an unfortunate choice of word for the technology and certainly for the enterprise. In the business world, “social” just doesn’t resonate — and whether we like it or not, it connotes a level of frivolousness that doesn’t encourage business people to grapple with the serious challenges ahead.”

Yes, but.

I agree with Bertrand’s, Andrew’s and Tammy’s concerns, and I’ve experienced similar reactions myself. I’ve also posted on Cisco’s preference for business (rather than social) networks.

It’s often useful to avoid the ‘s’ word. And with my clients, I often do so myself.

So we introduce social applications below the radar. And we pretend that the social business is just the same as what’s been going on before. And that’s fine.

Except that it isn’t (the same as before)! And organisations aren’t going to get the full benefits from social media, and they’re certainly not going to become social businesses or gain Social Advantage, unless they’re comfortable with the Social.

We need to help our organisations understand. Business is personal. Business is social. Get used to it!

Technorati Tags: Bertrand Duperrin,Andrew McAfee,Tammy Erickson,Stowe Boyd,social

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Social Media in Business conference

2009-09-30T17:27:00.000-07:00

I’ll be presenting on ‘Using Social Media for Competitive Advantage’ at the Social Media in Business conference in London on Friday 23rd October:

“The conference examines how social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, are having a major impact on business practices and culture. How can these tools be utilised, how can you employ strategies within your company to increase profitability, sustain reputation and empower your employees to be brand ambassadors. Indeed should you employ internal social networks within your own organisation as a means of facilitating a sharing community amongst your employees, or should you use public open platforms?

These tools can be highly disruptive to any company and are changing the fabric of communications through PR and marketing, you can no longer sit back and watch this unfold, you need strategies in place, you need to know what to say, how to say it, and when to say it.

Conferences of this type ordinarily have a price tag of x4 or x5 the ticket price!

We are thankful to our sponsors who enable us to bring this conference to you at an affordable figure.

Register now and join the smart thinkers, stay ahead of the game!”

Other speakers at the conference include:

Daren Forsyth (140characters.co.uk)
Benjamin Ellis (Redcatco)
Ged Carroll (RuderFinn)
Eaon Pritchard (Geronimo)
Charlie Osmand (FreshNetworks)
Peter Crosby (Viadeo)
Judith De-Cabbit (iLevel)
Joanne Jacobs (JoanneJacobs)
Neville Hobson (NevilleHobson)
Will McInnes (NixonMcInnes)
Katy Howell (Immediate Future)
Robin Grant, (we are social)

The cost of attendance is just £161 and readers of this blog can benefit from an additional 15% discount if they quote the following code when booking: 15SBIZ.

Technorati Tags: Social Media in Business,SMIB,Chris Hambly

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

My definition of Social Business

2009-09-29T13:59:00.000-07:00

My definition of the Social Business / Competitive Society is:

An organisation than invests in the development of social capital, ie the value of the connections, relationships and conversations taking place between people in an organisation, or working with the organisation. This value can be created and developed by effective leadership (communityship), HR and management practices, internal communication, OD interventions, web 2.0 tools etc. The value provides the opportunity to transform organisations, ie not just helping to meet existing business objectives but to set new or more stretching business goals.

Picture credit: Booksworm

Technorati Tags: Social business,competitive society,enterprise 2.0,definition

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

My further thoughts on the Social Business

2009-09-28T13:51:00.000-07:00

Wow, there’s been a lot of debate on Enterprise 2.0 and the Social Business recently (I’m not going to do a list – do a search!).

And I thought I’d follow-up my post on the 2.0 meme with my perspectives on the Social Business.

Of course, this is something that I’ve covered extensively before. This blog started off its life as ‘The New Social Business’ on 24 November 2007, and I’ve shared my likes and dislikes about the term several times since then, eg:

Peoples’ concerns about E2.0 seem to reflect my own:

That it’s too focused on technology (McAfee’s new definition that “Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms by organisations in pursuits of their goals” doesn’t exactly help!).
That it’s over-use has led to it becoming distracting jargon.

The term ‘social business’ is therefore preferred by many people for reasons which are also similar to mine (ie concerning the need for business to become more social, if not directly referencing social capital).

Stowe Boyd sums it up well on the Enterprise 2.0 blog:

“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…

We need to shift to a much more agile and adaptive way of thinking about social and collective action within businesses, and managing in a very different world than we were even a few years ago, back when Enterprise 2.0 might have seemed like a great term. Nowadays that term may be holding us back and confusing folks that haven’t been as close to the discussion as we have.”

Of course, there are some concerns about the term ‘social business’ too. Once again, these support my own concerns, and relate to the reasons why I changed the name and address of this blog.

One additional concern however is that ‘social business’ is owned by Dachis Group (as well as Altimeter Group and other upstart consulting firms). One comment on The Obvious says:

“‘Social business design’ is a term Dachis Group uses to distinguish itself in this market Therefore, I believe the term is not neutral and should not replace the more generic phrase Enterprise 2.0.”

Well Dachis and Altimeter were both only started up in 2008 so I was using the term ‘social business’ well before them. And I hereby give my permission to anyone who wants to use it to do so!

However, I’m still not convinced it’s the right term.

Suggestions on other blogs include ‘integrated business’ and ‘peak hierarchy’. But I still like ‘Competitive Society’. What about you?

Technorati Tags: Euan Semple,The Obvious,Stowe Boyd,Enterprise 2.0,Social Business,Social Business Design,Dachis,Altimeter

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Netflix – Enterprise 1.0 or 2.0?

2009-09-21T04:44:00.000-07:00

Culture

View more presentations from Reed Hastings.

Netflix’s culture of freedom and responsibility has been addressed on quite a few blogs, including Strategic HCM, and on other social networking sites, including the Moon Shots ning.

But it’s comments on the company’s open culture and predisposition to the use of social media – and particularly whether this makes it an example of Enterprise 2.0, that I want to address here (for examples of these comments see Fast Forward and Bertrand Duperrin’s Notepad).

And I just don’t see it. A great company – absolutely. Enterprise 2.0 – no.

To me, this is an example of the ever growing and largely unhelpful use of the ‘2.0’ tag that I’ve just posted on.

Enterprise 2.0 isn’t just about using web 2.0, but it’s not just about anything new, innovative and exciting either. It’s about creating an environment where the value of social capital: the connections, relationships and conversations in a business, is taken seriously. And I don’t see any of this at Netflix. So:

“Few organizations are more able to access the power of the collective than Netflix”? – I just don’t see it, sorry.

The presentation suggests the company does work as a team – but stresses that this is a pro-sports team, not a kid’s recreation team. And definitely not a family. To me, even though they want to avoid brilliant jerks (recognising that the cost to teamwork being too high), it doesn’t even sound like a real pro-sports team. This impression is strengthened by the description of their ‘loosely coupled’ approach. It sounds like a group of highly talented individuals (“stars in every position”). Perhaps the business equivalent of the Madrid Galacticos?

There’s also the issue about the impact of not investing in recruiting and therefore having to fire people, that I touch on at Strategic HCM.

The presentation notes that high performance people and effective teamwork can be in tension as these people have strong opinions. This supports Boris Groysberg’s conclusions that a focus on recruiting stars can be bad for business. But I’m not at all sure that Netflix has has revolved this dilemma sufficiently.

Technorati Tags: Netflix,Enterprise 2.0,Bertrand Duperrin,Fast Forward

Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com