(Page 2 of 2)
We’ve learned some other things too. What is the number one source of employee disengagement? Opacity of the organization. We have no idea what is going on, therefore we know we aren't contributing meaningfully, and can’t contribute meaningfully, so we’re sullen. Turns out sullen employees (otherwise known as the disengaged) don’t churn out the best work.
How are we fixing that? Ten years ago we tried dashboards based on BI — that didn't really help, and was too metrics-y and therefore, more likely than not, punitive so it didn't work. Streams? Not the way we currently use them.
4. Teams and Organizations
We've done some good work here. Shared workspaces and profiles have helped many organizations know themselves better, work more efficiently and collaborate more seamlessly. But adoption here has been very hard for many, and even where adoption is high, we are still not meeting our ultimate goal of seamless, common operating pictures — shared knowledge, group insight.
I want to know more about where the actual work gets done. We believe it mostly happens in teams. There are several types of teams, and I think we need to start paying careful attention to the differences between them.
Why do we have different kinds of teams? What makes them different? How can we use technology to help them? How do teams and the organization as a whole relate to each other. What work is going on in the organization and who is involved? What is the pace? What are the outcomes? When we say visible work — are we thinking about it the wrong way? Maybe we should focus on making the patterns of activity visible more than simply the typing of individuals.
How many teams are in your organization right now? How many are project teams? How many are committees, how many are swarms responding to urgent miscellaneous stuff? How many teams are people on? At what rate do they form and finish? Is it a stable number? Are some people on more teams than others? Is that good or bad?
I have no idea. But that’s unacceptable. We need to start knowing these things.
Here’s one hypothesis to begin the discussion. There are (at least) five different kinds of teams.
- Structural: These are the teams that we can see on the org chart. Marketing, HR, R&D, etc. In larger orgs, these break down even further — hierarchically.
- Cross functional: These are the teams that collect people from across the organization for various purposes. In my world, these are often product teams.
- Project: These are people that have come together for a very specific and time bound purpose and deliverable.
- Interests and Communities of Practice: These are groups that support one another emotionally, socially or professionally, and you’ll see many of them within an organization.
- Swarms: These are the long lists of people, many of whom you've never met, who are on the cc line of that last reply-all-urgent email trail you were on. You feel this pain like I do, right?
5. Really Visible Work
There are many ways that these teams are different, but the most obvious is how they form. Think about it — I’ll spare you (and my editors) the 1000 words I could write here on it for another time. Maybe you’ll write them for me.
There are other important differences too. Quick — give me three ways we could help these different types of teams be more effective. But wait! Why do we have these different types of teams and what do they tell us about the organization? Would visibility into what teams are where and when and why help us? In what way? Would we be more engaged once and for all if we could see all this? Is this what we should be talking about when we say “visible work”?
The paradigm doesn't need to complete its shift for us to be squeezing more value out of it now. We do not need to wait until the majority of CEOs agree with “us” (whoever us is). We can start now, if we ask the right questions. If we continue to ask questions, rather than construct success. Today is the day to stop “proving” we’re right, and start thinking about what’s next. Our successes are real, and there, and let them be reported. But, the immutable law of physics still applies. People will adopt a tool when its easier to use than not to.
This is a great time to do it. We've had some important successes. Social Collaboration is an accepted part of mainstream business. We've settled in a bit and we have an important opportunity to step back and formulate some really hard questions. We have greenfield ahead of us. But we have a lot of good honest work to do to the bridge the chasm, and I for one am vibrating with things I want to do next. You?
The best is yet to come.
Editor's Note: To read more of Deb's writing, check out 'Social Business' is Only Half of Enterprise 2.0
About the Author
Deb Lavoy has been studying the dynamics, culture and technology of collaborative teams and knowledge transfer for 12 years, while working in product marketing and strategy for companies as diverse as AOL and Adobe. She is currently Director of Product Marketing for Social Media at OpenText.
- Has Google Delivered a Killer Blow to Microsoft Office Apps?
- Should You Use LinkedIn to Build a Network or an Audience?
- A Graceful Exit for Box?
- 5 Marketing Lessons From HubSpot
- Microsoft Leaves Ballmer Bleeding as It Moves On
- Marketing Automation: 3 Trends to Watch
- Dave Gray on Work Like a Network and the Role of Hierarchies