What we have ourselves here is a chasm. Collaboration isn't breaking out all over.
Can you feel it? It's the subtle loosening of gravity’s pull as we pause at the peak of the hype apex before we thunder down into the trough of disillusionment (with apologies to Gartner). Social collaboration isn't working very well, but must wego gently into that good night?
Some of the reasons we’re hitting the near edge of this “chasm” we've known and predicted from the beginning.
This is a paradigm shift as fundamental as any the modern workforce or capitalism has ever seen. More significant than the PC, the internet and the IT department combined. More significant than globalization. It's about retreating from command and control practices designed to make the ENGINE of capitalism (and government and war) purr, to a collaborative one which activates the full capabilities of the participants and networks them in a way that amplifies and accelerates action.
It's about changing from a daily grind of covering our individual and collective heinies to one where we are joined in the intellectual, emotional and emergent pursuit of “better.” Of mission and service.
Ok -- so that’s pretty hard, we have established but few ground rules, and it looks like we’ll wander another 10 or 20 years or so in the desert till it's really as true as we’d like to to be, but it does seem inevitable, and so it is. But we could speed it along with more rigorous research and learning. We need to stop trying to ferret out bits of good news and start ferreting out learning.
In other words, we need to take our own advice about facing both good and bad news with equanimity and an authentic learning orientation.
But there’s another angle to this and its really, really bothering me. Adoption. All the 68,000 vendors in the space (including my employer, OpenText) have settled on streams and digital workspaces as the definition of social collaboration technology -- with some allowance for variance in quality, focus and features. And now we’re all lecturing on about adoption.
There are several things that are bothering me about that.
First. The language we’re hearing about adoption is eerily similar to the language we heard about every other enterprise IT paradigm that social collaboration is supposedly saving us from. “People don’t get it, we need change management and training and... ”
And maybe that’s all true. But I know that I have scoffed at those foolish 1990’s KM people who stuck to their guns and soldiered on in spite of the fact that what they were doing clearly wasn't working -- though the value proposition was real, vital and clear. I have said the same thing about other IT systems of yore.
Can we now smugly believe that we are somehow more enlightened than others because we “get it”? If we’re so awesome, why isn't this working? Why doesn't everyone “get it” and why are we having such a hard time with adoption?
I know, I know, human behavior, culture and all that. But we adopted cell phones as fast as they could make em. Just sayin’. Some of the change management stuff is real, true and urgent, and some of it is just denial. We do not want to believe that maybe we aren't right. But we aren't.
Second. So we’ve been pushing this techno philosophy pretty hard for three or five years, and as a Gartner analyst recently observed in a meeting, it's no longer a new industry. And what have we learned?
We have a bunch of people like me, many better than me,lecturing on what should be and could be, but where’s the “what is”? I want a more rigorous body of learning out of the last five years. We deserve it and we need it to continue to be leaders in the reinvention of work. I know that there is an Amazon’s worth of books and papers out there, but it's not enough.
We have some clear wins. The majority of fortune 1000 businesses are using some form of social media to communicate internally as well as externally. Pockets of success are found within many companies and a few organizations are entirely transformed. Perhaps more new organizations are being formed after the new model rather than the old.
In the face of a mountain of evidence that something isn’t working as well as we hoped, is “try harder” a good strategy? Are we asking the hard questions of ourselves that could help us tell the difference? Like --why do people like email so darn much in spite of the fact that its killing them and makes their life more difficult in both the long and the short term. Are we wrong to ignore it? To insist that “email is dead, use this instead”?
Why do teams fail to act the way we think they will? Are we oversimplifying the notion of team? What about organizations? Where is the deeper insight on the relationship between teams and organizations? Why isn’t a sophisticated vocabulary breaking out? Why do we not yet have 100 words for different kinds of collaboration and teams, as expert in it as we think Eskimos are about snow? What is the difference between an intranet, a community and a team?
I don’t want a tweetchat full of clever answers, I want clarity -- and so do you.
So -- yes, the paradigm shift will take a generation to turn over. But we have not yet come close to our full measure of duty as techno-innovators to drive it. I would like to toss out some themes where I think we have important questions to ask, things to learn. Maybe these are on the right track, maybe not, maybe its the wrong question entirely. But we need to start asking questions and stop searching -- exclusively -- for crumbs of corroborating evidence and data, and start looking at the entire body of information.
In other words, we need to step back from building business cases -- though they are still important and valid -- and put more emphasis on building our knowledge.
|Editor's Note: Deb will be speaking on this topic at Social Media Week NYCon Feb 21 at 2pm|
Themes and Variations
These are some of the themes where I want to see harder questions asked. What are your questions?
1. The organization
First -- the organization, the intranet and collaborative teams are NOT the same thing. The relationship among and between these things needs serious scrutiny.
We’re beginning to see serious and rigorous study of public social networks in use for marketing, crisis management, etc., but that’s a bit easier -- it's all happening out in public, so we can see it and analyze it, thanks to the Twitter API. It's a bit harder to go into private enterprise systems and have a look (with some obvious and disturbing exceptions).
2. Connecting the dots
Second -- streams are nice. I adore Twitter. I adore our internal corporate tools that are similar to it. And here we've seen great adoption. We've turned our org into a giant chat room: an extension of Instant messenger or chat for all. There’s benefit in that.
Ambient awareness has huge benefits and is one of the key elements in making remote work work. But that’s not a "wirearchy," it does not make work visible in an actionable way, it does not cement team bonds, it connects only a modest set of dots, it is, in short, inadequate to change how we work, though it's a nice addition. We need to build the semantic, statistical, psycho-social and otherwise tools that goose the gods of serendipity.
Several years ago, I came up with a definition of collaboration that focused on three key ideas: creation, connection and compounding. I also observed that great teams shared four basic traits -- they had a shared sense of mission, they respected one another, they trusted one another and they were committed to achieving excellence.
We've since learned that very effective teams have great communications -- and very importantly -- members are more or less equal in the amount they contribute. No divas, no wallflowers. But we’re only seeing whispers of real actionable insight into how to contrive (or “cast”) these magically great teams. Leadership, yes, balance and matching of people -- yeah, we sorta kinda know we have to do that, but few of us know how.
How is most collaboration achieved? What is the type, volume and velocity of information that needs to be exchanged? Is this the same of variable by team? By task? By... what? How can teams connect to the whole and vice versa?
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 inteams. 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