Lock-Step Equity: Knowledge-Sharing and the Bottom-Line
Internal competition doesn’t contribute to a healthy bottom-line, for individual employees or the organization as a whole. John Tropea illustrates the relationship between knowledge-sharing and money:
The workplace has to change from the “competition” model to the “social” model.
In this ecosystem blogs and wikis help you share knowledge easier and more effectively, and the more tuned this system is, the more the know-how is spread. And the more you know, the better you can perform, and the better you perform, the better the enterprise performs, and inturn guarantees everyone a pay cheque.
In an indirect way knowledge sharing = money.
I agree, except I think the relationship of knowledge-sharing and money is more direct than you might think. People are used to thinking of their workday activities as indirectly affecting the bottom-line because the competition model essentially keeps the average employee in the dark about how things really work, or how healthy the organization is. The sharing model makes it much clearer, so the average employee can see the impact of her or his work.
Share Lock-Step Equity: Knowledge-Sharing and the Bottom-Line
Email
Twitter
RSS
Mark Fidelman says:
Jun 18th, 2009
“The workplace has to change from the “competition” model to the “social” model.”
The thing is – it’s not social. It’s not about conversations in the enterprise it’s about collaborating (or you use “sharing” – fine). Social networking doesn’t belong in the enterprise except to connect groups of people to collaborate around projects and business issues. Social networking in the enterprise is a fad with no ROI. Collaborative Networking is the future.
John Tropea says:
Aug 17th, 2009
Mark,
How do you find the right people to collaborate with, the GAL in outlook doesn’t do much for me.
Networks allow people to be ambiently aware of what others are up to (it’s a staff directory that’s “alive”). They provide a way for frontline workers to become engaged with the organisation, they may become known as a subject matter expert.
Now we can know what people are good at, and it’s more than their job title
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/04/24/we-are-more-than-our-job-title-describes-so-lets-get-social/
Discovering people in a social network by finding them via expert tags or blog content speaks volumes for organisations with thousands of people.
Then people can form into groups and collaborate in online spaces, as you seem to like.
These are complementary.
Collaborative onlines spaces have an easier ROI as the nature of collaboration is around a targeted outcome. Whereas the nature of networks is more to find people and connect. It’s a tool like the phone, email, IM, FAX…it’s not about solving a focused problem but a tool in assisting us in our work. It helps us generally become more effective.
You could say networks are quite unique in the way you can discover and connect with people and information…you can’t do this with email, but you can collaborate with email (however crap it is, people do it everyday)
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/05/22/do-group-tools-get-more-traction-due-to-not-requiring-network-effects-and-being-in-the-context-of-certainty/
In fact the success for LinkedIn groups depends lots on the network profile part, if this was missing, LinkedIn groups alone would not take off nearly as well.
One thing if conversation is not work, then why do we go to so many meetings and have huge email archives.
We are no longer all factory workers following processes in a stable environment, instead the enterprise is a web of relationships where we have to adapt to all different contexts and face lots of change.
As Olivier Amprimo says we have changed from muscle sweat to thinkers (knowledgeworkers).
In order to make decisions we have to connect to people and have all sorts of conversations. This is when our network (people outside our team come in handy)
We network all the time offline, and ask people we trust to give us a hand “can you help me with my ppt”…that person know’s when she needs help with exel she can come to me. This is a barter exchange at work, we are going around hierarchy in order to tap into the talent…well we are utilising human resources more optimally in a self-organising way, tapping into talent is what’s happening, but we are doing it to get our work done…if I was limited to the people in my team in helping me get my work done I would be handicapped in the way of productivity, quality and emerging ideas.
If we do this naturally do this networking offline, why not online, especially when interactions are searchable and accidental collisions are amplified.
BTW-Stewart makes a great comment about transparency making things not so dark, and knowing your impact (that you make a difference).
So I disagree business networks, or social networks or whatever you want to call it is a fad…it’s becoming a way of the world
Tom Gibbons says:
Aug 18th, 2009
I agree with you John and strongly disagree with Mark. Nothing happens in organizations… nothing… except through interaction and the currency of interaction is conversation. To say an organization is not social is simply denial or very bad observation. The power dynamics of an organization can make it seem like it is not social but I challenge anyone to prove that an organization operates outside of a social context.
The exponential growth of social media is one of a number of mechanisms that have been percolating within organizations and compromise the traditional power dynamics in organizations and enable people to engage in conversation with different constraints than the typical power dynamics enabled. The one key variable that compromises traditional power is increased distance. Traditional power is dependent on proximity and social media transcends that. So do things like virtual organizations.
To think social media is a fad is one of 2 things. Outright denial of the drive to express onself or the thought that as is exists now is the end point. Expression of identity has been a constant throughout history. Social media and the technology at present which enables it is simply another source of expression and it will continue.
Any talk of the ROI of social media is ridiculous. ROI has virtually no part in the decision. Look around. Take your experience seriously. Social media is happening. ROI does not matter. People cannot be stopped from expressing themselves. History has proven this countless times. It is here to stay and will only grow.
And only a few months ago I questioned its validity until I engaged in it….
John Tropea says:
Aug 18th, 2009
Awesome comment Tom, just got yr tweet…yep it’s a way of the world now.
I really like your points:
“The power dynamics of an organization can make it seem like it is not social but I challenge anyone to prove that an organization operates outside of a social context.”
“Traditional power is dependent on proximity and social media transcends that”
It seems Charlene Li’s new book will be about this top-down, power-distance, transparency theme:
http://www.altimetergroup.com/2009/08/announcing-my-next-book.html
Here are some posts of late on this theme:
http://www.smartpeoplemagazine.com/2009/08/part-i-saving-the-company/
http://bhc3.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/gary-hamel-on-enterprise-2-0-and-the-post-establishment-age/
http://www.theappgap.com/ready-for-web-20-culture-can-kill.html
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/
http://www.thecontenteconomy.com/2009/04/age-of-transparency-rebuilding-trust.html
Mark Fidelman says:
Aug 18th, 2009
Both John and Tom bring up good points, but the social aspect merely describes how people are communicating. It’s not the axis it’s the synapses.
It may be a semantics issue, but having conversations without a business purpose doesn’t belong in the enterprise. Social conversations are by definition not work related. It’s equivalent to sitting around the water cooler at work. There are already solutions for social – use Facebook.
The workplace is about creating value for other people. We can talk about solutions or get things done. Those that want to stay in business choose the latter.
There is a very good article on the subject here: http://ostatic.com/blog/the-future-of-collaborative-networks
Tom Gibbons says:
Aug 19th, 2009
I would agree that this is a semantics issue, however a common one and potentially problematic When I use the word social I mean it as the way in which an organization operates. Organizations are social entities since they operate and perform through the interactions between people. It seems you, Mark, are defining social as conversations which primarily would not focus on business issues. This is a significant difference.
It also seems you may be equating the techonolgies of social media such as Facebook or Twitter as technologies that are primarily used as a platform for your definition of social conversation. If so, I would then agree with you on its business value. More and more however the technologies of social media are being used to support hard business objectives and in fact that is how we are using Twitter and soon Facebook. The conversations we will be entering into with those technologies are soundly focused on our business, but it means our business is being done differently in a variety of ways.
Not so long ago, when a business wanted to ‘look’ professional, you needed to have business cards. Now you need a web site. Within the next couple of years you will need to have social media strategy and platform. If not, your competition will be interacting with customers in ways that you simply will not be able to compete with.
The interesting thing with social meadia and what is different about it, is that it forces you, as a company to interact in a way that promotes you by adding value in the moment, not only by pushing the value of your products or services. This is a fundamentally different approach to business interactions.
John Tropea says:
Aug 19th, 2009
Mark,
I think Tom cleared up the semantics, I’m not referring to personal socialising, I’m referring to conversations to do work.
But I do like the watercooler, as small talk almost always eventuates to work stuff…so the more conditions for conversation the better.
But regardless of that there is an inbetween level where people contribute what they know…they can log their experience at work and research. We can choose to subscribe to these people in a social network and read their blog/micro-blog. This builds social capital and engagement.
Someone blogs something on their profile, comments ensue which manifests into some great thinking which is on a tangent to the actual post…but that’s ok, the post was the trigger for conversation. Then 2 months later someone comes along and reads a comment that helps them with their solution.
This is emergence…this is the edge…serendipity, opportunities, ideas, innovation
This is you could say, is stigmergic
http://bitworking.org/Stigmergy.html
Anyway, wouldn’t you like your work experience in sensemaking to be the same as the web.
On the web I learn from people everyday which helps me execute my tasks better, it helps me find stuff as I just ask my twitter network
People are our help engines and filters to stuff
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/04/01/social-search-help-engines-and-sense-making/
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/05/18/sensemaking-pkm-and-networks/
The important thing is opportunity for frontline workers to show off what they know, input to strategy or new ideas should be enterprise-wide.
Rather than the top issues commands to the soldiers, what about if the soldiers are considered thinkers too…this is what makes Google successful…their workers are not robots, they consider value not just about executing tasks, but bringing new ideas to the floor.
Larry Irons says:
Aug 23rd, 2009
Saying something is semantics doesn’t really amount to saying much of anything. How would it mean anything for you, or me, to say “Oh, that’s just syntactics, or pragmatics?” These are only pejoratives when used in an exchange of viewpoints. Of course its semantics to claim one thing rather than another because words and statements have meaning, and meanings are seldom clear cut.
Goals aren’t the currency of collaboration, they are the ends. The means of collaboration are tools and communication, and communcation is, well, inherently social. What is so complicated about that simple insight?
Jerry Folsom says:
Aug 24th, 2009
Larry, sounds like you are taking this personally. You’re using the ad hominem to invoke your point of view. Ease up big guy. Communication is social? So when I call up AT&T to complain about my iPhone service I am having a social conversation? I don’t think so. Maybe you’re idea of social exchange is different than the rest of the comments here. Which I think is the point.
Larry Irons says:
Aug 24th, 2009
Hey Jerry, no I’m not taking it personally. Though I do admit to some degree of irritation with anyone engaged in an exchange who brings out the old “its just a semantic distinction” critique. And, yes, if I call AT&T for a service issue the conversation is in point of fact a “social” conversation with a business purpose. As a customer I expect an empathic response from the person who is providing the service and, if I don’t receive it, my takeaway impression is affected. Same thing with many people who call customer service and hear a distinct Indian accent on the other line from a guy named Eddie. These are social conversations, though their purpose may not in fact be social.
I don’t think collaboration is just about achieving goals. Social conversations are the currency of collaboration IMHO. Collaboration means getting to know that other employees possess expertise on this or that topic. However, effectively collaborating means developing comfort with one another by sharing significant symbols relating to self, family, friends, and social activities, thereby understanding one another as people and devleoping trust. Doing so makes collaboration more effective.
I once worked in an organization where one of the programming managers thought her employees were unproductive if they talked to one another outside team meetings because she assumed if they weren’t coding they weren’t being productive. Assumptions like this are damaging to business.
John Tropea says:
Aug 24th, 2009
Agree Larry on your last paragraph.
But just to be clear, collaboration is a group of people working interdependently on achieving a goal or task assigned. This is social as like all work is, as it involves conversation.
It’s even more social if your online collaboration space is public, for others in the org to see…a more cooperative org as we are aware of how our decisions affect others…pro-active in knowing what others are doing and factor that into our output
Jerry Folsom says:
Aug 24th, 2009
LOL, so in your world conversations about how much beer I drank last weekend and how many girls I hit on are equivalent to discussions about business strategy for a F500 company.
Yep, all conversation is social. Make no distinctions.
Tom Gibbons says:
Aug 25th, 2009
As I noted above I am defining social as interaction between people and the most common form of interaction between people is conversation. From this definition (which is different than others expressed here) the two conversations that Jerry mentions above are equivalent as social interactions. There is of course a large disinction in the quality of those interactions in terms of business strategy however.
So yes, I do define all conversation as social. And yes I do make distinctions in the quality of those social conversations. And yes I do think this is a matter of the definitions of words and terms which some people might define as semantics. And it is only through the social interaction between people that these different definitions can become clearer and hopefully understood.