Posts Tagged ‘motivation’

An incredible amount has been and is being said about the two terms Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 – and recently discussions in leading blogs about the two topics have moved to the mutual dependency of those two concepts.

If you listen to Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at MIT (video below), you’ll learn that, crudely defined, Enterprise 2.0 is Web 2.0 inside the firewall. And according to Stowe Boyd,

“Enterprise 2.0 has been a simple and useful metaphor that assumes that Web 2.0 technologies (like contemporary social media, social networking, social tools, and the underlying set of technologies that make up the Web 2.0 model: open source stack (LAMP), web as a platform, open APIs, and so on) can be beneficially applied in the enterprise context. This means the eventual displacement of various enterprise technologies and business practices by new ones, strongly influenced by what is happening and working in the open (not enterprise) web.”

Nothing weird or controversial there. I can fully subscribe to those definitions.

What I want to examine in this post is:

  1. To what extent successful deployment of Web 2.0 requires Enterprise 2.0
  2. Generation Y as an Enterprise 2.0 driver in its own right

To what extent does successful deployment of Web 2.0 require Enterprise 2.0?

This is definitely a very good question and one that can’t be justly answered without making some assumptions. I would like to think of Web 2.0 as creating a strong dialogue with your customers (or “users”, which is becoming the Web 2.0 term of choice). It’s the culture of interaction and users expect authenticity, openness and responsiveness. They expect a good look under the bonnet, but they don’t necessarily expect perfection. In fact if they see and experience too much perfection, they immediately suspect “fake”. Imperfection is a fully accepted circumstance in Web 2.0 and tells users that this enterprise is human – after all. This is what some (most) managers still don’t fully understand. Letting go and exposing some of your imperfections is okay as long as you’re honest about it and tell people you’re going to do something about it.

Of course being honest and authentic requires you (the employee) “to know”. You need to know what the company strategy is, what your company’s position is on certain issues, how to respond to criticism, how to route questions you can’t answer, what tone to use , what media to get involved in (Facebook, YouTube, blogs, Twitter) and a lot more.

That’s where practice comes in. In his blog, “Practice inside to express yourself outside”, Gil Yehuda, guru and former software developer, compares living by Enterprise 2.0 to the very critical testing of software prior to release. He says, “one of the early lessons I learned as a technologist was the importance of testing before “going live”. As a developer and project manager I learned how carefully software must be tested — tested for functional correctness, usability, security breaches, performance issues, and failure conditions. Testing was a time consuming part of developing code, but the cost was outweighed by the value of getting it right. Moreover the cost of rolling out bad software was too high to risk. No one wants to test their software in production — with all eyes on you, and the cost of failure so high!”

The point is you don’t expose a 2.0 immature organization to Web 2.0. At best it will have absolutely no impact (which is actually what happens most of the time, when organizations decide they “have to be on Facebook”). At worst it can result in disillusioned users and the viral aspects of Web 2.0 spinning out of control.

From this perspective it would definitely be wise for organizations to introduce an Enterprise 2.0 culture prior to Web 2.0.

Generation Y as an Enterprise 2.0 driver in its own right

In previous blog posts I have talked about the labour market revolution taking place before our eyes; the growth in workforce numbers of Generation Y, the digital natives – soon to become the biggest labour market generation. This generation has totally different expectations to work and to enterprise software. They tend not to think in hierarchies, they think in networks and they expect enterprises to accommodate them.

I just read an interview with SunGard’s CEO Cristóbal Conde talking about flatter and better organizations. He says: “Collaboration is one of the most difficult challenges in management. I think top-down organizations got started because the bosses either knew more or they had access to more information. None of that applies now. Everybody has access to identical amounts of information.”

This is a brilliant point and Conde goes on to state that the management challenge is to establish a meritocracy in a highly dispersed environment (assuming that most organizations these days are virtual and/or geographically dispersed). He suggests the “answer is to allow employees to develop a name for themselves that is irrespective of their organizational ranking or where they sit in the org chart. And it actually is not a question about monetary incentives. They do it because recognition from their peers is an extremely strong motivating factor, and something that is broadly unused in modern management.”

SunGard uses very simply tools, like Yammer (which my organization, Akselera, also introduced a few months ago) and focuses on Enterprise 2.0 as a cultural exercise fully embraced and supported by top management.

A recent survey by the AIIM stated that 71% agree that it’s easier to locate knowledge on the web than on internal systems. This was across all employees and my guess is that among Generation Y it was close to 100%. The same survey found that 75% of all employees said that “better use of shared knowledge” was one of 3 top driver for Enterprise 2.0 initiatives in their organization.

Interestingly the survey didn’t ask the respondents if Web 2.0 was a business driver for Enterprise 2.0. It would have definitely been interesting to see “shared knowledge” and “Web 2.0” measured against each other.

Regardless, I think it is reasonable to conclude that:

  • Enterprise 2.0 does not need Web 2.0 as a driver.
  • Web 2.0 will have a much better chance of succeeding in Enterprise 2.0 ready organizations
  • And with the rapidly growing numbers of digital natives in the workforce, Generation Y and sound leadership should be viewed as a strong Enterprise 2.0 driver in its own right.

Warning: The following statement is rubbish. As soon as you’ve read it, please erase it from your memory :)

“Twitter and social networks cost UK businesses over £1.38 billion per year in lost productivity”. This recent quote from a survey by Morse, a UK based IT consulting company, doesn’t even deserve to be referenced, except it has now appeared in newspapers worldwide. Companies who wish to lose their employee mojo, go ahead and follow Morse’s advice. Those who want to continue to attract the Y Generation, the Digital Natives, forget you ever read that statement.

As I have already mentioned in my earlier blogs about the topic, Digital Natives, and the rest of us really, expect to be able to check our Facebooks, our online bank account statements and book our weekend trips any time we want. But hold on, we also prepare customer presentations at 11 o’clock at night. We do that if we’re passionate about our jobs.

The real world example is Google and their 20 percent time. Google offers their engineers “20-percent time” so that they’re free to work on what they’re really passionate about. Google Suggest, AdSense for Content and Orkut are among the many products of this perk.

Just consider this: How many hours of lost productivity do you think Google has each year on that account? It’s around $400,000,000. And do you think Google considers it “lost productivity”? Or is it their mojo?

I recently watched this video with Daniel Pink. And since then I have been thinking about the real impact of what he’s saying, which is basically this: If your job involves a minimum of cognitive skills, most performance management methods, systems and approaches don’t work. There’s a mismatch between what science knows and what businesses do. Mind-buggling and it really calls for action (or corrective action as we consultants like to call it). Go ahead and watch it. Trust me – it’s worth investing a little time in.

My promise: I intend to find out to what extent this is true, to what extent corporation know about this and to what extent they intend to do something about it.

Until then… these are the 3 motivational words to remember: Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose.

I went to a speech yesterday by Morten Bay about Homo Conexus, the Network Man (go buy the book). Totally inspiring. One of his many points was, “don’t protect your content, spread it!”. Well, Morten, you took the words right out of my mouth (-:  For quite a while I have been helping knowledge-based companies (consulting, media, advisory, accounting, legal) understand how they maximize on social media.

All these companies are fully aware that what they sell is knowledge, brainware, information, experience, methodology, know-how… Call it whatever you want. It’s all immaterial and can’t be put in a warehouse. It can’t be stored and every hour you don’t bill, is a lost hour. These are the hard facts. Still, traditionally knowledge-based companies have treated their “products” (their knowledge, their intellectual property) as a secret. Their bills-of-material are called CVs or resumes and are usually kept in the company vault, written in Word (often anonymized) and stored on a hard-to-find network drive. Usually out-of-date, unless a client needs it, in which case the CV is pulled out and updated in a flash. Recognize the scenario?

This begs the question: Why? Well, if you ask most company executives they will tell you that they have to protect their valuable assets against predatory headhunters. If they didn’t, they’d lose their best employees in no time. True or false? The following story may help shed some light on the issue. I met with an innovative consulting firm, Init, now Gavdi, a couple of years ago. At that time they were up-and-coming, focusing exclusively on SAP Human Resources. Their MD at the time, Lars Kramer, showed me a full-page ad they’d just put into the leading Danish business newspaper, Børsen. It featured all their top consultants, with a picture and a brief resume. Wow! Lars said he was a bit nervous about this move, but he felt it was the best way to expose their skills. And boy was he right. In this bold move they accomplished many things in one strike: Customers knew exactly who they were, who’d they be buying (full transparency = maximum credibility), so it generated lots of new business. Their consultants were proud to be exposed in a national newspaper, which boosted their value, their self-esteem and their employer loyalty. And it attracted other consultants, who wanted to be part of this group of top-notch consultants. The headhunters? Well, they all thought this would be a perfect hunting ground, but because the consultants now had maximum employer loyalty, nobody was tempted to accept any other offers (at least during that time).

Back to my point: Don’t protect your intellectual property (when it comes to CVs/resumes). Flash them, publish them, social-network them. Get maximum return on your employee investment. My advice is this: Forget about Word CVs/resumes – go straight to LinkedIn and maximize your use of all its capabilities. Trust me – it’ll do wonders for your business (-: