"Sundays in the Park"

Ideology is the key asset for today's talent. If you are not a modern ideologue - favour social capitalism/big govt/regulation - you lose

Starting to apply what I have gleaned about social networking and social media (past 3 years) to what I have always known about Organisational Culture. So here we go with some easy questions.  Simple answers to the following 3 questions could put you and your colleagues on the path to a useful re-organisation without too much cost, fuss, or fanfare.

1)  What impact has social networking/media had (is having) on your culture at work?

2) What HR practices would you like to change to better accommodate web-based conversations?

3) Who is listening to the feedback from talented employees and consumers at your workplace?

I posted the following as a comment on Fast Company today in response to an item listing 10 Commandments for Social Media. I thought you might be interested if you don't read FC.

There are no commandments. Participate? No! Please don't participate unless you are "relevant" to a conversation or have a "remarkable" contribution to make to one or to start a new one. Social media and social networking is different today, say to mid 20th Century, only because we have digital technologies.  Otherwise the same principles apply today as they did back when Tupperware Parties were all the rage. Social media plays out within three contexts - tribes, clans, and clusters.

Tribes form social silos - they have shared values, ideologies, and purpose-driven projects (80% of people on Blogs, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Ning, and soon to be on Google Wave are actually locked into a comfortable Social Silo. Clans are full of early adopters - in the main these are "tech heads" who are embracing new digital technologies but they are not, and do not pretend to be, social media leaders. Clans are full of  people who are the facilitators of social media.  Clusters form around themes.  Green technologies, horror movies, quirky videos, Susan Boyle episodes, etc.

Social media is best when it is "successful chaos" not the controlled activity that the notion of 10 Commandments might suggest. Bible?  There is no Bible here and hopefully there never will be. Social media is fun, purposeful, annoying, clunking, exhilarating, frustrating, etc in other words it is a very human activity. Social media works at multiple levels but, each level has an identifiable pattern - sometimes the pattern is repeated time and time again at both micro and macro scale (like a fractal).  The energy comes from the people who engage in conversations with others who "best fit" with their social wants and needs. Social media is a referral system that is being used to supplement or replace Brands in business.

Social media is a new channel for business if and only if the business is able to let go of its control of Brand, Corporate Image, and Push Advertising. A good example of how social media can be incorporated into a business model is Threadless the T-shirt business. The customers are the talent at Threadless and so social media has become an integral part of the process of business.

Finally I get to my key point. Social media is all about speed.

I have invented a new verb "Googleplexed".  It means "being locked into a silo at work or in life".  Most workers live this word everyday.  Most do not know just how much of what they do is structured because they are Googleplexed.  They have become "system led people" whereas most expected to be part of, and still want to belong to, a "people led system".

Google is the place to be right now - free food, free time (20% of your work week for your personal project), free association with some of the world's best and brightest, etc.  It is reasonable to want, even need, to work at Google. So you like so many others might be dreaming of a small space within the Googleplex in that impressive site in Mountain View California.  It is also reasonable to expect that life and work within the Googleplex will be as it is reported in the business and popular press a fairy tale existence. In the early days of the Googleplex I am sure it was.  It was a "people led system" and there was much to rejoice about. But success has made it is big bee hive with lots of worker bees and a structured decision-making process to control the output of those bees.  It has become a silo.  A place like so many others around the world with "system led people".

So I offer a new term for you to describe your work situation or workplace.  You work in a silo, with system led people, when you dream of working in a social network, with people led systems.

Structured decision-making is the core system for formal organisation.  Much is made of and written about customer service, customer relationships, customer sentience boundaries, etc and they are important but, more important is structured decision-making.  The organisation - business or not-for-profit - that provides its customers or clients with an efficient and an effective decision-making structure wins.  It can scale.  It can grow quickly.  It has a revenue silo to exploit.

For example, the new offering from Microsoft's Redmond Campus is called Bing. This is a smart product. It will build a very successful revenue silo. It structures "decision making" for a popular set of wants.

Microsoft is a savvy business and its leaders understand that structured decision-making is what people want and need most in their lives. If you "structure decision-making" for your customers or clients - you win.

Are you having fun yet with social networks and social media? 

As many of you know I have spent the past 2 years trying to understand what these new technologies will mean to you and me.  Things will change but not in the ways that most gurus, experts, workshop speakers, journalist, authors, etc suggest.  The pace of change in technology is swift and increasing.  The pace of change within communities and social entities is glacial and reducing.

But there will be changes.  Here is one idea for change that I have come up with since the release of Google Wave over the past few days.  This idea is all about how we get a job, who recruits us, and who ultimately defines our job. I am not suggesting this will suit all jobs but it will suit some. Here is my text to an Executive Search professional yesterday.

"I see great changes coming to the Executive Search Industry over the next 2-5 years as open source connectors like Google Wave* enables better collaboration between provider, executive search facilitator, and customer.  Not all jobs, but some very important ones, will be put into an Online Community as a concept - the process will be given a deadline of say 10 days - where the customers will help your client (say BHP) define/redefine the role. In the process the best candidates in the Online Community (it will grow quickly to include all interested parties) will become self-selecting applicants for the job on a contract or permanent basis.  The major inputs from you and your client will be to provide the details on prevailing/future revenue models within the organisation and the regulatory provisions of employment for the position. These Online Communities will be formed in a nano-second and disappear just as quick if there is no perceived reason (cost, revenue, productivity, or developmental role) or benefit that would have them prevail. Good fun ahead in your industry.

* Google Wave - Just released as a Beta open source platform, product, and protocol for global developers to "plug and play" with and make it work smarter than email, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc" 

I am rewiring the draft of my book Sundays in the Park.  This book was first conceived as Chattering Clusters but, it has moved backwards since then.  Moving backwards is not what a digital warrior like me is prone to do I know, so I probably need to explain myself a little.

The book has been my research project for the past 2 years.  It was my way of getting into the digital transformation from a people, not a technology, perspective.  As I did that I found that most of the change was happening to the technology not the people.  Even the Net Generation as Don Tapscott refers to our teenagers are not really that different to their parents or grand parents.  I proved that point to my own satisfaction with a simple empirical study.  I went to my 15 year son's school yard at lunch time.  It is essentially no different to the one I went to lunch at all those decades ago.  Sure the technologies are different - way different - but the people and their need to form "coalitions of interest" are essentially the same.  They are the same because these kids have the same needs and wants as we did back when.  They need to be part of the social networks that facilitate their enjoyment or otherwise of life.  They need and want to be, first and foremost, social beings capable of making the right connections so they can best pursue their interests while at school. School dominates their life so what they do there is vital to their fulfillment in life.

Adults do not shed these needs and wants - perhaps they become even more acute as they form families and become fully engaged in their life at work/home.  Adults display their social networks too.  They are just as clear and present as those I observed amongst their kids in the schoolyard.  Sundays in the Park is their yard.  There they mix and match to find a social platform - as opposed to a technological platform - that works best for them today or on a series of days in the park. 

Those of you who have read this blog, under former titles, will be familiar with my claim that "Sundays in the Park" is the perfect laboratory for those who want to test or better understand human behaviour on the Internet. On the net we act the same ways we do on Sundays in the Park.  Sure the space is virtual.  Sure the technology is full of changes and surprises. Sure there are many quirky aspects about being socially accepted on the net. BUT in essence, we are the same on the Internet as we are at Sundays in the Park.

Twitter is a elegant organisational form for asking questions.  Why do most Tweets ask the same question?

The basic question is "how can you and I make money (monetize) via Twitter?" 

The answer is simple.  Run a conference with the title 'monetizing Twitter'.  These conferences are popping up like mushrooms after a good rain.  Why?  Because they address the problem that most who Tweet have at present.  Do they provide answers?  I doubt it.

If you want to make money via Twitter ask a different question.  Try this one.  What problems do people who use social networks and social media want to solve?  Then add this one.  What solutions can I offer them?

Twitter is 140 characters aimed at collaboration - collaborate with Twitter users to help them meet their wants and needs and you will make heaps of money.  It is guaranteed.

Can "online communiites" be managed? What does "online community" mean to you? Do you want/have a Director of Community?

Is an email conversation merely an extension of a comment online? When is an email purely spam? When do you consider an "unsolicited email" is integral to an ongoing online conversation?

What are the shared values of your online communities and how do you honor them? What passes as an acceptable signiture, name, or identifier within your online community? What rules of argument, discussion, and debate are followed within your online communities?

I have been grappling with those sorts of questions over the past 2 years. Answers anyone?

People today are basically the same as always but the technology is different. That's what makes the challenges of leadership so different today versus 1950s, 60s,70s, 80s, etc. We need new frameworks for action or models for our leaders now as much as we ever have in the near or distant past.

Perhaps there is no more compelling example of the need for new models of leadership than Barack Obama. Senator Obama crafted a new model, framework for action, or leadership mould before he ran for the White House.

Call it what you will but the essence of Barack Obama the candidate was drawn out in stark contrast to his rivals by the fact that he embraced the challenges that new technologies pose for his constituents and the world. Barack Obama is a man focus on "people first" but he also understands that in order to put "people first" a leader has to deal with the challenges of this digital technology revolution.

Senator Barack Obama was totally unlike past candidates. Why?

No one can be absolutely sure exactly why but here are eight simple suggestions:

1) He presented a relevant and a remarkable message - 'Change we can believe in'.

2) He found the key to new age politics - it is about ideas not experience.

3) He raised money online from the masses not from the usual power players in politics - it is about inclusion not exclusion.

4) He is a preacher not a doer - it is about inspiration not perspiration.

5) He had a message based on faith in a world of doom and gloom - it is about what you think can be done not what is currently being done.

6) He talks about his faults and weaknesses because he knows himself well - it is about transparency in thought and action not image.

7) He has tapped into the conversations of his electorate - it is about what people aspire to be not what they are told they are.

8) He offered electors a new sense of hope - it is a time for new beginnings not a time to refine old continuities.

The world is going digital.  Going digital to me means having access and connection to the people, products, and services you want (think you need) while you are mobile. 

What technologies do you use?  Are you going digital?  If so do you have a DigitalCore process to filter out whatever does not serve your real time wants and needs?

When you go digital you want/need good access, connection, and filters. Otherwise you become far less productive.  You become a node in a 24/7 network of nodes that are buzzing each other incessantly without any productive outcomes.  Bees buzz too but they are organised to get their job done no matter the context or environment they find themselves in.  Bees have a DigitalCore - that is why they produce honey not just buzzing noises.

Today the world is experiencing a downturn.  This means a lot of what everyone did for the past 15 + years is being downgraded.  It is being less valued.  It is being less wanted.  That is all a downturn means.  If this downturn is a severe recession or depression then all it means is what we all wanted is now not available (gone out of business) or too expensive.  So what to do about our wants?

What to do is simple.  You and me need to reframe our wants.  We need to discover new wants.  We need also to discover, design, test, and consolidate new revenue models to pay for these new wants.

Downturn, recession, or depression is the economic term for a end to 'old' wants.

Digital media is a viral process, it has pull not push drivers, it is global, it works at nano- second speed, and it is revolutionary not evolutionary. This new media will force us to rethink how we organise work and business and certainly how we market our talent, products, and services.

The practical lesson I take from the Susan Boyle video phenomenon is that digital networking does little or nothing to change the core of people, their habits, or their social needs. People are the same as they were before the digital age. People come in all shapes and sizes but they do cluster around themes (Susan Boyle provides an emotional theme at present) and they do form clans (early adopters lead) and they do form tribes (purpose-driven folk with shared values are the mainstay of society).

The interesting thing about all this for me is the fact that Susan Boyle's video clip has gone viral on Web 2.0. She has become an instant celebrity. She is top of the celebrity list, right now, on Twitter. Her video is way bigger than the Obama acceptance speech, etc, etc. She has touched the hearts of people around the globe - most admit to crying while viewing this video. If you can get people to cry = you win.

Susan Boyle's viral video (apparently there are now about 200 versions of it out there!) proves to me that the world still has a soul. That means the clusters, clans, and tribes that make up this planet are in pretty good shape despite the economic situation.

For a much closer look at the Susan Boyle phenomenon see http://www.visiblemeasures.com/news-and-events/blog/bid/9115/Susan-Boyle-s-Got-Viral-Video-Talent

This is a time for solidarity in the workplace.  Nothing spurs it more than a good dose of storytelling.  Stories are reflective and thus they can become inspirational.  They provide the social conversation needed in hard times to re-enforce the prevaling tribal culture.

Silos are the immutable structures that protect tribal cultures. Ask any culture change agent and he/she will tell you war stories about silos and tribes.  Silos are full of stories, folklore, myths, and legends.  Silos give form and structure to the revenue models that determine purpose, action, and investment within an organisation.  Silos are critically important in hard economic times - they can become the buttresses within an organisation that promotes continuity ahead of ambiguity.

The resilience of silos is well known.  They are difficult structures to dislodge, dislocate, or destroy.  Even when they are physically removed the ghosts live on in the form of legends, myths, and folklore.  Legends of past heros roam the corridors of power long after their silos of influence are gone.  Myths about their courage, leadership, and vision linger too. These stories are a constant reminder to all of you who inhabit a present day silo to be vigilant as you ply the creed of your silo and its revenue models.

Change programs within large organisations mostly disappear because they see silos as black holes. I am a professional organisational change agent - I have struggled with the adverse impact of silos on my client's change programs too.  It is too easy to focus on them as negatives - today I am more interested in seeing them as positives.

What I have always known is that change is not welcomed in most large organisations.  The myth is that they can not and will not change because their people are so resistant to change.  This has not been my experience.  My experience is that the people are drivers of change but they are hobbled by the systems they have to work with or within. 

First and foremost they work in people-based systems - this means the people are not empowered, not encouraged to be individualistic, not able to be innovative, not engaged with the change program because they have other priorities, and not able to be other than supportive of continuity rather than change.

Second but it should be the first and the only reason that change does not occur - it is the revenue models that dictate continuities and to change any organisation one must first alter the revenue models.  No change to revenue models = no change.  All the clients I have worked with who have driven change through their organisation have been prepared to change their revenue models.  To do that they have had to be able to see their organisation as a money-based entity rather than a people-based enterprise.

The reason most large organisations have silos is they work well to consolidate their revenue models. Within these silos the revenue models are the basis of corporate strategy, brand identity, mission statements, and tribal culture.  The silos bring focus.  The silos ensure discipline.  The silos give the revenue model a framework for action.  The silos draw the boundaries of a tribal culture that is positive for the organisation.

Silos makes real sense to me in web-based organisations.  Silos are based on revenue models whether they are based on free, micro-payments, or passive-income from click-throughs, etc.  Silos are useful in social networks because they define clusters, clans, and tribes.  Each silo is different.  Clusters are formed around themes - they are porous and they leak.  Clans are less porous but still leak.  Tribes are non-porous and do not leak.  Three very different types of silos that are a good match to three very different revenue models.

The challenge for change architects is to design silos that work in social and economic networks.  They have to start with revenue models not with staff, customers, or organisational structures.  If they can ensure that silos make sense in terms of their revenue models then they will have a robust and infinitely scalable business model.

The biggest hype in the world today surrounds social networks.  Self appointed experts tell us what they are, what strategies work, and how best to make money from them.  Guess what this is all bunk.

Nothing has changed within social networks.  They are still the same clusters, clans, and tribes that I first spied at Sunday in the park.  Clusters of people meet in the park - they talk, play games, eat, etc.  On the web the same people form clusters with different people - they talk, play game, swap stories, etc.  At the park people are not always what they seem and on the web this is also true.  In some ways it is more apparent on the web because people often deliberately wear a digital mask.

The same social rules apply in the park and on the web.  The same outcomes occur at both venues - people complain long and hard about the amenities.  The amenities are never in the right place at the right time.  In the park we are talking toilets and cooking facilities.  On the web we are talking digital technologies that sustain these clusters.  People are the same in the park and on the web - they are social beings who cluster.  There is no mystery here.  There is no need for new strategies or insights here.  There is no one size fits all rule about how to get the best experience or set of outcomes from these two social networks.

The one thing that is different about social networks on the web and those in the park is the size of the clusters.  That difference is huge.  It is what makes digital networks a whole new deal.  It is what requires new thinking from social change agents.  It is what will change business models this century.  Who is talking about that - some learned people are but not the mob.

Easter is a good time for reflection and so I came up with a small list of things I will reflect upon:

Be proud of yourself, full stop.
Be in the moment - always.
Be conscious of others and their needs.
Be a giver not a taker.
Be a thinker or a doer but be true to yourself.
Be a parent who rejoices in every moment with your kids - especially men.
Be strong and say no to 'make work' and waste.
Be someone who is always 'lucky' no matter what happens to you.

Happy Easter.....