The global networked economy is just beginning.  A year ago it took a hit.  The cry at that time was that some organisations are simply too big to fail.  So the government stepped in to under-write these entities.

The term 'too big to fail' is now part of the language of C21st economics. 

The strange thing about this term for me is it makes no sense in a networked digital global organisation.  The bigger you are the more certain you are to succeed.  What is actually likely to fail are Nation-State governments.

Times of transitions throw-up terms like 'too big to fail'.  They become accepted wisdom.  But they never bridge the gap between 'what was' and ' what is' and 'what will be'.

I have been re-reading "First Man- the life of Neil Armstrong" by James R Hansen.  The book is a gem - it so well researched and so well written.  It reminds me of my time at NASA and the key things I learnt there.

1) too long spent on design leads one to implement a dud and too little time spent on design leads one to implement a white elephant.

2) single points of failure are everywhere in large projects.

3) risk is ever present but usually hits you where you are not.

4) simulation is preparation if and only if you use it to go beyond the limits of your known systems.

5) there is no substitute for experience but experience without imagination is useless in a crisis.

6) fear of failure can not be tolerated.

7) success is filled up with good luck.

Once upon a time I was into "semi-autonomous" work groups.  At my paid work I engineered them and at night (paid work too as it turned out) I lectured to undergraduate and graduate students about them.  These entities fascinated me then and they still do.  In one sense these are the amoeba of organisations - they are single cells that split to form a new whole entity.  So they are the simplest form of human organisation and because they are self-directed they need little management.  Therein lies the paradox of these entities.  They are simple to set up.  They are simple to describe.  They are simple to be a part of.  They are highly productive.  They are purpose built.  They are low maintenance.  They are heuristic and innovative.

So what are they?  Where would I see them working well?

What they are is groups of five or more but not more than eight or nine people.  They have a single purpose which they actively pursue together.  Their process is transparent - everyone knows everything that is going on within the group.  Their process is open to inspection at any time - there is usually a process of show-and-tell which presents progress of individuals and the group as a whole.  Their process is innovative - there is an process of prototyping, testing, breaking, and reframing the prototype until a robust (and scalable) outcome is arrived at.

If you want to read about groups like this that work well - go to the Saddleback Church site.  Pastor Rick Warren has built and organisation that thrives on semi-autonomous work groups.

Learn about them and learn to love them - they are the future of work! 

Are you sloughing off the bubble economy?  Have you embraced the recession economy?

Do you have a new strategy for life, business, and community activities?  Do you understand how and why these new recession revenue models can and will distort your current capacities and capabilities? 

Are you prepared to continue what you have been doing within the confines of recession economy silos?

The digital revolution offers much to organisation design, performance, and reach.  Unfortunately the revolution I speak of is not the one most people are experiencing in their lives.  Most consumers are buying into their impression of the digital revolution with low-cost high performance TV's, radios, hand-held devices (music players, phones, mini-computers, etc) but that is not where the real action is for me.

The real action is taking place at the macro not the micro level of our economy.  The real action is yet to really impact on us as individuals but it will over the next five years.  The real action is about to kick into effect in our workplaces or more precisely the organisations that recruit us for paid work.

The changes that are coming to your workplace, company, government enterprise, or not-for-profit organisation are subtle but powerful. The digital revolution is about to descend on you and your colleagues and it will change your life and perhaps the way you garner a livelihood.

There is a key driver of the digital revolution at the organisational level.  In digital organisations the emphasis is on being frugal. Being frugal with the use of energy, time, capital, labour, and technology is the digital mantra.  Being frugal in our emerging digital world means finding new and less complicated ways to deliver high performance outcomes across a networked organisation.

If you want to change other people's behaviours then you will find no end of advice on the web, in books, in degree courses, and in wise quotes you stumble on from time to time.  But you know all that....

Still want to try to change other people's behaviours?  Well first you might want to consider whether you want or need to change group behaviours or that of a single individual.  If it is a group then you might want to consider what the key drivers are for their current behaviours.  To do that you might want to start by posing some simple questions.  What is the purpose of this group?  What ensures it hangs together?  What has made it successful in the past? What is it exactly that you want to change about this group?

In answering those simple questions you might like to consider the following:

Groups are purpose driven.  That is their strength.
Groups hang together because their membership conforms. That is their strength.
Groups make up success stories - they create their own history.  That is their strength.
Groups are exclusive not inclusive - they do not welcome diversity.  That is their strength.

Do you want to change other people's behaviours?  Then you might want to play to their strengths.

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 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.

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.