Kicking and SCREAMING by Carter Smith
August 19, 2008
09:53 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The brilliance of "getting it" with YouTube, Twitter and more
I had two experiences recently that have solidified my
conviction that doing it "the old way" is a really good way to lose cool
points. As someone who thrives on cool points (the father of two teenage
boys and a college professor), these revelations benchmark an appropriate
place in my learning.
The first experience that I learned from was the 2008 Beijing Olympics,
brought to us in the United States by NBC. I believe I watched more of the
Olympics (so far, anyway) this time than any other, though I haven't yet
figured out why. I realized that something just wasn't right, but I kept
coming back for more.
I suspect it had something to do with just coming off a fairly intense
productivity push, to be followed after about three weeks (perfect timing)
by another. It might have been the "most spectacular opening ceremonies in
history" though I did not see them. It's possible that it was the
record-setting gold medal quest by Michael Phelps (I was a swimmer as a
young boy about the time that Mark Spitz was setting the previous record). I
doubt that it's because the gymnastics judges have a clue what they are
doing (I won't even get into what I think they were motivated by when they
ripped not one, but two Americans off in favor of Chinese gymnasts).
When I saw
danah boyd's post on Olympics 2.0, I
knew I had identified the problem.
As danah noted, for those who don't want to be stuck on the arbitrary
schedule of NBC producers, it would be nice if somewhere we could get
real-time feeds (I would settle for
just-recorded video) of the events. I think we have figured out that there
are some that would still be excited about watching the recorded event for
the first time, but for those who are addicted to
now, it would have been a great
idea to demonstrate the technology capabilities of the 21st Century. And
yes, I would accept this option for
a fee. Thanks, NBC, for giving us an example of the "old way." Aren't you
partnered with Microsoft on many fronts?
That explains a lot!
The second experience was much more cutting edge. My son rented (the
old-school way, from a bricks-n-mortar Blockbuster store) a copy of the
movie Never Back Down. I
wasn't too excited about the movie when we started watching it, as I am not
a huge advocate of people beating each other up for the sake of seeing who
can incur the most mind-numbing, near-fatal injuries, but I agreed to watch
the movie. The story line was actually pretty enticing, the language and
shown violence were somewhat limited, the subtle message was decent and the
acting wasn't the sub-B-rated junk I expected.
But the grasp of powerful marketing
strategy was phenomenal!
During each fight, and many other places throughout the movie, you see
people with mobile phones shooting pictures and videos. Periodically, you
can see an actual video camera in use, but it's relatively small and
operated by a teenager so you know it's probably digital. Now, that sparked
my interest, but the next logical thought was "what are they doing with
those?" There were a few shots where one person stood next to the other and
played the video on the device that captured it, but I wanted more!
The movie ended, and we moved naturally into the clips at the end that were
cut, re-shot, etc., and I saw it. A
montage of YouTube videos and responses that showed exactly what goes on
in the world (not the stuff that Directors and Mega-companies think goes
on). There was a conversation, in real time, using multi-media, to talk to
others about life experiences. Videos on Youtube (and probably others) were
portrayed in the air, in no particular order, with text comments in follow
up . . . and people were having conversations!
Imagine what NBC could have done with that! What if, in real time, we could
watch AND discuss the adventures of
Michael Phelps,
Nastia Liukin,
Shawn Johnson,
Rebecca Soni,
Dalhausser and Rogers,
Walsh and May-Treanor, and of course the
U.S. men's basketball team. How
much traction could they have gotten if they handed off back and forth
between their website and "live" or at least big screen coverage? What if
instead of watching a mind-numbing video of the marathon or what seemed like
hours on the rowing the announcer slipped over to the comments (screened and
filtered, of course) on their blog?
And what if they mentioned the conversations on Twitter(see
@olympicnews or
@OlympicsBlog, or the
list of olympic medals there
from @olympicmedals?
What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
June 20, 2008
04:20 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
A while back we discovered that the Transportation Safety Administration had started what appeared to be a public relations campaign that included -- believe it or not -- a blog. Evolution of Security has become quite an interactive (and frequently updated) place to get the inside scoop on the TSA and a variety of customer service issues.
Well, this morning we discovered that another government organization appears to understand The Relationship Economy -- the United States Air Force!
In DoD approves new social networking Web site, the
Air Force Times reports,
A new social networking Web site has been approved by Pentagon officials to help service members and their families and friends stay in touch. The network is secure, password-protected and requires little bandwidth. Last year, when officials blocked access to some popular social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube on Defense Department computers, they cited the need to guarantee bandwidth availability for mission-critical functions. Family members who qualify for the free sites include parents and siblings of single troops, as well as spouses, kids and other relatives of married members.
OK, well they almost get it . . .
I don't really buy the guarantee of bandwidth availability excuse, I think it's more like guarantee security, but notice the observation that this is for 1) service members, 2) their families, and 3) their friends, but only family signup information is identified. I suspect that's 'cause no one has figured out how to streamline the friend verification process on yet another social networking site unless they are going to allow the upload or import of an address book from somewhere else.
I think that in concept this is a great idea, but the pattern reminds me of the walled garden social networks we already have -- MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn, with lip service paid to simplicity while the reality remains a closed-off destination that serves as little more than a bulletin board with file-sharing.
The site explains that they are accepting applications from Active-duty service men or women interested in a website for their family, and immediate family members of active-duty service men or women who are interested in applying for a website on their behalf, and that they reserve the right to discontinue the hosting of any website determined to be set up by a person who is NOT a member of the Armed Forces. Their mission is to provide safe, interactive websites for deployed military heroes to stay connected with their families, funded by the generous sponsorships of the American public.
Bravo, but I wonder what happens after the service member is no longer deployed, and whether all that cool stuff that took hours to upload and arrange can be exported upon departure from the military.
I think not.
My intention was not to do a review, but since that's essentially what just happened, I'll give it 3.5 stars. I question the logic of limiting communications to family, as the service members that I know have many non-military friends. It's commendable that we are trying to combine security with accessibility, but the limitations are too reminiscent of the visiting room at a state prison.
What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
June 9, 2008
09:29 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
For Recruiting on the Social Web - add some innovation!
This
post has a twist. It's not so much about advise for recruiters, 'cause
I'm not a recruiter. It's about engaging in relationships with others
and letting our personal connections (and how we treat them) be the
lifeblood of our business. It's crazy, I know . . .
The
text below may appear disjointed . . . it's meant to accompany the
video that should have popped up when you hit this page (at least for
the first few days). If you didn't get it, click here for part 1, here for part 2, and here for part 3 (or scroll down to see it by topic. ReadWriteWeb continues to claim (as do others) that video is the hot media now, and we support those claims!
Note
that the video of our talk is in bite-sized chunks, not like your
normal video, more like chapters in a book . . . you can watch for a
couple minutes, put a bookmark in, and return later to watch the next
part. Each of the sections has a title, also, to let you know whether
it would be interesting to you. This technology was made possible by www.GoYoDeo.com. It's free, so if you like what you see, find a way to put it to good use (it's worth much more than you pay for it)!
Here's an outline of the videos if you want to view them a la carte:
Part 1
1 How Web 2.0 are you now?
2 Advertising positions and making friends and contacts
3 Placing recruiting ads on the social web (and better ways to spend your time)
4 Connection strategies on LinkedIn and Facebook
Part 2
5 Social networking on the clock (it better be work-related)
6 Using video for recruiting and job seeking
7 Selected recruiting blogs
8 Engaging others on the social web (conversations)
9 Ideas for Using LinkedIn answers for Recruiting
Part 3
10 What about a virtual career fair?
11 What Web 2.0 job seekers use
12 Southwest Airlines 2.0 (social media recruiting) and jobs in pods
13 Krishna De on LinkedIn and Facebook
14 Robert Scoble on PR
15 Wrap-up and reading suggestions
In our previous post entitled How do you find the right people? Recruiting Socialutions,
we talked about finding opportunities to improve how we do what we do.
We suggested that professional recruiters shouldn't offer people
employment, they should just make friends with them.
Before we get too much into that, though . . . here's a couple of preliminary questions:
Do you have a blog (or read blogs regularly)?
Are you on an email list other than one for work?
That's basic social web stuff. Do you have a profile on Facebook? How about MySpace? On LinkedIn?
Perhaps Bebo, Hi5, Orkut, one I am missing?
On Facebook and LinkedIn, there are hundreds of results with a search for "recruiter." I doubt that's the way to go.
Here are some links:
Recruiting
Fly is a site dedicated to bringing visitors the best in
employment-related content. From news to features to videos and more, Recruiting Fly is your destination for all things recruiting, HR and jobs. They have a virtual jobfair, too.
In
the interest of offering more than one option, we are working with a
company called Business 3.0 that has established a Virtual Exhibit
Hall, where your organization could easily set up their own perpetual
job fair and host events as you wish. Check back soon for a preview.
Alltop (the vision of Guy Kawasaki) has a huge collection of links to career-related blogs.
Find a few blogs that interest you, and subscribe to them (or check them regularly). ReadWriteWeb has some great suggestions on how to engage bloggers and their readers in meaningful conversation.
Jason Alba, co-author of I'm on LinkedIn, now what?, and I'm on Facenook, now what?, has the JibberJobber site blog. Take a look at his articles and then check out his site to see how some folks are and will be getting to you.
And Jobs in Pods had a recent post on Southwest Airlines 2.0. He answered the question, "So who does recruiting well on the social web?" - see Nuts About Southwest.
Krishna De says
LinkedIn is used by people in leadership roles in business and those
people actively managing their career as it’s a little more
discriminating in terms of connections. She considers her connections
on LinkedIn network as people she would happily recommend and refer as
she knows their work. She observed that Facebook is far more relaxed
and is like a group of eclectic friends with perhaps business or social
interests in common. She found people who are world wide experts are
really happy to connect on Facebook which is exciting and seems to
level the playing field.
In the social web, there are some serious players (they understand it and live in it). One of them, Robert Scoble (former Microsofter), says PR now stands for “Professional Relationships.”
So what's HR stand for?
For more on The Emergence of The Relationship Economy, check out the blog of my partners, Jay Deragon (especially his recent post on the changing rules of the game) , and Scott Allen's The Virtual Handshake Blog, and mine - Kicking and SCREAMING.
What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 28, 2008
05:26 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
The economy doesn't seem to be improving and housing prices are dropping (though interest rates are, too). Common sense would say there wouldn't be too many folks looking to trade-in their current jobs for one that you are offering. The position is still vacant, and the Director is getting impatient.
So what's a recruiter to do?
Previously, we discussed fit for work. Perhaps the first thing to do is determine whether you are a fit with your present position. Surely you and your employer felt you were when you entered into the employment agreement.
As we engage The Relationship Economy, we find many opportunities to improve how we do what we do. We also see a lot of opportunities for innovation.
But can we really innovate when we are working at the same place, doing the same thing for the same people over and over again? Can we tolerate innovation from people who want to work at our company when we know that the people we refer to aren't interested in all that newfangled technology? perhaps, but in the meantime, why not just innovate with what's out there and not worry about something with a bunch of bells and whistles?
You are looking for people who do a certain job. Where do they hang out? Go there. Make friends with them now.
Don't offer them employment, just make friends with them.
Don't hide where you work or what you do, but do everything in your power to avoid selling anyone on anything. You are making friends, not finding applicants! This isn't your traditional socialution, but how's that been working for you?
Make connections with old friends, meet new friends, and simply talk with all of them to find things in common and build relationships with them. They'll find out (they may even ask) what you do. When that happens, tell them, don't sell them.
And for job seekers, how 'bout this (Dan Schawbel addresses the idea here in more detail, but I have a twist to add to the technology Dan addressed) . . . A virtual resume. Yes, it's bells and whistles, but if that's who you are, would you really be happy working somewhere that didn't appreciate your style?
Imagine the cover letter (e-mail) to the employer of your choice . . .
I was excited to learn about the availability of a position with your company that appears to have been designed specifically for me. Here's a link to my e-resume where I can better show you why I got that impression.
Sincerely,
Bob Smith
(The technology demo is coming)
What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 23, 2008
01:40 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Customers can get Satisfaction - with Sunshine Socialutions
Meetings
for government at all levels are covered by sunshine laws, which
require opening to public view and access meetings and records
regarding those meetings for public officials and organizations in a variety of scenarios.
In a previous post, we identified the term Customer Powered Service as service
that is shaped by the customer . . . driven from outside the business
to inside and designed to make the customer successful, not just to
make support staff more efficient.
We suggested that
Customer Powered Service should be seen as a return to the mindset of
the marketplace . . . the empowering of the customer. We noted that
Customer Powered Service was not just about the customer -- it's also about the service!
Get
Satisfaction has been promoted recently in the blogworld as a direct
connection between people and companies that fosters problem-solving,
promotes sharing, and builds up relationships.
That sounds a whole lot like a Socialution!
Let's take a random look at the 1st and 10th ranked companies on the Fortune 100 - Wal-Mart and ATT.
Wal-Mart on Get Satisfaction had one active topic (7 months old at the time of this post). ATT, on the other hand, had 37 posts on Get Satisfaction, with the newest one 3 days before this post.
So what's that mean?
Is there a better customer service plan for Wal-Mart on the Internet than there is for ATT?
Are more of ATT's customers likely to have Internet access? Perhaps
Wal-Mart has better customer service, or maybe their customer's don't
expect as much as ATT's customers do?
We'll leave those questions in the rhetorical category for now - check out the Get Satisfaction blog for updates. If you want to see what we've been doing, check out the Business Week article entitled “Consumer Vigilantes“, which looks at creative ways "we the people" are using social media to address the issues. Or, check out Jay Deragon's recent post, where he observed that businesses are spending time and money trying to figure out how to engage customers.
Otherwise, please permit me to change the conversation from what has been to what could be.
In
the social web we see today, the problem with getting in touch with
someone from customer service is inexcusable. There are a variety of
ways that we can contact each other -- phone, text message, email,
snail mail, fax, and . . . oh yeah . . . meeting in person. But once
companies cross that Rubicon, then what?
Here's a novel idea . . .
Customer Service can be provided by joint-venturing with the customers, in real time, out in the open.
Imagine
a strategy session bradcast live over the Internet where customers
could engage (perhaps in chat, initially, monitored and verbally
reported by someone present in the meeting). While the face-to-face
discussion is under way, a parallel discussion is going on in the chat,
and the C2M (Customer Communications Monitor) stops the live meeting to
draw attention to the chat conversation.
The strategizers are intrigued, so they offer the virtual podium to the customers by way of Skyping them in?
Too far-fetched, you say?
That's the Relationship Economy!
What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 20, 2008
08:29 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
According to a recent Rapleaf study,
while both sexes still use social networking sites in huge numbers,
women are the ones holding down the fort. I have known that the ladies
"get" the social part of social networking (and online learning
interaction) a heckuva lot better than us guys. Auren Hoffman will help convince you . . .
He suggests we should expect social networks of the future to cater to women and alienate men.
Rapleaf
conducted a study of over 30 million people to see how they're using
social media. While the trends indicate both sexes are using social
media in huge numbers, their findings show that women far outpace the
men. They predict that this gender gap on social networks (and
increasingly in all of social media) will only widen with the next wave
of innovation.
The study
included mostly what was referred to as Social Networkers (those with
1-100 friends), about 13 million in all, or 80% of the sample. They
found that in this group
- Women have on average 62 friends.
- Men have on average 57 friends.
- Women are more likely to be "Social Networkers."
Do these findings support those of Schler, Koppel, Argamon & Pennebaker - Effects of Age and Gender on Blogging,
which found that male bloggers write more about politics, technology
and money, while female bloggers discuss their personal lives – and use
more personal writing style?
It appears that they do.
As we noted in The Emergence of The Relationship Economy,
there is good reason to think that networking comes naturally for
women. Traits that are considered feminine in our culture , like
cooperating, building relationships, helping, and developing others,
are not surprisingly also those necessary in (effective) networking.
Traditional male traits like directing and controlling get nowhere in
networking, and may get you blacklisted in social networking (Forret
and Dougherty, 2001).
For both men and women, success in
networking depends on understanding and capitalizing on our individual
strengths, and supplementing individual strengths with the strengths of
those in our networks. The connectivity afforded by online social
networking provides many opportunities for improved relations.
In The Relationship Economy, everyone has the opportunity to win, but maybe the guys will have to ask for help.
What do you think?
Responses here are always welcome (actually requested), and if you have a LinkedIn account, please take a look at the responses of others there.
References:
Forret,
M. L. and Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior
for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organization
Management, 26(3), 283-311.
Hoffman, A. (2008). The Social Media Gender Gap. Business Week, available at http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2008/tc20080516_580743.htm
Schler, Koppel, Argamon & Pennebaker (2005). Effects of Age and Gender on Blogging. Available at http://lingcog.iit.edu/doc/springsymp-blogs-final.pdf
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 14, 2008
06:24 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Cabling together the Social Web -- that's Plaxtastic
Whenever
technology advances to the point of usefulness, it's usually because
someone found a great fit between two or more previously independent
offerings. In techspeak, this has been referred to as a Mashup (adapted
from the music industry).
Well,
join me in welcoming the latest Mashup -- between Internet delivery,
Telecommunications, Television, Videos, and the social web (and much
more, I suspect).
TechCrunch just confirmed the acquisition of Plaxo, a six year old company, by Comcast, a 45 year old company.
Comcast
will announce their acquisition of social contact list Plaxo today.
Financial terms are not being disclosed, but the rumored purchase price
is in the $175 million range.
I'm thinking the next Mashup announcement will be that Open Social (Plaxo is in) will be incorporated into next-generation set-top boxes . . . and we'll be surfing the social web (again -- remember WebTV, it looks to be a Microsoft product now) with a remote (and that's only the beginning).
Imagine
yourself in the couch potato position with your remote and in the
corner of your wide screen you get a transparent pop up message from
one of your Plaxo contacts wishing you happy birthday. You respond with
a thank you, and he notes that you recently posted your status
indicating you were en route to a celebration dinner.
He
confirms the open invite, and while you are on the way, you get a text
message on your mobile that indicates the room you had reserved has
been upgraded due to an additional twelve guests (pending your
approval). You confirm, and hit the record video button on the dash of your car (probably a Ford, using Microsoft Sync and a Live Mesh application) and record a video greeting that your guests see as they arrive.
I honestly didn't expect The Emergence of The Relationship Economy would be this imminent . . . (you can download the e-book for free here)
What do you think!
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 14, 2008
02:24 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The social web seems to attract a lot of definitional redefining, whether by adding numbers after a term like Collaboration 2.0, Business 3.0, or Office 4.0, or by combining two previously independent words into one as we have with Socialutions. These attempts at redefining can be useful, but they have a tendency to confuse.
Collaboration intuitively has a place in Socialutions, but where exactly does it fit?
Socialutions, which is not yet listed in Dictionary.com, is defined as people,
communities and organizations leveraging technology to interact with
people for the purpose of solving problems; the act of working together
with others to create new solutions to old paradigms of communications
and interaction without boundaries and with limitless reach.
Collaboration, which does appear in Dictionary.com, is defined as the act or process of working, one with another; cooperating, colluding, joining, assisting, or abetting.
Collaboration then, fits with Socialutions in the implementation – when we are working together with others to create new solutions, we are collaborating!
Tapscott and Williams, in their book Wikinomics, identified four steps to developing a collaborative culture.
• Encourage and reward openness in networking for all members of the organization.
• Create peering environments that foster self-organizing human connections for collaboration and innovation.
• Allow radical sharing to expand markets and create new opportunities.
• Think and Act globally as an individual, team and organization.
To achieve Openness
means ensuring a culture of candor, flexibility, transparency and
access. How many of today’s workplaces can accurately be described by
these words?
Peering is also important in the establishment of a collaborative culture. Peering succeeds because it leverages self-organization.
As any business model demonstrates, expanding markets create new opportunities. These opportunities are beneficial, and often require insight into the local business culture.
Thomas Friedman was right - The World Is Flat.
The only way that today’s companies will be able to maintain a healthy
balance sheet tomorrow is if they focus on staying globally
competitive. That means they need to devote time to monitoring
international developments. They will have to begin (or continue)
tapping the global talent pool. They will have to get to know the
world.
In Collaboration 2.0, Coleman & Levine (2008) identified 10 Principles of Resolutionary (note, they are not saying Revolutionary, though it is) Thinking (p. 176):
1. Abundance
2. Efficiently Creating and Sustaining Collaborations
3. Creativity
4. Fostering Resolution
5. Becoming Open
6. Long-Term Collaboration
7. Honoring Logic, Feelings & Intuition
8. Disclosing Information & Feelings
9. Learning
10. Becoming Response Able
Note that each of these fits with the Socialutions paradigm, in the furtherance of our engagement of The Relationship Economy.
Each of these contributes to a collaborate culture – even if the
principles are implemented in pockets of the organization. And each of
these principles can be learned, as long as the intended result is a
positive change in the corporate culture.
In
order to implement Socialutions, collaboration is essential. Today’s
individuals and organizations are ready for a change. The time is
right.
Ready, set . . . collaborate!
What do you think?
References:
Coleman, D. & Levine, S. (2008). Collaboration 2.0: Technology and Best Practices for Successful Collaboration in a Web 2.0 World. Cupertino, CA: Happy About.
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 13, 2008
10:32 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Many of today’s companies recognize the urgency of converting to a
customer-centric, social web-based, operation. The excuses and faulty
logic brought on by global prosperity have been replaced by an honest
examination of internal operations and external market share. As the
various departments search for collaborative ways to maintain
profitability in uncertain economic times, we will see more and more
arrive at the duh! moment of realization that the customer comes first.
We haven’t exactly reached the Utopia that Adriana Lukas describes:
Imagine
having your customers share with you what they like, want and think of
you. . . Interaction with them is modular, intuitive and user-driven
freeing much of your resources spent on marketing and transaction cost.
. . . nor have we seen more than a few examples of big, giant companies who give more than lip service to the process Doc Searls detailed almost five years ago (and Eve Maler recently simplified for those who love simple graphics).
But
there are some unpredicted catalysts on the horizon, and in the spirit
of making right decisions, we see that adoption of a Socialutions
paradigm is going mainstream.
Our proposal for Socialutions involves problem solving and finding innovative solutions through social exchanges. We are suggesting
that organizations can capitalize on the relationships and relationship
connections of the people connected to them in some way, whether these
connections come from employees, vendors, customers, or wherever. But we maintain that the customer comes first. Not to the point of turning major strategic decisions over to crowdsourcing perhaps, but first nonetheless.
Tom Peters has a rather unique (not a shock if you know Tom Peters) perspective on where to put the customer. He says, “to put the marketplace customer first, I must put the person serving the customer "more first.”Peters (admittedly selfishly) proclaims:
To
give a high-impact, well-regarded, occasionally life-changing speech
"to customers" I first & second & third have to focus all my
restless energy on "satisfying" ... myself. I must be ... physically & emotionally & intellectually agitated & excited & desperate beyond measure
... to communicate & connect & compel & grab by the collar
& say my piece about a small number of things, often contentious
and not "crowd-pleasers," that, at the moment, are literally a matter
of personal ... life and death.
As Jay Deragon noted previously, the drive of tomorrow's successful organizations will be a new method and philosophy proclaiming "We the Peoples are all aimed at Socialutions"
that creates perpetual value. We the people are aimed in that
direction, but do the companies who serve us (even if we are after
their employees) get it yet?
Here are some Socialution suggestions for getting from where you are to where you need to be in a hurry:
1) Make the cluetrain manifesto (especially the 95 Theses) mandatory reading for all your employees
2) Have your company intranet feature a link to Cluetrain @ 10 (a revisiting and revising after ten years) and recent posts on the Clueship.
3) On your company-wide strategy wiki (get one if you don’t have one), start a “top ten clues” list and allow anonymous voting.
4)
Allow time off (5% of the workday would be a good start) for your
people (all of them, not just sales and HR) to Twitter, blog, Facebook
and MySpace for the company.
5) Run from
traditional (old school) marketing as a source of “what works.” If it
really worked, you would not have taken the time to read this.
And finally, if you click on this link, you can contribute to our efforts to get Socialutions into Dictionary.com.
What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 7, 2008
09:52 am | 2 recommendations | 1 comment
We are, of course, social creatures, and many marketers understand that. Telecom companies have long encouraged us to connect with our
friends & family (or
Unity), call our network for free, and purchase family plans.
Starbucks has built a business around a unique mixture of offline connections accessing online content “together.” Many email newsletters have the “forward to a friend feature.” And, a growing number of communities are using a
mixed-use design that allows us to work, live and shop in one area.
We are naturally drawn to places where people we know congregate. As social networking sites have demonstrated, we go where our friends are, and we connect to people with whom we have something in common. So it’s pretty natural to think that managing an organization would include understanding the relationship dynamics of those who contribute in some way to the bottom line, right?
Not necessarily.
Many large organizations operate with a directed-association model. Departments are set up in hierarchical fashion, and we learn to work with or for people with whom we may never have come in contact but for our employment. Some enterprising organizations make attempts to capitalize on our personality styles, but how many try to capitalize on our networking styles? Do we examine the “fit” that new members to the team demonstrate in relation to those already established?
Not very often.
Caldwell, et. al., in studies of perceptions of “fit” found that as organizational change becomes the norm, adaptations by individuals is expected, though the ready embrace of change often eludes the observer. The change itself may be the variable, and many organizations are finding that change strategies should include possible reactions to change. So, if people initially deemed “a good fit” for the organization are suddenly experiencing major challenges, was the hiring process faulty?
Tomorrow’s employees are engaging in the social space now, and they are bringing this tradition to the workplace. They may adapt to the directed-association model, but they may also rebel. These are not members of the complacent generation(s) that took what they got and kept silent. These are the “kids” who have been asking why and what’s in it for me since they could talk.
So how do we incorporate them into our management strategies?
A recent example of the technology-enhanced ability to have everyone manage processes was described by
Denis Pombriant in his look at
Right90, which captures and tracks changes to the business forecast (all the things that can and should be forecasted in addition to revenue, so that a company can keep its supply chain informed of coming changes) in real time. With Right90, if a salesperson reports that a customer is doubling an order for 32-inch HDTVs, managers in sales and operations get alerted, and the full implications of the change in the forecast get thoroughly reviewed.
Pombriant observed that this kind of attention to detail gives every relevant person and department a seat at the table, and makes them accountable for bringing in the forecasted revenue in the forecasted product lines. Imagine this strategy being implemented in your organization!
Many small businesses have the idea of this kind of collaboration built in to their initial organizational cultures. Have you ever been to a diner where one person tells the other, “I’m going to the freezer, do you need anything?” The ensuing dialog is likely to result in an informal report of the number of a certain product remaining in stock, followed by a quickly calculated mental note by the person who orders these things. As the business grows, however, each position becomes more intense and focused, and it becomes decreasingly natural to see the operation as a system.
And that’s where the problem lies.
When all the participants in a system fail to see it as a system, each facet of the operation becomes disjointed. If not integrally connected, much additional effort is needed to catch up to at least temporarily unify the thought process for actions such as logistics, personnel, finance, and the like.
By implementing
Socialutions as a management strategy, organizations can capitalize on the relationships and relationship connections of the people connected to them in some way. This naturally includes the employees and the organization’s leadership, and should include customers, clients, vendors, and others served by and serving the organization. These people all represent the company in some way, so why not acknowledge and try to affect the way they represent? As we engage
The Relationship Economy, we need to find new ways to leverage technology to interact with people to solve real problems. Only those people, communities, and organizations who use this type of collaborative problem-solving model will emerge successfully. Those who choose to go it alone and use long-antiquated systems and applications will look back and wonder why they didn’t.
If these suggestions look familiar, perhaps you are seeing a similarity to team-building, which the social web appears to be well suited for. Team building in Asia has been part of the culture since long before W. Edwards Deming traveled to Japan to implement Quality (and plan-do-check-act) in the post-war rebuilding effort. Global team building has enjoyed mostly steady growth as organizations expand an a variety of travel opportunities contract. Socialutions as a management strategy requires using a group (team) of people (stakeholders) to be accountable for the process.
What do you think?
Caldwell, S.D., Herold, D.M. and Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an Understanding of the Relationships Among Organizational Change, Individual Differences, and Changes in Person-Environment Fit: A Cross-Level Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868. Available at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15506866
Pombriant, D. (2008, May 7). The Dawn of Social Networking 2.0., ECT News Network – Tech News World. Available at http://www.technewsworld.com/story/web20/62896.html?welcome=1210165490
3
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
