Writing a bookI’ve mentioned the book I’ve been working on. I’ve actually made considerable headway on the weekends (except I can’t come up with a good title to save my life) and thought I’d share my current working summary. I’d love to hear your feedback.

I am looking for examples where social technologies have been used by companies to build trust, retain  knowledge, foster collaboration and spur innovation. If you or your company have any good examples please leave me a comment or shoot me an email: tac@newcommbiz.com

Social Media has brought about a groundswell of change that has swept the business world up in its wake. Antiquated processes, organizational structures and technologies  have kept companies from staying tuned in and engaged with customers and employees, to say nothing about keeping up with smaller, nimbler competitors.

No one can dispute that the Internet has radically reinvented the financial drivers and restraints of  traditional business models. It has lowered almost every barrier to entry in almost every industry. What the Internet has done to business models, the technologies behind social media are doing to the rest of business.

For the first time since the universal adoption of the org chart and the inbox (the physical not the digital one) we have the opportunity to fundamentally rethink how a business is run and what the various stakeholders of a company are and do. Customers don’t just buy products, they are helping companies ideate, design, develop and then sell products. Partnerships between two companies in a supply chain are no longer one dimensional relationships. Partners can also be competitors, customers and shareholders. In the very near future the way we recruit, retain and manage employees today will seem medieval.

The social media revolution is on the verge of creating truly social businesses. This change is being driven by the forces of: Trust, Knowledge, Collaboration & Innovation. These forces have become so important that have become there own form of capital. And like monetary capital they follow the same laws of capitalism and the free market. Until now companies have tried to govern these new forms of capital like a controlled market when what is needed now is a free market approach. Like in a free market, the rights of the owners must be protected but the free trade of capital must not be restricted.

The truly social business will be fully realized when social technologies are leveraged to build collaborative relationships across all company stakeholders.  By leveraging social technologies in an open and transparent way businesses will regain and build more trust among stakeholders. This increased trust is a necessity to creating greater shared knowledge, which the same social technologies have the ability to capture, organize and distribute at a yet to be seen level of efficiency. By building collaborative relationships with all company stakeholders using social technologies, businesses will be able to quickly create and capitalize more innovation.

No business has fully achieved this seemingly radical state but many early revolutionaries have developed pockets of deep expertise and experience. While many companies and their employees believe that the lack of adoption of these new technologies is hindering this quintessential state, the fundamental barriers are the outdated structures and process that have existed inside corporations since before the Internet. It’s time to stamp out the last bastions of resistance and remove those barriers and get out of our own way.

Join the New Comm Biz Facebook Page or follow the Twitter account.

Photo credit via icedsoul photography

Popularity: 3% [?]

What Does the Social Business Look Like?

What does the Social Business look like? Some rough draft thoughts.

The Social Business will be fully realized when social technologies are leveraged to build collaborative relationships across all company stakeholders.  By leveraging social technologies in an open and transparent way businesses will also regain and build more trust among stakeholders. This increased trust will will result in greater knowledge creation, which the same social technologies have the ability to capture, organize and distribute at a yet to be seen level of efficiency. By building collaborative relationships with all company stakeholders using social technologies, businesses will be able to quickly create and capitalize more innovation.

Some definitions:

Social Media: The output of Web enabled open collaboration using social technologies.

Social Technologies: The technologies and tools used to communicate, collaborate and create on the Web such as blogs, microblogs, wiki’s and forums

Social Business: A business that has built a strategy around leveraging social technologies and social media to maximize the relationships with all company stakeholders.

Collaborative Relationships: Open transparent and mutually beneficial relationships between companies and its stakeholders.

Stakeholders: A companies employees, customers, shareholders, partners and competitors, past, present and future (basically everyone).

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been “working on a book.” I’ve been working on said book for about three years. Maybe this year is the year I finish it. The above is my most recent raw notes from the book writing process. Since I like to bounce my ideas off all of you I thought I’d solicit your feedback here. Let me know what you think.

I’m really excited to go to the Dachis Group’s Social Business Summit next month because I want to test my above theories against the smartest people working on the vision for the Social Business? That and I’ll finally get to meet Peter Kim.

Popularity: 4% [?]

The Innovation Equation and Social Media Solution

I have a theory: The amount of Knowledge and quality of Collaboration a company is able to achieve directly effected by the level of Trust all parties have in the company.This is reflected in the potential value of the Innovation.

Collaboration
Image by yuan2003 via Flickr

(Knowledge x Collaboration) x Trust = Innovation

Knowledge is the raw materials businesses are built on today. All commodities are just that, commodities. Production became a commodity thanks to globalization and distribution became a commodity thanks to the Internet. The only thing that’s left is knowledge.

Knowledge is easy for individuals to gain. Knowledge is itself a commodity – for individuals. Knowledge is a scarcity for companies. The ability to mine the wealth of knowledge inside of the people employed by a company is harder. Add to that the need to mine knowledge from customers and partners and knowledge just became the scarcest mineral on the planet.

Why is knowledge so difficult to gain? Two factors: Retention and Trust.

Retention because we don’t stay at the same job as long as we used to, customers are rarely brand loyal anymore and partnerships are fleeting. None of this is going to change dramatically, which puts an increase on the need for trust.

Employees, Customers and Partners have an inherent lack of trust in corporations. This means they will only give up as much knowledge as they have to in order to gain something of value like a paycheck, a product or a contract.

In my last post I talked about the value of Trust. Let’s assume for a minute that you are actually able to gain enough trust to gather sufficient knowledge, now what? Now that you’ve mined that raw data you need to turn it into something. This is where collaboration comes in.

As companies continue to rely on remote and mobile workforces our ability to collaborate has been hampered and becomes expensive and difficult. This yields lower returns comparable to the level of investment. Which in turns causes companies to kill potential breakthrough innovations much sooner.

Social Media has huge payoffs in all of these areas. Social Media allows companies to open up and place trust in their employees and customers which in turn yields more trust. Social media allows for the gathering, storing and sharing of knowledge as well as facilitating communication and collaboration across multiple regions and stakeholders.

Among other benefits, this social media centric approach lowers the overall costs and increases the output making it easier to invest in, what in the short term seems like, smaller innovations but may actually have larger returns in the end.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 2% [?]

Tagged with:
 

So what is Social Media? We know what it is when we see it. We can give you examples of social media but you’ll be hard pressed to get a very satisfactory answer out of anyone. Is it the opposite of antisocial media? Not exactly. Is it a medium? Is it a movement? Is it a technology? The very unsatisfactory answer is yes, to all three questions.

A picture of a dictionary viewed with a lens o...
Image via Wikipedia

And if we can’t even explain Social Media very well why are some people already using terms like social business or social enterprise? Is it just a branding exercise? Partly. But part of the need for newer definitions is because the old ones don’t work perfectly. But before we get to the newer definitions I’d like to stay focused on the current one of Social Media.

Really, all of this is the latest evolutionary attempt to sound smart with vocabulary. Over the last 10 years we’ve been trying to explain the changes that have taken place on the Web and the effects of which we’ve felt throughout business and culture.

In order to really explain to you what Social Media is I need to take you on a relatively short journey over the last 10 years. (Short for a history lesson but long for a blog post).

The Cluetrain Manifesto

Almost 10 years ago the Web crashed. Well not the Web, the economy. But everyone blamed the Web. After people came to grips with what happened they were left licking their wounds and pondering the great dot com crash. After the party was over and the money left town, the die hards stuck around and continued to use the Internet for many exciting things. Most Internet advocates felt betrayed. It wasn’t their fault the bubble popped. It was driven by the worst combination of corporate greed and ignorance. Out of these digital ashes rose the awareness that if the Internet was going to reach its full potential things were going to have to be different. Real people needed to be in the driver seat not the collective conscious-less, non-entity called The Corporation. Corporations allowed greedy narrow minded people to do things they’d never do in the light of day.

At first there was no terminology to describe what was happening. One of the earliest attempts to put a voice to this, The Cluetrain Manifesto,  tried to explain the shift, years before the bubble popped, by pointing out that markets had become conversations. Companies could no longer push messaging at customers and expect them to act like sheep. Outside of a small group of Web dissidents and scholars no one had any idea what the Cluetrain Manifesto was talking about. Few even knew it existed even though it had been placed on the Web for free. Ironically no one had a clue. Many interpreted it as the ranting’s of a bunch of idealists. Little did they know the authors of Cluetrain were (and still are) some of the biggest skeptics. The Clutrain Manifesto was the first shot fired in a new revolution. But no one heard it.

Eventually consumers and employees started taking to web-logs as a way to communicate with one another, voice their opinions on things and occasionally get really worked up about this unidentified cause and really, really worked up over the newest bright shiny web object. It would take approximately 5 years before the first signs of this coming storm were visible.

New Media

Web-blogs became blogs with comments and RSS and our first linguistic attempt to put a name on the revolution fell short with New Media. Yeah, not very original, but it was a start. More and more people started to see the writing on the walls and began to talk about how in theory companies could use blogs and RSS to communicate directly with customers.

Stop and think about that for a minute: In theory they could communicate directly with their customers? It may seem like a complete radical prospect now but less than 5 years ago it was almost impossible for a large global company to communicate with (not just broadcast to) their customers. Their usual weapons of choice were advertisements and press releases. Either way they were reliant on the media to carry that message for them.

Driving this change was a fun little movement called Word of Mouth Marketing. Built on the premise that traditional marketing was intrusive and irrelevant, WOM was and still is a return to people communicating with people. Create great experiences, empower your customers to be evangelists and let WOM happen. Idealistic at times but still one of the core precepts behind social media. People being people and doing cool things. While WOM was and still is hugely popular it quickly took a back seat to New Media. WOM by itself is nice but digital WOM scales.

Blogs and RSS were only the beginning. AJAX, Java scripts, wikis, mashups, blogs and other (relatively) user friendly, and mostly open source, technologies made programming easier than ever and almost free. New Media and WOM couldn’t explain the broader possibilities these tools had on business. These tools weren’t just for geeks and marketers, they had powerful implications on IT and business.

Web 2.0

Tim Orielly would eventually stand up on a stage and pronounce that we had entered a new state on the Internet: Web 2.0. This was our nascent movements first major assault and our first real buzz word. Overnight everything became 2.0. No one wanted to be an irrelevant 1.0, everyone needed to become 2.0. But like most buzz words no one really knew what it meant.

Web 2.0 was the term given to these revolutionizing technologies that were enabling New Media and putting it in the hands of consumers. Two geek’s in a basement somewhere were creating websites that acted more like software and allowed customers to create, publish and curate their own content faster and cheaper than the media or corporate marketing departments could ever dream of.

The natives were restless and they were pounding on the gates. The real problem was that the natives were better armed, better trained and far out numbered the establishment. It was the equivalent of the French Revolution, except instead of starving peasants they were Navy Seals armed to the teeth.

The revolution wasn’t just being waged on the media and marketing organizations. Lost tribes like Knowledge Management and internal IT revolutionaries raised a rallying cry against outdated, limiting, expensive and just plain crappy Enterprise software. Andrew McAfee raised the flag of Enterprise 2.0 and an army was formed.

Then things started to get interesting. The revolutionaries quickly became tired of corporate America and every Johnny-come-lately grabbing onto the Web 2.0 moniker. People already wanted to claim things were Web 3.0. The shark had been jumped. As quickly as it sprung up Web 2.0 was replaced by Social Media. Social Media as a term and as an industry, flourished even while the economy crashed and burned.

Social Media

Corporate America stumbled, tripped and fell flat on it’s face, taking the World’s economy with it. Newspapers, media companies and advertising agencies opened wide the faucet and shed employees  as fast as they could. Yet if you worked in Social Media during this time you would have never known anything was wrong with the economy. While those holding down the status quo got the rug pulled out from underneath them Social Media climbed to new heights, looked over it’s shoulder and gave the dead a dying a look that said, “I told you so.”

The battle would soon be over. 90% of the US population is online. 80% of the online population now uses Social Media in some form. But you almost have to try not to. Facebook is ubiquitous, I doubt there’s a newspaper online that doesn’t have a blog and the once proud traditional media has embraced Social Media in a desperate bear hug  to stay relevant. Even Oprah and Martha Stewart are on Twitter. Today, Social Media has a firm stronghold on our vernacular. But, the term, Social Media has it’s limits.

The Next Evolution

Much like New Media and WOM couldn’t explain all the possibilities implied in Web 2.0, new terms like Social Business or the Social Enterprise are trying to get at all the implications this revolution has on business. Unlike Web 2.0 the linguistic challenges it faces aren’t just technical, they’re also cultural. A Social Business/Enterprise is as much the internal reflection of what Social Media reflects externally as it is a technologically opportunity.

I personally think that over the next few years the buzzwords will die away and we’ll just be back to, The Web and Media and Business again. But I don’t hate the buzzwords, its normal, actually its unavoidable. And while I may not have given you a clear definition, hopefully I’ve given you enough context as to how we got here that you don’t need to rely on buzzwords and their made up definitions. Here’s to the next 10 years.

Join the New Comm Biz Facebook Page or follow the Twitter account.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 11% [?]

Why Business is Broken

Mechanical desktop typewriters, such as this U...
Image via Wikipedia

I believe companies need a complete overhaul from the inside out. From business models to internal and external communications practices. Why?

Our processes, organizational structures, communications practices, systems for measuring ROI internally and externally and the vast majority of our business models were created in an age of triplicate carbon copy paper, typewriters and inner-office memo’s.

The Business World and all that it entails was created in a time that is irrelevant to most of today’s work force. The few people for whom it may posses some level of relevance are mostly retired or planning to be as soon as their 401K’s bounce back enough.

This doesn’t just apply to the News and Music industries, it applies to every type of business.

I’m not advocating for a total rebuild. There are a lot of good practices that are tried and true for any environment. But if you’re not reevaluating everything right now you will be shortly.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 1% [?]

Tagged with:
 

Book writing progress report

I feel pretty good about my progress to date. You can follow my progress via The Book category. Here’s a list of my most recent posts:

I’ve pounded out all of my big rocks. They’re just really rough and need some polishing. There are also still several areas that I need to go back and fill in some of the logic and expand my reasoning/thinking around several of the points I was trying to make.

For the rest of the year my posts won’t be following any type of logical progressions. I’ll address each post and attempt separate posts that fill in the gaps I see. I’ve already received some great feedback and comments on many of the posts but I’d still welcome any additional suggestions you have.

What you’ll see in the 6 posts I’ve written is the general outline; the major themes. Now I want to go back and fill in the outline. I can’t decide if I should go back to some of my much older posts that cover some of these topics yet or not. I probably will if I get stuck on a topic.

My big challenge over the  next two weeks will be finding time to write while still spending Christmas with my family and getting in as much snowboarding as possible. You gotta have balance right?

So far I’m really pleased with this process. I hope you’re getting something useful out of it along the way.

I’m still not sure what I’ll do with the book when I’m done. I vacillate between seeking a publisher or just self publishing. I guess it’ll ultimately depend on how confident I am with the final product.

What are your thoughts?

This post is part of my ongoing effort to blog the book I’ve been working on for too long before the end of the year. These are all rough first drafts that have not been edited or even proofread. Comments and patients are requested. You can follow the whole series through the category The Book

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 6% [?]

Tagged with:
 

Creative Interactions Lead to More Innovation.

A personification of innovation as represented...Image via WikipediaThere isn’t a CEO alive who doesn’t think more innovation is a good thing and something that their organization needs more of it. The problem is, no one’s really sure how to maximize it in a cost effective manner.

We all have vague notions of where it comes from and there is no shortage of research on this very topic. I’ve spent the last several years combing through the books and research and in a very general way I’d like to summarize what I think most of them are saying.

Increase creative interactions. The general consensus also seems to be that outside influences create better innovation than influences we are already well aware of.

Unlike my previous two capitalism metaphors innovation is not actually the capital. Innovation is the product that is purchased with the capital. The capital is creative interactions.

What do I mean by creative interactions? I believe it is the interactions that people have that pull them out of their current line of thinking and expose them to new possibilities. This can be interactions with people from other groups within the same company. It can be interactions with customers or employees at partnering businesses. It can also be (and more frequently is) interactions with new content.

Web 2.0 technologies enable all of these to happen more frequently and more rapidly.

Social networks like Facebook, allow people to interact with a variety of people they know on varying levels of familiarity. Twitter allows people to be exposed to conversations and often links to valuable content at a dizzying pace.  RSS and RSS aggregators allow people to subscribe to multiple magazines worth of content a day. Internal blogs and wiki’s allow people to explore what other groups and people are doing and how to learn from their mistakes and innovations. There are even a growing number of tools that enable co-innovation with customers.

Unfortunately, of the three areas I’ve talked about so far measuring the ROI of innovation investments is by far the most difficult. Coupled with the difficulty of measuring the value of creative interactions is the fear that many managers have that employees are just wasting time.

I sympathize with companies and the fear of unproductiveness, social media can be a huge time suck if you let it. But I also believe that the more dependant you are on a person to be innovative in their job, the more you have to trust them to manage their own time and the more of it you have to let them “waste”.

There is another argument for the ROI of social media and like most of my financial arguments, that I’ll get into in more detail later, is that of total cost, or Return On Total Investment (ROTI).

The simple answer to ROTI is that Web 2.0 *can be* cheap, even free.

You can deploy an open source tool or sign up for a social network for no increased cost and decide if it works without ever having to go through procurement (that in itself will speed up innovation at an exponential rate).

Web 2.0 tools and social media allows individuals to fail often and fail fast while others are deciding if something is a good idea. It also allows them to succeed where others have decided to abandon an idea because of uncertainty.

Creating more creative interactions will create more innovation. Nothing I’ve ever seen will create more creative interactions than social media. But like all innovation the value will never be realized unless their is a process in place to feed that innovation into action. This requires that all people involved in the process are familiar and comfortable with the new tools that exist.

The companies that will succeed tomorrow are the ones that enable interactions, create a process for tracking, vetting and realizing the innovations and then feed those learning’s back into the organization.

This post is part of my ongoing effort to blog the book I’ve been working on for too long before the end of the year. These are all rough first drafts that have not been edited or even proofread. Comments and patients are requested. You can follow the whole series through the category The Book

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 7% [?]

Tagged with:
 

Creating Smarter Organizations.

Personification of knowledge (Greek ????????, ...
Image via Wikipedia

Previously I attacked the prickly area of Trust. This time I want to tackle an equally tricky area: Knowledge.

There are few areas inside a company, large or small, that are trickier to track than knowledge. There’s an entire professional disciple dedicated to knowledge management and even they struggle with how to measure the ROI of knowledge.

The Wikipedia entry on knowledge sheds some light on why this is problematic.

Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato’s formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief”. There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate. See Knowledge Management for additional details on that discipline.

How can we measure something that we can’t even define? It’s a philosophical dilemma that I doubt will ever be resolved. I’m not going to immediately give you the answer to the ROI question just yet. For now I’m going to make the assumption that we all see value in knowledge and we all agree that our companies would be better if we could create more shared knowledge.

For my purposes I would like to use the very loose definition of knowledge:

The theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

Where does knowledge come from? Once again I don’t want to join the raging debate of how we obtain knowledge so I’m going to take a very easy approach. I believe there are two main ways we obtain knowledge, processing information and/or doing something. For my purposes I want to focus on the first of these two.

Most knowledge workers spend the vast majority of their time, finding, processing and creating information. The entire Information Technology industry is founded on helping people inside companies do these three things better. But technology can only process information, not knowledge (my apologies to all the Artificial Intelligence people out there). As one manager said to me, I don’t care about what’s in their reports, I want to know how they came to their conclusions.

Social media and Web 2.0 have given the dusty old disciple of Knowledge Management a new found purpose and a whole slew of tool sets. You think knowledge management was tough in the 80’s and 90’s? Try managing exponential information.

But that’s exactly what we’re asked to do. We now have to search, filter, process and re-purpose more information in a single day than our ancestors had access to in their entire lives. And it’s only going to get worse.

But do you know what the worst part is? For all the knowledge that knowledge workers create, most of it never leaves their head and the stuff that does make it out ends up in someone’s inbox or shared over a phone call or in a hallway conversation. What happens when that person leaves the company? What happens when, even if they stay in your company, someone from a completely different department tries searching for that information on the company intranet? The results are usually the same: net = 0. the company doesn’t really benefit any beyond the reach of that one person.

To date we have seen the first promising signs of social media’s ability to manage and create knowledge. Bookmarks, tags, and other types of folksonomy allow people to sift, categorize and share information as they come across it. Wiki’s, blogs, micro-blogging and social networking tools allow people to collaborate, share and teach each other in both real time and time shifted. Add increased search capabilities, meta-data and RSS on top of these tools and you’re starting to see the promise in social media and Web 2.0 technologies.

While we’ve only really talked about the value of knowledge as it applies to employees, the same holds true for customers, partners and all of a companies stakeholders.

The great thing about these new tools is that they simultaneously capture information as it’s being created and shared. We will never be able to fully capture all knowledge inside an organization, even if we wanted to, but by enabling and encouraging the use of an integrated tool set with these capabilities you allow the rules of capitalism to apply to knowledge. The more that is shared, the more that is created.

In my next post I plan to show how innovation will also follow the same rules.

Image via Wikipedia

This post is part of my ongoing effort to blog the book I’ve been working on for too long before the end of the year. These are all rough first drafts that have not been edited or even proofread. Comments and patients are requested. You can follow the whole series through the category The Book

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 9% [?]

Tagged with:
 

How Much Does Trust Cost?

Paying people to hold signs is one of the olde...
Image via Wikipedia

Because of some of the reasons I outlined in my previous post, Corporations, The Government and The Media are all struggling with a severe loss of trust.

Who’s trust is it that they’ve lost exactly? Well that would be The Public, aka everybody. I’d like to break down why it’s important that these groups regain trust and how they can do it. Some of this may seem like a no-brainer but I figured it would be better to cover everything as opposed to leave some pieces out or up for debate.

Loosing Trust is expensive.

Well, I guess that didn’t take long after all. Why should you, dear reader, care if people trust you? A lack of trust costs you money. It’s that simple, it really is. Let’s take a closer look.

The obvious example is your customers. If they don’t trust you they won’t buy from you. If they don’t trust that you will deliver to them a decently functioning product no amount of advertising will help them believe you. Why? Well they don’t trust you, or The Media (double whammy). They don’t trust you to tell them the truth so anything you say is a lie.

If your employees don’t trust you it is probably even more expensive. If your employees don’t trust you then they won’t be as productive or work as hard. They just won’t give you everything they have because they don’t trust that they’ll be adequately compensated.

If your employees don’t trust you they’ll take the first reasonable offer to leave. I’ve seen employees leave their existing company for a position that paid less because they felt it had more long term potential.

If your shareholders don’t trust you when you tell them that this next quarter will be better than the last then your stock price suffers.

To overcome this lack of trust many “Social Media Experts” (SME’s) advocate complete transparency. I don’t adhere to this notion. There are some things a company should never divulge. There are the obvious things like employee records, customer data and trade secrets, but there are non obvious things that vary from company to company and situation to situation. Things like: new products, product features, strategic partnerships, the list could go on. These are often things that will become public eventually, it’s just a matter of how long before they come out. I may be splitting hairs here but to me complete transparency isn’t subjective to timing.

Despite SME’s loudest and most ardent cries I find it laughable that the biggest violator to their rule is one of their most beloved brands.

Apple is the most opaque company I’ve ever seen. I would argue that they are as opaque as Big Oil or Big Tobacco. That may seem harsh but how many companies in the tech sector could get away with forbidding and even terminating employees for blogging? How many companies could get away with suing bloggers who blog about their up-coming product releases? When Apple does this where are the cries of “Foul” or “Transparency”? Sure people cry out but it is quickly forgiven. Why? It’s simple really: People trust Apple.

People trust that Apple will continue to deliver cutting edge products that astound and redefine any market they enter. People trust Apple to to deliver on the promises they make. Apple never promises to be easy to communicate with. Apple never promises to be a low cost leader. Apple never promises to be transparent. So they don’t need to be.

Transparency is a bandage for lack of trust.

People think that if we see everything a company is doing that there’s no way they can deceive us. Companies just need to be trustworthy. The problem is, how do you regain trust once it’s lost? If we extend the metaphor that trust is capital, then it should behave as any other capital when the rules of capitalism are applied to it.  If we go back to my earlier definition of capitalism it’s this:

Capitalism is the belief that the more freely you distribute capital the more capital is created.

So how do you gain trust? You first have to trust.

This has been one of the major hurdles many corporations, governments and other entities have struggled with when it comes to social media. They don’t want to blog because they don’t trust their employees to not say the wrong things. They don’t trust that their customers won’t leave nasty comments. They don’t trust those that they want trust from, and their customers and employees know it.

Instituting a company blog really has little to do with being transparent. It has everything to do with trusting.

You have to trust your employees. You have to trust your customers. If you don’t how can you expect them to trust you. If you’re fortunate enough to not have lost trust then consider yourself lucky. But if you feel that your company would benefit from increased trust than you need to start trusting. The actual implementation that you use will vary. You may start internally first. You may start externally first. You may start a blog, you may start a forum, you may start a wiki or any other number of tools but don’t do it if you aren’t willing to trust.

It’s been well documented that people trust other people they perceive are like them. Glossy messages from the company don’t seem real. Real words from real people like your customers, or better yet, other customers will have a much stronger effect than any press release.

This is why social media can be so effective. It’s also why so many corporate blogs aren’t effective. Rehashing the same marketing junk in a blog doesn’t make it any more effective.

Technorati Tags: ,,

This post is part of my ongoing effort to blog the book I’ve been working on for too long before the end of the year. These are all rough first drafts that have not been edited or even proofread. Comments and patients are requested. You can follow the whole series through the category The Book.

Image via Wikipedia

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 9% [?]

Tagged with:
 

The Reality of the Corporation

Contrasting yesterday’s post, I would like to discuss the realities of the corporation as I see them. I would first like to preface this that I am not an economist. I’m merely a slightly jaded Gen X (aka Slacker) with an MBA. I’ve owned my own businesses and have been, and currently am, an “employee”  (although I wear that label very, very loosely).

The fairytale Corporate America that I talked about yesterday operated in an American capitalist ecosystem. The “global market” didn’t really exist yet and technology had not enabled the rules of capitalism to play out world wide…yet.

Sometime during the ’80’s that changed. This is while most Gen Xers were just starting college or still in high school.  First we watched this new discipline, “Information Technology” hold the promise of the corporate fountain of youth. Then we watched as Europe unified (kind of) under a common financial agreement. We watched Japan go through a major generational shift that enabled a younger more business savvy generation show us what capitalism was capable of. More recently we’ve watched China and India catch their own strain of capitalism – the full effects of this are still far from being fully realized.

During these titanic shifts corporations had a decision to make: Follow the rules of capitalism and take advantages of the wealth of lower cost resources – computer and human – or try to hang on to their fairy tale existences.

It is at that point that corporations realized that employees were just another resource on the spreadsheet. Once that happened “labor” fell under the same effects of capitalism that all resources are subject to. Companies began shifting those resources and a new wave of innovation swept through the country sweeping away the obsolete and propelling the prepared to new heights.

Today, thanks to the Internet and technology there are very few jobs in America that can’t be done somewhere else for nearly as good, just as good, or often times better by someone overseas or by a computer/machinery. And if you think your job is safe, wait and hold that fairytale close to your pillow at night.

There are only two American jobs that are safe in the future. Those done by a true specialized, expert or those that don’t exist yet.

This reality is not necessarily better (although many of us think it is) or worse (although many people do) it’s just different. But it’s the reality that we live in.

Because of these huge changes, everything that I mentioned in my previous post about work in the fairytale version of Corporate America is radically different.

Information flows through a company faster than it is capable of capturing it, and that which it can capture is so huge that we haven’t figured out how to digest it effectively yet. Large global companies are not capable of housing all of their employees in one location, and because all but a very few companies that don’t compete globally (I would argue there are none) most small businesses aren’t housed all in the same location.

A company is only as loyal to their employees as long as their position (not necessarily them) can add value to the organization, and likewise an employee is only as loyal to the company as long as it is providing the most value to them (although sadly not every employee grasps this yet).

Employees are mobile and transient. Most corporate jobs are now classified as “knowledge workers.” Knowledge workers do not learn their job their manager. They do not move up in the company. They usually move diagonally, or to another company to move up. I have heard many a manager confess that, in some companies, it is easier to move up within ones own company if they leave to another company and then come back years later. This is the employment equivalent of corporate parkour (see video).

With so much transient information, both in the form of people and data, the need for the collaboration and the simultaneous capture of knowledge is proving to be one of the last true competitive advantages companies have. With knowledge and collaboration comes innovation.

It is also important to note that something else happened during these huge shifts. People were turned into line items on a spreadsheet, you were either a customer or an employee and either way you represented a certain dollar amount. Once CEO’s took the faces away from the people they relied on, they became greedy and were able to rationalize all kinds of things (I believe a very similar thing happened with the government years before).

Corporations violated (and still do) the publics trust time and time again. Even the Media (which is just another group of corporations) fell victim to this greed.

People no longer trusted the Government
People no longer trusted Corporate America
People no longer trusted the Media.

What’s even more important beyone the loss of trust is that people no longer rely on these groups for the things they used to (the one arguable exception is the Government, but like I said, that’s arguable).

The solution to these problems lies in the, yet to be fully realized, power of Social Media. Moving forward I will use the metaphor of Capitalism to show how government agencies and politicians, companies and even local and national media outlets can use the tools and trends driving the social media revolution to earn back trust and gain substantial competitive advantages by better capturing knowledge and enabling innovation.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,

This post is part of my ongoing effort to blog the book I’ve been working on for too long before the end of the year. These are all rough first drafts that have not been edited or even proofread. Comments and patients are requested. You can follow the whole series through the category “The Book“.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Popularity: 8% [?]

Tagged with:
 

Bad Behavior has blocked 6240 access attempts in the last 7 days.