Silos Are Chosen, Not Imposed

It’s been an interesting week in the midst of the national anthem kneeling controversy here in the US. In two separate circumstances a close and a distant friend on Facebook decided to unfriend or block me when I politely disagreed with their “it’s an insult to the military” stand. It took only my one shortdissenting point for them to “shout” at me and cut me off from their safe, ego-stroking echo chambers. Those within the conversation threads do not know that I was blocked but rather probably assume I whimpered away with my tail between my legs. All within now rest easy as uncomfortable dialog was avoided, loved ones empowered, and complex issues made simple. The lesson: Shout loud, shout angrily, and have the last word.

Little Children

The action each of these people took surprised me, one more than the other stung as it was my childhood friend, but I was left seeing them both still as children; not getting their way (a unified voice of support) they chose to slam the door and stomp away. No matter how you feel about politics or The President of the United States, this was his strategy throughout the campaign and even today; shout, shout angrily, and have the last word. No debate, no dialog, no conversation. Mr. Trump’s behavior is disturbing but it is more clearly a reflection of much of our society.

We Live in Silos
The silo analogy, like the idea of the echo chamber, is an easy one to understand in both life and the world of work. It comes from agriculture – silos of different grains sit spaced across expansive fields, separated, isolated, contained. And although structures exist to contain people in similar homogeneous groups; Social technology where we can choose our “friends” and in organizational departments with unique responsibilities and processes, we do ultimately have the choice to be open-minded and engaging with others… but we often refrain for emotional reasons in one and economic reasons in the other.

A silo mentality can occur when a team or department shares common tasks but derives their power and status from their group. They are less likely to share resources or ideas with other groups or welcome suggestions as to how they might improve. Collaboration in a business culture with silos among teams or departments will be limited, unless collaboration benefits the members of the department. In addition, the members of a silo tend to think alike. They get their power from association with their function and their shared technical knowledge.

– Audra Bianca
Where Difference is Divisive 

I’ve been striving to dissolve these business silos with my work in social technologies over the years. I have helped my own company’s people understand and use technology to find others, find resources and share more openly. The company leadership always welcomes it as they believe correctly that it will help them remain agile, keep people engaged and lead to innovative solutions. However, they quickly realize the organization’s culture stands in the way. No org culture is one where people are shouting however snuffing out difference is still accomplished. Organizations have systems that separate and prevailing beliefs that hoarding knowledge leads to power, failing is not acceptable, and being wrong is a sign of weakness. Their people seek agreement not because it is the right approach but because they don’t want to be ostracized and seen as difficult. So debate is suppressed, monologue is chosen over dialog, and conversation is contained.

Sorry, technology is not going to save us, it only reinforces who we really are. In the end I don’t care about the national anthem debate, I care about social justice and I really care that there is no debate happening. We cannot advance social or even organizational issues without being ego-less, honest, humble and open… which ironically is the natural state of being a child.

70:20:10 As a Reveal Not a Roll-out

Jane McConnell conducted a survey not too long ago to try and figure out what the greatest challenges were in the workplace. The top two that she discovered were related to:

  1. finding information to do the work and
  2. changing the mindset towards more collaboration and cooperation.

See her results and interpretation here.

She is very much focused on the “How To” from these findings and stated “I feel our industry is communicating too much theory and not enough operational and workable ideas today.

I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately most companies will turn to some new tech as their operational idea. However, the rate of change far exceeds the ability of a single tool or approach to keep up. The solution lies in strategy and more specifically a people-centric strategy not a tech focused one.

The two areas Jane surfaced are not exclusive of each other really as both are learning related but I’ll say up front, what I propose is not a quick fix – sorry, but it is workable. The answer lies in supporting greater informal and social learning made operational through a 70:20:10 framework. But unlike an initiative, you do not roll out 70:20:10, rather you must reveal it. Remember people already learn from doing their work, and they learn through and with each other. A 70:20:10 Framework not only makes this more apparent, it amplifies these activities, encourages them. Small, powerful changes at different entry points build and transform the system over time. In other words 70:20:10 IS a Catalytic Mechanism:

organizational mechanisms that are extraordinarily powerful at aligning a business behind a chosen strategy.

70:20:10 lifts the divide between learning and working by creating new behaviors around cooperation, openness and sharing. 70:20:10 shifts power into the hands of employees because, as noted in Jane’s findings, strong central power is not the answer in complex work environments.

Revisiting Jane’s two findings with a 70:20:10 lens:

  1. Finding (relevant) information is best done in trusted networks that add valuable context
  2. Collaboration is an outcome of greater cooperation (through connection)

Here’s a workable idea (a small powerful change), that I’ve promoted before that will increase social activity among employees:

Promote a development plan make-over that reduces training time allocated or training dollars significantly. Goals remain the same, but formal learning opportunities are constrained, can’t be first option. Then open up dialog on “how can we do this?” Create the space for better connection (tech aside). Make mentoring and coaching more a part of the planning. Encourage people to share their sources of new information. Model open question/answer opportunities. Frankly these things have been happening all along, in small sets. Now we work to expand them.

However, beware, 70:20:10 is more than a strategy, it can be an organizational change agent which disrupts the status quo.  70:20:10 won’t just help people better meet the demands of today’s work it can change the very nature of work.

A Tale of Two Socials

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. – Charles Dickens

Social has come a long way, the notion of its importance in business reborn through works like the Agile Manifesto and Cluetrain over 15 years ago and propelled first by Web 2.0 and then through enterprise social technology. But there now appears to be a division of direction.

On one hand social and social technology can extend and expand human interactions like nothing else. It can transform business from the industrial models, and change the very nature of work. Yet today much of the technology (and the vendors building and promoting it) may just be But such awful workers, and such awful work!helping business be a faster, a more effective business as usual. Simply, enterprise social is supporting today’s work, not creating tomorrows’.

Wasn’t there supposed to be more?

Social Has Gone Corporate More Than Corporate Has Gone Social
Early social brought diverse people, groups and ideas together. The tools were simple and allowed people to be creative with their use and that was often the draw; autonomy and creativity. This however was not what business was buying, even though it is just what they needed for the innovation they sought.

The reality is that conversation and idea sharing are messy things, difficult to guide and even more difficult to measure. Vendors either couldn’t articulate this or they didn’t bother since it didn’t fit into the purchaser’s mindsets and models anyway.

Goodbye Connection, Hello Collaboration!
Collaboration became king to the point today that many wrongly see “social”and “collaboration” as identical. Collaboration in itself isn’t a bad thing, what is though is having collaboration become expected rather than encouraged. The command and control message within the social technology medium is this:

“We bought this platform, now go use it.”

To appease leaders, and to better ensure the tool fit measures of success (i.e. ROI), vendors focused on dashboards, and monitoring and measurement were promoted mostly for tracking the most frivolous of activity.

The Rise of Chat
The growing use of chat and chat platforms today is an indicator of this “social” conformity. Chat doesn’t scale. Chat won’t get you to transform. Transformation takes much wider connection and collaboration. Business loves chat; it’s about team-work not net-work; it’s about supporting how work gets done today… in silos. Again, faster, more efficient business as usual.

The User is the Loser
Another sign of stagnation is the emphasis on the terminal goal of user adoption and not work adaptation (the measures mentioned before support this). Of course using a social tool is a step forward, so too is working out loud (a collaboration invitation) but adapting work in a social environment is what can change the very essence of the work being done, where power and authority reside and therefore alter the organization itself – the true promise of social.

 

Yes, we should be disappointed at the state of enterprise social but not surprised. Change is rarely revolutionary and business is business after all, with the goal of most being to win the game and far fewer out to change it. All is not lost however…

We need new skills not new features. We need more understanding and growth in Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) and new organizational structures for learning and working like 702010 frameworks to not merely influence but alter the systems that currently bind us. For these, look no further than the work of Harold Jarche (Personal Knowledge Mastery) and Charles Jennings (702010) for details on explaining individual and organizational approaches.

Ultimately the minority that believe and embrace the power of social to upend the 20th century systems are those that will conform to social, and not work to conform it (to their current models). It will take some very special people in leadership roles and not special technology; People that can cast aside the very systems that enabled them to become the decision-makers today, those who really know that what got us here, won’t get us there.

 

Social Is An Inside Job

In a few weeks I’m speaking at a local event here in Syracuse called the Social Media Breakfast #SMBSyr. My presentation is titled “Social Is An Inside Job.” Regular readers here can probably guess that my central theme will be about the distinction between social business and a social organization, that companies can not truly be social on the outside until they are on the inside, and that social is more about psychology and sociology than technology.

The audience is not my typical one as usually I speak to learning professionals and HR types. This presentation will be for about 35-50 mostly marketing folks. It’s free, it’s early and with a presentation on this look at social, I expect a lower turnout. Who knows.

I want to open with a good story and I had a few from my own work but I heard about this one recently in a conversation with a friend… an absolute tragic gem. I look to start my presentation with this and with the simple question: “How could social technology help here?

A elder care facility recently upgraded all the refrigerators on each of their 5 floors. These state of the art units have an enhanced sealing mechanism which makes them all that more efficient; when the door shuts a vacuum device tightly seals the door and it cannot reopen for 30 seconds. The staff must serve about 120 residents three meals a day and therefore they are constantly going in and out of the refrigerators to prep the meals. 30 seconds is an eternity.

Initially the staff naturally began trying to force the door open by pressing their foot on the lower part for leverage and yanking the handle. All units now have a highly visible dent. The work around that ultimately solved the problem however was to put a rag in the door so it couldn’t seal. Now the staff can quickly access all they need during dinner prep. However they frequently leave the door ajar and the temperature rises resulting in three painful consequences.

  • The food spoils and hundreds of dollars worth must be throw away
  • Residents are served warm drinks and food which is not only a violation but poor treatment
  • The facility has been cited by the Board of Health and fined repeatedly.

Not one food service staff member informed leadership of the issue. 5 floors, 5 refrigerators. It appears employees are doing what they are paid to do and nothing more – punch in, do what’s required, don’t make waves, punch out. Communication between them is poor and Management appears distant; focused on watching dollars and filling the next open position.

Devastating.

How could social technology help here?

It can’t. In it’s most basic form, social doesn’t even exist.

Social technology can make your organization more responsive and it can help surface solutions to sticky problems, but if the culture is as spoiled and communication is non-existent, social technology isn’t going to do a damn bit of good here.

Social Carves Its Own Path

Thousands of people recently commented (most agreeing) with a post on LinkedIn about how awful it was that posts on LinkedIn were no longer business related. Oh the irony.

image

They were upset that LinkedIn was being used like Facebook; status updates and photos of the non-work related type dominating their network updates. (Huh, maybe it’s just what Microsoft wanted though?)

Let’s step out of the social platform mindset for a moment and return to just being social, sans tools. In my experience, as yours, the majority of business setting conversations don’t have much to do with the business. The sports talk, the sarcastic joke, the quick verbal jab, the nod, the wink, the stories of children, parents and pets are not only accepted but expected. This informal conversation is the glue that holds together the formal pieces and this is where LinkedIn conversations are going. For some, LinkedIn has strayed from a place with a distinct purpose. This disturbs them and they will leave. But honestly the “rules” were never there, only expectation and expectations can certainly change faster than rules… and they did.

There is a lesson here for organizational leaders looking to adopt social technology, it is of course a lesson in expectation and rules. It is that social carves its own path. The conversation should not be controlled. Efforts to do so will certainly kill it. It’s movement, like that of water, is critical for survival. Healthy social is natural and unchanneled, for if the sharing and conversation were strictly business related and devoid of the elements that truly unite people, form trust, and build relationships, organizations would ultimately suffer in areas of innovation, creativity, and problem solving.

It’s important to note that people connect with people, not content and that all conversations in business is the conversation of business.