Chatbots FTW!

A quick thought led to a tweet that Chatbots in our #ESN platforms will be very good for human social interaction in organizations.

Supposedly Steve Jobs, Einstein, President Obama and others maintained wardrobe basics so they didn’t have to expel energy picking out clothing; simple (what to wear) and more complicated (what matches) cleared away. Similarly, chatbots will relieve us of the simple and complicated tasks that tend to eat up our time and mental energy; finding files, scheduling meetings, sourcing content, travel arrangements, ordering common products, and answering other’s simple questions. Chatbots will allow us to be more productive and attentive to problem solving and critical thinking – those things that really move organizations forward, those things leadership desires and employees want to do.

So I’ll go a step further and share that chatbots could be the tail that wags the dog. It’s pretty clear that as consumers leverage chatbots to make their lives easier in the marketplace, this technology in established ESNs will flourish. Can it be over done? Absolutely and probably will at first. Eventually though it will be seen less as a novelty and more as a critical player in proving the value of social technology in organizations – more than any other feature, function or vanity metric. To that last item, it will be very easy to measure how often a bot was accessed and how quickly and accurately it responded to requests. This data will be undeniable, revealing its value as performance support and time saving. Quite simply, our little AI friends could very well move companies to procure social technology and it’s adoption faster then any vendor pitch or consultant strategy ever could. Where then will it leave those helping organizations adopt social tech today? Helping companies change their employee’s work habits, behaviors and ultimately their culture… the really human stuff that only humans can do… for now.

 

Side note: Dion Hinchcliffe picked up on my tweet and shared a great article he wrote in a similar vein. Do take a moment to read. “How Chatbots and Artificial Intelligence Are Evolving the Digital/Social Experience“.

Same Ol’, Same Ol’

I read an article recently about how to improve “engagement” in Facebook’s enterprise social platform Workplace. It was rich with approaches one could use and referenced the idea that in Workplace you need strong “group leaders”. There was nothing wrong with the post and frankly it had decent value but honestly there was NOTHING new here either. Seriously, this post could have been written in 2011 about Yammer or in 2013, swapping the tool Jive into the title. These tips and approaches are still being touted and yet we still hear that 80+ ESN efforts fail!

So, it’s not the tools obviously, they all do the same things. And frankly it’s not that the approaches are wrong, these ones make a lot of sense if your organization is ready. And there’s the rub, most aren’t ready for tech that amplifies and exposes. Simply, the problem resides in the culture and well, “culture” is a nebulous word anyway, everyone says it but nobody really gets it – it’s complex.  I’d argue that what we really mean is habits (individual and organizational). These habit loops (cues->routines->rewards) around communication, sharing and collaboration need to be examined, and this analysis takes time. However I’d start with basic questions at all levels:

  • How do we communicate?
  • Why and When do we communicate? When is it triggered?
  • Where does it happen?
  • How does information move in our organization? How is it “packaged”
  • Is it controlled? And if yes by whom and why?

The issue is really about org psychology and sociology and this needs to be accepted well before technology is purchased. You knew this though, your leaders know this but that’s another habit loop to be examined – Need change -> Buy a tool-> Avoid painful cultural realities.

The Role of Social Networks in the Rise of Christianity

Christianity after the death of Jesus was just a small movement under scrutiny and attack in the Roman Empire. Yet in less than 500 years it was their official religion. Devine intervention? Perhaps.

According to author Rodney Stark, in his 1997 book The Rise of Christianity, the faith spread not by formal means or force but in great measure through conversations that led to conversions.

Social forms around an object and for Christianity, the object was “hope” and the social agents spreading the message were women. But these were not desperate and destitute women, rather they were the wealthy women, those married into Roman aristocracy.

Women of means had the time and connections to commune and influence their fellow women and eventually their men participating in government affairs. Like most women of their time they were greatly impacted by paternal decisions related to child-birth, infanticide, and abortion. Furthermore, Christianity provided hope in times of trouble like when natural disasters struck – pagan gods had no answer. Christianity was a new message ALL Romans could connect with.

Women then were the key nodes in the network, they influenced the influencers and slowly the faith spread to ultimately integrate with all elements of Roman society.

What can we take away from this?

First, change doesn’t always come from the top and as the case maybe, sustainable change is bottom up driven. Additionally, community forms it is not created or built and it’s best supported from within. And finally, (most importantly) change – the kind of change that can influence the world for thousands of years begins in the same way that can transform an organization today… one conversation at a time.

To all my Christian friends, Happy Easter.

 

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.

 

Change the Default (Mind)Settings

I wondered aloud on Twitter last week about the supposed 80% fail rate of ESNs that many publications have reported in recent years. This thought was further spurred on by this CMS Wire article The Smoke and Mirrors of Enterprise Social Networking Metrics. Of course the word “fail” has a connotation that 1. NOBODY is using the platform and/or 2. an expectation (usually of the purse string holding executive) wasn’t met. I tend to think it’s the latter as the tech and maybe even your culture is just fine… your measurement may be wrong.

All enterprise social platforms come with a dashboard of metrics of their own definition. Engagement is typically the golden calf as adoption, measured in things like “likes”, “shares”, “posts”, etc all add up to success of the tool. But is it tool success that drove the desire to have a tool in the first place?? Add in whiz-bang features like badges (eh-hem, stickers) and maybe “sentiment” metrics (which something tells me can’t identify sarcasm) and VIOLA! you have even more to measure. They make it simple. But as we know simple isn’t easy and in this case it isn’t right either. Used in isolation and these metrics are the equivalent of what traditional training measures – butts in seats or “if you attended you must have learned.” A fallacy of course as all it means is one was present and the default metrics for ESN platform are similarly a false prophet.

Frankly, the only measure you can gain from the tool is about the tool. The measures that matter can’t be seen in an ESN dashboard and there are way too many other variables contributing to the outcomes that really matter in the workplace. Social interaction is a key piece however and if a platform is used by some to make them feel a part of something bigger, if it helps a handful of people find innovative solutions, and if it actually helps a team to get work done faster, easier and in the open – well that’s far from a failure.

A few thoughts to help you shift away from the lure of the default settings:

First, an ESN platform certainly helps extend and expand social interaction, but it should never be the measure of “social success”! Second, social is bigger than your business, and it carves it’s own path. If you attempt to channel conversations in the direction of business only, you are in essence sucking the soul out because all conversations in business are the conversations of business. Accept that social is important but it’s not going to be all shop talk and if it were forced to be, the relationships (so critical to organizational health) would disappear… looking much like an ESN failure.

The real failure we hear of is certainly not the technology, it’s also not that your culture isn’t collaborative either. Rather, it’s a failure in expectation and in effectively communicating what social is really about. It’s a failure in not having (or not having the ability to have) the necessary, deeper conversation with leaders that (sorry) aren’t as black and white, and easy as all those default dashboard metrics tout.