Incent to Share

Photo by Eric Ziegler

Your company doesn't share information.

There are silos in your organization.

Each silo is not interested in helping the other silos.

Enterprise Social tools are integrated into business tools

Enterprise Social tools are still not being used.

Why is it not working?

Culture culture culture.

Technology is not what wins the battle, change and culture, that's what's needed .

Find the incentives for people to share.

Classifying a Community

Photo by Eric Ziegler

Defining categories of communities can be done in many many different ways: e.g. by size (small, medium, large, humongous), types of people in the community (internal employees vs. external clients vs both), etc.

There are so many different types of communities that to be honest, it can scare away even the hardiest of requester for a new community. Last week I talked about the first step that must happen with requesting community managers, setting expectations. Inside that post, I mentioned that some well intended requests come without knowing much about what a community could do for them. So to help them understand what is available, I have often used the following examples to help the types of communities they could build

1. Pushy Community - Not much of a community, but still there is the need for them in enterprises (hopefully rarely). Success is defined as people reading the information) 
2. Interactive Pushy Community - This is the first real level of a community, where the push of information is accompanied with the ability to like, rate, and comment with the posts. The community can't post new messages, but they can interact with what is posted, allowing them to engage with the content and the content creators. Success is defined as people read the information and interact and engage with the content. 
3. Interactive Community - The community is built so that the community members interact with each other, collaborating on documents, asking questions, getting answers, and sharing information with each other. Sometimes email is used to get the community re-engaged or to get the word out on the most important of information. The success of the community is defined by people almost fully interacting and engaging in the community and occasionally relying on tools outside the community to interact with each other. 
4. Collaborative Community - The community is built so that the community members interact solely using the collaborative tools available, collaborating interacting, engaging with each other within the community. Success for this community is when the community members use the tools available to exclusively collaborate with each other and do not use external tools to collaborate. (e.g. no email).
5. Inter Collaborative Community - The community is built much the same way as the collaborative community, but instead of just collaborating within the community, the community members collaborate inside the community and with other communities and groups. This community knows they are successful when each of the community members are always using collaborative tools in their day to day interactions. 

You can classify communities how ever you would like. In the above examples, I have laid out some examples of types of communities and how the communities would work, with the hope that when I describe these to an unknowing new community manager, they can pick a type and drive their community to success. 

How would you classify communities to a new community manager?  Would you use the same descriptions or would you describe them differently?  If you used the above example, would you add or subtract from the list?  For each of the above types of communities, what would you say make these communities successful? 

Setting Expectations

Photo by Sarah Ziegler

A friend and I were recently talking about adoption. Specifically we were talking about the adoption of tools that help build enterprise communities. One idea we discussed that I haven't read that much about is:

        Setting expectations.

While I know this idea is not new, I have not heard much about the use of setting expectations for Enterprise 2.0 or Social Business or adopting enterprise social networks. For example, as a people manager, if you have read it once, you have read a million times. To help guide your employees to ensure they know what to do, you need to set expectations with your employees. If you don't the manager is at a higher risk of not getting the best performance out of each employee.  This is an oldie but goody. But why don't we use this same idea in the enterprise for adopting enterprise social tools?

I find that for some people, they just want to create a community because their peer has one (the me too syndrome).  Others have good intentions but don't know where to even start to build a vibrant community. In both situations, neither have defined what expectations they have for their community. In both situations, instead of just allowing them to create the community and have it fail, the requester needs to clearly understand their goals so they can use the technology to meet their goals.

So, step 1: get the requester to define their hopes and dreams for the community they want to build.  Have them define how do they see the community working. Have them, articulate what their goals are for the community.  Work with them to design how the community will work. The key to the success, is to get them to set their own expectations for the community and then have them work to have their community meet that expectation.  

While setting expectations are great for the community, one of the keys to ensuring the community is as vibrant as desired, the community manager must communicate what expectations they have for the community to the community. In addition, as the community grows, the community manager must influence the community to meet those expectations, while being willing to reset their expectations and adapt to how the community grows.  

Setting expectations are crucial, being influential and flexible is equally important.  But then again, isn't that the recipe for success in almost all situations?

New Dogs, New Tricks

Photo by Eric Ziegler

I read a quote recently in Harold Jarche's post, "Old dog, new tricks"t .  What caught my eye first was the quote from Euan Semple's blog post, "Old folks and shiny things". Euan states: 

Senior folks have seen technology hucksterism too many times before to fall for hard sell, but equally more and more of them are becoming aware that, partly thanks to the internet, things are changing as never before. They know that they need to get their heads around what is happening – even if they decide that active engagement in it isn’t right for them or their organisations. – Euan Semple

Of course I kept on reading, intrigued on where Harold was going. Harold follows up the quote from Euan with his own example.

After a presentation to the Conference Board of Canada’s HR Executives Forum, a senior VP told me that there was no way some kid was going to advise him on social media. However, he was was willing to listen to me, as I was in my fifties, seemed to understand his situation, and didn’t make him feel uncomfortable. I think there is a great need to teach old dogs new tricks, especially senior managers and executives – my generation.

What I find so interesting is that in some recent experiences, I have found that the 30 and younger crowd is sometimes equally hesitant to use some of the latest tools, especially within the enterprise. In addition, I have found that the 40's and older group is quickly picking up these tools and using them effectively.  

As I encounter these reverse stereotypes, the question that I continue to ask is, no matter who the person is, where they come from, what their position is in the company, and what type of job they do, how do we help them turn the corner to realizing the power of social in the enterprise?

Adoption via Leading by Example

Leading the Way
by Eric Ziegler

A recent blog post I wrote posed that if you used a little peer pressure you could drive adoption. After writing and posting this blog post, I started to wonder if the term peer pressure was really the correct term to use. As I re-read my blog post, I realized that I hinted at my concern even in the blog post "Peer pressure is probably something most people don't view as a good thing". That got me to  wondering if I had used a different term, would the negative connotation of the blog post go away?  So here is a try at using a different term in its place. (note: I had to change some words and remove one paragraph to make it work, but the message is intended to be if not the same, very very similar)

How many times have you heard "Leading by Example".  For me, this term comes up all of the time. Leading by example is typically used in conjunction with a leader that wants their organization, or their team to act in a particular manner. The hope is that the leaders behaviors and actions will be followed and mimic'd.

Leading by example is something that you hear and read about a lot and is generally thought of in a positive light. This term is often used by and for leaders in organizations quite often.  In fact because of the strong positive connotation, leaders at all levels use it all of the time.  They use it even when it might not make a lot of sense (are you surprised?). Within the enterprise, leading by example can be used for good and to be honest, I believe that leading by example is one of the best methods of getting others to adopt a new technology - just behind defining the value proposition.

In one of my previous posts, I talked about the 1 v 9 rule.  In that post, I provided some of my thoughts on what you could do to obtain adoption. I also asked for others to provide their ideas. As I continue to document the techniques, I will be posting them here. Leading by example is a technique that most definitely should be added to your quiver of tips and tricks. Leading by example by the #1 must be directed at 2 through 10. It must be deliberately done. While it seems simple, getting others to use this technique is not easy.  But it is important and the best way of getting the #1s to do this is to help them understand the value of using this technique.

The approach is pretty straight forward.  Leading by example will not be applied just by #1, but rather initially with just one other person on the team. I call it targeted leading by example.  Let's call that person #2.  #2 should be chosen wisely.  The choice should be based on someone that #1 is close with and #2 is someone that is on the fence related to the technology (e.g. they are closer to being on the same side that #1 is on).  #1 needs to work with them to get them off the fence.  #1 needs to get #2 to the point where #2 is as strong of an advocate. #1 should use whatever tricks they can use, including just plain old leading by example.  To do this, #1 needs to get #2 to truly see the value.  And there are many other tricks you can use.

Once #2 is on board, leading by example for 3 through 10 can start.  #1 and #2 need to use the technology almost to exclusion (especially if there is a technology that is being used that is the incumbent that 3 through 10 use and don't want to give up).  #1 and #2 need to use the technology in their job, as part of their formal and informal business processes.  #1 and #2 can't give up, even if 3 through 10 are resistant in using the new technology. I call this adapting your work style to use the technology (in fact the term adapting is coming up more and more as you read about adoption).

As they have use the technology, they need to circle back and refine the story/message they use.  and together they need to share this story/message with 3 through 10 often.  This should be done in both formal venues and through informal conversations (think water cooler conversations).  They need to be a mini marketing group. While they work together using the technology, #1 and #2 need to talk about benefits they achieve from the technology and continuously lead by example. Basically they need to be the cheerleaders in their group, talking up the technology and the benefits it provides.

Lead by example, embrace the power and use it for good.

What tips and tricks do you have for those that responsible for adoption of technology in a company?

Adoption via Peer Pressure?

Green leaves
Photo by Ben Ziegler

How many of us remember high school and doing things that we should never have done, but we did them because our friends were doing them?  How about that time you stayed out later than your parents wanted or you drove the car that you were told not to. Ever do something illegal with your friends?  Did you decide to do it on your own, or was it really peer pressure?  Peer pressure, is basically they way of getting people to try something they would never have thought of doing.

Peer pressure is probably something most people don't view as a good thing. Especially with teenagers. In fact because of the strong negative connotation, most people don't like to use the term, unless it is too prove a point about something not being good. But within the enterprise, peer pressure can be used for good and to be honest, I believe that peer pressure is one of the best methods of getting others to adopt a new technology - just behind defining the value proposition.

In one of my previous posts, I talked about the 1 v 9 rule.  In that post, I provided some of my thoughts on what you could do to drive adoption. I also asked for others to provide their ideas. As I continue to look for new techniques, I will be posting them here. Employee peer pressure is a technique that most definitely should be added to your quiver of tips and tricks. Peer pressure from the #1 must be directed at 2 through 10. While it seems simple, getting others to use this technique is not easy.  But it is important and the best way of getting the #1s to do this is to help them understand the value of using this technique.

The approach is pretty straight forward.  Peer pressure will not be applied just by #1, but rather initially with just one other person on the team. Let's call that person #2.  #2 should be chosen wisely.  The choice should be based on someone that #1 is close with and #2 is someone that is on the fence related to the technology (e.g. they are closer to being on the same side that #1 is on).  #1 needs to work with them to get them off the fence.  #1 needs to get #2 to the point where #2 is as strong of an advocate. #1 should use whatever tricks they can use, including some peer pressure. To do this, #1 needs to get #2 to truly see the value.  And there are many other tricks you can use.

Once #2 is on board, peer pressure to 3 through 10 can start.  #1 and #2 need to use the technology almost to exclusion (especially if there is a technology that is being used that is the incumbent that 3 through 10 use and don't want to give up).  #1 and #2 need to use the technology in their job, as part of their formal and informal business processes.  #1 and #2 can't give up, even if 3 through 10 are resistant in using the new technology.

As they have use the technology, they need to circle back and refine the story/message they use.  and together they need to share this story/message with 3 through 10 often.  This should be done in both formal venues and through informal conversations (think water cooler conversations).  They need to be a mini marketing group. While they work together using the technology, #1 and #2 need to talk about benefits they achieve from the technology and apply peer pressure continuously. Basically they need to be the cheerleaders in their group, talking up the technology and the benefits it provides.

Peer pressure, embrace the power, but use it for good.

What tips and tricks do you have for those that responsible for adoption of technology in a company?

I am lucky

Me in highschool doing what I love

I often tell my kids, "Everyday I learn something new. If I didn't, I wouldn't be enjoying life and living my life to (what I consider) it fullest."

I am extremely lucky to work at a job where I don't learn just one new thing every day, but often I learn many new things. I have the opportunity to work with great people, new technologies, old technologies and some in between. I get the fun challenges of trying to make them all work together. I have the opportunity to take look for ways to improve how I work and to help others around me to improve.

I am lucky.  

I often tell the people around me, if you don't enjoy what you are doing, go do something else.  It is not considered quitting, it is called living your life. 

So my question to you, "Do you enjoy what you do?"

The 1 v. 9 Rule

Gettysburg Battle Field Monument
Photo by Eric Ziegler

Have you ever implemented a technology for an enterprise that had the chicken and egg syndrome?  You know the type.  You implement a valuable technology but no one is using the technology. As you analyze why this might happen, you realize that you need people to use the tool, but the value is not there until you have a large number of people using the tool.  Which should come first?  The people or the tool?  How do you get people to change behavior, adopt a tool, adapt the way they work when you realize that to really have change, you need a large number of people to change almost all at once?

I have seen this situation more than once. You have a small set of people dispersed throughout the enterprise that is interested in the technology. You think you have won the battle because interest is high from these advocates.  But if you peel away the edges, you would see that while they are excited and are some of the biggest advocates for the technology and while they each represent a team that could use the technology to great effectiveness and the technology has potential to realize get value within the team, there is an issue. 

This is a big issue.  The rest of the team is not aware of the value, they don't see the need for the tool and they provide every excuse under the sun for why not to use the tool. I like to call this the 1 vs 9 rule.  You have one person that is ready and eager to adopt, adapt, and use the technology but you have 9 people (2 through 10) that are not.  More often than not, this is one of the biggest reasons a technology like this fails.  It is not about the implementation of the technology, it is about the change management.

As the person in charge of the technology and responsible for enterprise adoption and change management related to the technology, what do you do?  This is not a time to give up and fail.  What techniques could you use to get #2 through #10 to adopt the tool along side of #1.  

Here are some ideas.

1. You are not alone:  Seems simple enough but this is often the first step that people forget.  You need to get the advocates, the 1's, to help in driving the adoption of their team. One team at a time. While you are responsible for change management and adoption, you are not alone.  The #1's need to know what is expected of them and need to know that it will not be easy.  
2. Build a play book: Now that you have set the expectation you need to provide the techniques and tools that the #1s will use to get 2 through 10 engaged. Depending on the technology being implemented, these tips and techniques could include having them set expectations to the team, have them get their own advocates within the team, and have them remind (nag or ankle bite) the team periodically.
3. Lower management:  Work with the first line of management of that team. Get them to understand where the value is and then get them to help drive adoption within the team.  Have them set expectations for their team, but don't let them mandate, that type of technique could backfire.  Do this in conjunction with the advocate of the technology. They can help sell the story.

The hope is that you can do this over and over again with each group until you have critical mass in the enterprise using the technology effectively. Think of the first group as the keystone, that the rest can use as an example or template of how to drive adoption in their teams.

While I write these words into this blog, I know that I have not done justice to all of the ideas others have used to drive adoption of 2 through 10.  What techniques, tricks, and methods do you use to drive this type of adoption?  What has worked for you?

Winning

Gettysburg Day 1 Battlefield
Photo by Eric Ziegler

The question that I have heard several times is, how do I know that I am successful, or asked in a different way, how do you know that you have won? This question is particularly intriguing to me.  If you only look at the surface, the answer can appear quite easy to answer.  I win when I beat the other team.  I win when I am faster than other people.  I win when I have completed the task that was requested of me. But if you dig deeper than just giving a surface level answer, you can learn much more about yourself and learn more about what drives you.

I work in IT and provide tools and technologies to the entire enterprise.  I am responsible for delivering these tools and technologies to people in the globally.  At the surface, I can declare success or that I have won by stating that I implemented the technology and tool.  But that is much too easy of an answer, and while I could be happy, in the long run, I know that if I just deliver the tools and technologies I really have not won, and I am not as happy as I could be.

Success in my job is about delivering the tools and technologies but is much deeper than that. It includes helping people learn how to use the tools and technologies to enhance how they do their job.  I am successful when I am able to talk with business areas, listen to what they do today and provide ideas on how they could use a technology to improve how they work.  I am successful when a business area uses the technology and incorporates it into their business processes.   I win when a business area uses a technology and they are much more effective in working with each other and their customers / clients.

The definition of success changes with each implementation.  A win from implementing one tool looks completely different than a win when implementing another technology.  The one constant between each implementation? Success is much deeper than just what is at the surface.  Success and winning only really occurs when you have thought through why you are doing the implementation.  If success is defined without the full picture, than almost guaranteed something is being left on the table and a win didn't actually occur. 

How do you define success?  What does winning look like to you?

Efficient or Effective? An E2.0/Socbiz Dilemma

All efficiencies are not made equal.
Image: Roadsidepictures

I love going to conferences.  The best part of any conference is when you get to meet, talk and interact with the people at the conference.  These interactions and the conversations are informal and awesome. When I get a chance I love to talk about Enterprise 2.0 (E2.0), Social Business (socbiz) and/or Enterprise Collaboration (EntCollab).  Inevitably, the conversation turns to talking about how to make employees more efficient or productive. 

More often than not, these conversations start with someone asking how I believe employees could be more efficient while using E2.0 or Social business tools.  Unfortunately, for the person I am talking to, I don't think about efficiency as much as I think about effectiveness and I am not shy about sharing my opinion.  Let me explain.  First lets start off with looking at the definitions of each word.  Both word's origin is late Middle English based out of Latin with the base of each word coming from the same root, effect.  The oxford dictionary defines each term as:

Efficient : achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
Effective : successful in producing a desired or intended result

While using E2.0 or Socbiz tools could provide efficiences by reducing wasted effort by employees, it is not always guaranteed, especially not during an initial rollout or implementation.  But employees will become more effective by engaging in SocBiz or E2.0.  While some companies that implement E2.0 or Socbiz tools do so without a goal or without knowing what they expect to happen, the most effective companies do have goals and do know the desired effect that these tools will have on their employees. What those intended results and desired effects are will vary greatly from company to company. 

Each company must determine these goals on their own. Based on my experiences, I have seen companies define their goals as simply as ensuring that employees share information more openly and that a change in culture is enabled by the use of these tools.  Other companies define the goals for E2.0 or Social Business as a way to enable the employees to find information quicker and faster than they did before. Others have defined success by having employees use these tools as part of their business process, improving the success of the business unit.  And lastly, others have defined them as a way to gain efficiencies.  Yes improving effectiveness can be defined by improving efficiencies.

Efficiency indicates that people are able to trim the fat out of the processes they do today, making their business units more productive.  Effectiveness is obtaining the result you set out to do. While every company that implements E2.0, or Socbiz tools is trying to gain business value. I am not actually saying that companies that implement these tools  won't be able to minimize the wasted effort.  That is probably going to happen, but if companies take the time to look deeper at how they are becoming more effective by using these tools, they will much more successful with their E2.0 and Soc Business implementations   

Perceived Value

Image: from Tim Scullin blog

The other day I was in Disney with my family.  It was great fun, we did almost all of our favorite rides, Haunted Mansion, Thunder Mountain, Pirate's of the Carribean.   Unfortunately we missed out on going on Splash Mountain as it barely got to 60 degrees and we were not brave enough to risk getting wet and being cold.

What I found so interesting as we walked around the park is how quickly some of the lines grew (of course spring break has that effect).  The thing that was so interesting was that they were not the rides that I would have chosen - which was great for us. That got me to asking the question, why do some rides have longer lines faster than other lines.  I believe that one of the reasons is that every person places their own value on each ride.  Some people valued the rides like Winnie the Pooh, while others valued Haunted Mansion, some liked Dumbo while others valued Thunder Mountain.  Each person places their own value on each ride and decides which ones they want to ride first, which rides they are most willing to wait in a long line for, and which rides they just won't ride that day.

This got me to thinking about how employees adopt different technologies, tools and techniques based on the value they perceive they will provide.  For example, I can apply this to the work that I am doing related to driving adoption of activity streams (btw, this is just one example of a large variety of technologies).  As I talk with employees about how they might use an activity stream, some say that it seems just like email and they wonder (aloud sometimes) what value the activity stream provides beyond email.   Some employees never see any value in using an activity stream.  Some know that moving away from email is valuable in some situations, but don't know if the activity stream is the best method.  Some believe a RSS feed aggregator or other technologies are better. Others, thankfully, understand the value right away, but when they start to use the new tool, they find that no one else is using it, which diminishes the value for this individual.

So how do you get people to use the new technology, the new tool, or technique?   There are many ways, and you need to use them all.  Going back to Disney, they use many different methods to entice you to ride their rides (and even to come to Disney World). One of their methods is to nudge people to ride the next ride.  Enterprise can use similar techniques to attract employees to use the new "stuff".

When a nudge is provided, typically the goal is to increase the value that the employees sees in the new tool, or technique or technology.  Or said a different way, the employee's perceived value of the tool needs to increase.  Disney World uses many techniques to nudge people to ride each of their rides.  Most Disney World rides use great visual effects on the outside of the ride.   For example, as you walk into the Haunted Mansion, the people are in character, giving you the "eye" and the line leading into the ride has grave stones with funny things written on them and book shelves that have books that move in and out.   They attract you to the ride using over the top decorations such as the carriage with a ghost horse.

Following the Disney World example, enterprises need to use techniques to get employee to change and use the new "stuff".  To drive this the employee perceived value of that tool, technique or technology must increase. If that does not happen, they won't ever use the new "stuff".  Unfortunately, as you have probably guessed, this is the most difficult part of driving adoption of technology, but it is also the most rewarding.

Serving, its that simple

Flickr photo by Ed Yourdon

Recently, I have been trying to determine when I am most successful in what I do - being a dad, a husband, changing things at work, implementing tools successful, etc.  I have seen several patterns, but didn't really put anything together until I was listening to a podcast from Entreleadership on sale (the one that +Chris LoCurto interviews +Lisa McLeod).  There is a piece in the middle of the interview where Lisa talks about why a specific drug rep is so successful.  Very powerful.  


So what is the pattern that I saw in myself but realized only after listening to this specific podcast episode?  It is all about serving, and knowing who you are serving and the purpose of your serving.  


My belief is that if you don't understand that you are serving and the purpose of that serving, than you are only moving around in an aimless direction and not really satisfying what is most important (in your life, for your company, for your family, etc.)