Working Out Loud Requires being Vulnerable

Photo by Eric Ziegler

I love listening to Podcasts. I listen to podcasts when I drive to and from work. I listen to podcasts when I am on a long drive - 6+ hours. I listen to a broad spectrum of podcasts: Football (soccer), Finance, Economics, News, Public Radio, Social business, etc. This weeks blog is prompted by a one episode I listened to recently from the podcast Shift, by +Megan Murray and +Euan Semple.

The podcast I am referring to is episode 21, about Vulnerability. As I listened to the podcast the first thing that popped into my head was that Working Out Loud (#WOL) requires you to put yourself out there and to be willing to be vulnerable. When I think of working out loud, I think of people sharing what they are working on, asking questions, asking for input on a project, takling about an issue you are trying to resolve. In each of these situations you are risking that someone will think less of you. You need to be vulnerable to do any of those things.

People are scared of putting themselves out there and working out loud. They are fearful that there will be negative repercussions when they make a mistake out in the open. They are fearful that people will think less of them. They are not willing to risk sharing because there is no benefit or that other people will not find what they are sharing as interesting or informative.

The opposite is true. Working out loud has so many benefits and everyone should be doing it within an organization. People will learn and grow quicker and faster by working out loud. Organizations are more effective when people share and are open with each other. The likelihood of finding a piece of information increases as more and more people work out loud. People learn from each other only when information is shared. People improve and innovate on ideas only when ideas are discussed openly. By working out loud, your chances of getting the best information, in timely manner goes up tremendously. Even if a conversation happened out loud months ago, finding that piece of information increases because it was stored for others to discover, read and learn from.

So be brave, take the challenge, work out loud and be vulnerable.

Working Out Loud can not be Automated

Photo by Eric ziegler

Not sure how I ended reading an old post by +Bertrand Duperrin but I did.  Maybe something was calling to me.  Maybe it is just purely coincidence that I re-read his blog post. Either way, it has triggered me to write a blog post for the first time in several months. Let's dig in.  

Bertrand Duperrin, posted a blog post back in August of 2012 called Employees don't have time to waste narrating their work. What caught my eye originally was the title. First reaction, huh? You have to be kidding me. Bertand might be just trying to be sensationalistic with his title, I am not sure.  But it did catch my eye and cause me to read his blog post. While the title is interesting, I have to say that the blog post hits a nerve. Bertrand starts his blog post with a concept that I agree with ...

It’s impossible to think about emergent collaboration and self-organized structures without visibility on others’ work. 

This first sentence makes me think of +Change Agents Worldwide (@chagww, #CAWW). Why?  #CAWW is a self organized emergent collaboration organization that is about helping individuals, teams, companies, employees, etc. be more effective.  #CAWW works as a network of individuals that interact, share, and cooperate and collaborate on different topics and ideas, always trying to improve upon ideas that will help organizations be more effective. It is almost like he wrote this sentence with the concept of #CAWW in mind. 

In Bertrand's 3rd paragraph he continues down the same path by stating ....

collaboration, cooperation, problem solving and even innovation requires something to be shared so trigger the dynamic. Moreover, people often don’t realize they can be helped : sometimes we believe we’re doing right while we’re doing wrong, we’re doing right while we could do better, differently.

While the first sentence could be interrupted several ways, this statement does not align with the title at all. Only after you get more than half way through the blog post do you start to see where the title becomes relevant.  I believe this statement best summarizes the rest of the blog ... 

if people’s work’s worth being narrated, people should not always be the narrator. Their time is too precious to ask them to play the role of transponders. 

So now I get it.  People's time are too important to waste on working out loud (#WOL).  Bertrand continues and discusses the idea of having systems do the narrating by automatically creating activities in an activity stream - weekly reports, updates to profiles, etc.    I understand where he is going, but I think this concept misses the importance of working out loud (#WOL).

What do I believe? The idea of working out loud is not about the automated interactions? There is some value, but the biggest value is sharing information in a way a system can never do. Sharing information includes asking questions or putting a thought out that could trigger a thought by someone else. Automatic system updates are too prescribed to cause an emotional reaction by the receiver and bacause of that, the value it just not as high.  

I will say though, I do agree with his concept of having people jump out of their every day work systems to work out loud is not effective. To get people to be most effective, the system to work out loud needs to be integrated into the systems they work in every day.

Automatic system updates are the antithesis of what social networks are about. While an automatic update might provide value, they do not deliver come anywhere close to providing the same amount of value as working out loud.

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?