Why They Might Run and Hide from Enterprise 2.0
April 28th, 2008by Jeremy Thomas
It’s been an interesting transition for me back to industry. “Industry” is the term consultants use to describe normal jobs with normal companies - the kind where people bring their plants to work and setup pictures of people they know in their cubicles. The kind where people wake up on Monday morning, drive to work, work, drive home and do the same thing every day until Friday. It’s been three months, and I’m starting to acclimate to this routine way of living.
When I started I came in guns ablazing with a consultant’s mindset. “What, no data warehouse, no sweat. We’ll implement a master data management strategy and breathe life into dying data. And let me tell you about this nifty little thing called Enterprise 2.0. It’s going to revolutionize the world, man. Ever heard of SLATES?”. Sarcasm aside, people had actually heard about Enterprise 2.0 and were actually keen on the idea. But seeing things from the other side I’m starting to think Enterprise 2.0 will be overwhelming for many.
Here’s the logic: Enterprise 2.0 assumes that, within corporations, there are a lot of unsung heroes who’s voices are muffled by a thick wall of bureaucracy. These under-utilized knowledge workers are in dire need of a platform through which their ideas can transcend old-fashioned hierarchical structure so that their potential can be fully realized. Enterprise 2.0 promises meritocracy.
Sweet.
But consider alternative reasoning: Good workers are already very busy. Their managers already know they’re good and are filtering a saturating set of inquiries and non-critical disturbances into a trickle. Trickles enable concentration, and concentration is needed for people to do good work.
So why in God’s name would a very busy person want to put himself in a position to be even busier by seeking corporate-wide recognition for his bright ideas? He’s already well compensated. He’s already highly regarded. Why make life harder?
Good workers might run and hide from Enterprise 2.0 (and bad ones might embrace it).
Follow Me
April 28th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Jeremy, I see what you’re saying and dread the thought. I hope the good ones don’t run and hoe the management is smarter than to let them.
The stuff we’re passionate about has so much potential. To let it be a way for non-engaged staff continue to plod would be such a waste. That’s why it’s so critical that E2.0 work be as much or more about corporate culture and leadership than the tools themselves.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:53 am
In large multinational organisations a ‘good worker’ might be recognised only within his or her department. With Enterprise 2.0 tools (e.g. wikis, blogs, social networking platforms) a good worker can get recognised across the whole organisation. People can become recognised experts in their fields within the organisation and can help on projects regardless of where they are located.
Enterprise 2.0 tools allows employees to escape the hierarchical structures in which they are often managed and report through. It allows them to showcase and share their knowledge with wider audiences, and as such gain valuable recognition.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:02 am
The bottom line is that the bottom line always wins out. Unless a company and its employees can stay away from a ‘profits always wins’ mentality, eventually squeezing everything and everyone becomes the norm in ‘industry.’ This includes the time necessary to keep Enterprise 2.0 tools fed.
All is not bleak. Enterprise 2.0 could help those individuals that resist the seduction of high salaries in lieu of quality of job/life. However, the alluring industry-sirens songs of wealth and joy usually cause most to forgo their idealism’s in pursuit of a ‘better life.’
April 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am
There was some interesting discussion about this in regards to blogging economists. The argument essentially stated that if an economist could make more money consulting or book writing than blogging, the opportunity cost of time spent blogging would be too high, so the only economist bloggers would be crappy economists.
You ought to peruse Tom Davenport’s “Thinking for a Living.” While he’s no e2.0 fan, he does point out that good knowledge workers ALWAYS have well developed and nourished knowledge networks. Old farts typically manage this by walking around or phone calls. Gen-x’ers do this with e-mail and occasional voicemail. The new demographic in the workplace has been maintaining social networks with social tools and will want to keep theirs alive in similar ways.
As a decently performing “industry” guy, I look at using e2.0 as a way to enable much more asynchronous work. By relying more on open/social platforms and less on e-mail and synchronous communications, I can get to the info I need WHEN I need it, not when it is sent to me. This lets me balance the when and where I work and where and when I can concentrate on the task at hand.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
@Joe, I like the parallels you draw to blogging economists and opportunity cost. Consider a talented programmer, for example, who’s measured on his ability to output great code. Lean Development principles show us that a programmer’s output is better and of higher quality when he’s “single threaded”, meaning he’s focusing on a single task or project from start to finish.
The Signals component of Enterprise 2.0 would produce an unwelcome distraction to our programmer (think RSS readers, enterprise Twitter, etc.). Signals compete for this new commodity called “attention”, and would make it harder for the programmer to concentrate on his task at hand. He would likely opt out of participating because the opportunity cost, producing less code with less quality, isn’t worth it.
But perhaps you’re right. The asynchronous nature of E2.0 could prove to be useful. The programmer doesn’t have to participate in real-time, but can instead choose to do so in the morning (before he’s started concentrating), or just before heading home for the day. I’m often amazed at the business insight techies have and am convinced they’d be an important ingredient in the E2.0 cocktail.
I suppose in the end it’s a balancing act.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Dear lord, so my next blog post will be then “how to take down your online presence gracefully and return to busy work life before wiki articles, blog posts and social bookmarks”… Nice post Jeremy!
-Andi
May 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Very interesting post Jeremy.
To your alternate reasoning though, what makes that good worker “good”? More than likely their work is siloed off, completely hidden from the collective. They are perceived as good by the few people who have the chance to view their work. Reputation breeds reputation, and without opening their work to the Enterprise (2.0), I simply have to take management’s word for it that they are in fact, “good”. Management (and recognition) by clique should give way to true meritocracy. Hopefully E2 can help with this…
Maybe Enterprise 2.0 makes good workers better? Maybe it also makes bad workers more obvious? Maybe it makes perceived good workers
May 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I hear what your saying, and think that collectively the enterprise is better off when good workers contribute their tacit knowledge.
But keep in mind Managers are measured on KPIs, on their ability to set expectations and deliver to them. A Manager’s ability to consistently exceed expectations is a sign that he’s got a good team behind him. They love workers who continually make them look good and will do what it takes to keep said workers happy and engaged.
Bad workers, who aren’t “kept happy”, might seek alternate forms of recognition and fulfillment through Enterprise 2.0.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Jeremy,
Great post. While I’m an advocate of social technologies in a corporate setting I also have my doubts from time to time. I think its a good to challenge what Enterprise 2.0 means for a busy or if just creates a higher noise to signal ratio. I think it depends on the culture of the company and the type of business they are in (which could of course change with social technologies).
The scope of Enterprise 2.0 is also relevant, internal collaboration/innovation is one application pattern but when you are talking about interaction points with customers or if it includes a change the software delivery methods to become more agile, then I think Enteprise 2.0 provides more benefits.