Social Glass

Update: Jean-Luc has provided a link to a whitepaper on blogs and wikis written by the CIA in 2005. It’s a worthwhile read.

I was thinking about some of the core traits of Enterprise 2.0 the other day and was starting to see parallels to historical movements that have shaken entrenched social orders. Enterprise 2.0 represents a dramtic cultural change to traditional businesses. It flattens hierarchies, removes barriers between divisions and encourages knowledge workers to innovate. Innovation happens when knowledge workers feel free to question long-established procedural norms and ask “why?”.

Specifically, the “Hippie ideology” seems to share something in common with Enterprise 2.0. Princeton University defines the term “hippie” as

someone who rejects the established culture; advocates extreme liberalism in politics and lifestyle

Ok, so maybe the “extreme liberalism” part isn’t relevant, but certainly rejecting an established culture is. Hippies sprang from the counter-culture movement of the 60’s and embraced a sense of goodwill and love, with these being possible through some sort of utopian idea of altruism - that is the act of doing good for others for the sake of doing good.

Certainly altruism is a driving force behind Enterprise 2.0. Without it spontaneous collaboration and Enteprise 2.0 as a whole would fail. Knowledge workers need to be willing to help each other and author content or else all of this is for naught. But are we meant to believe that the foundation of Enteprise 2.0 is built on some harmonious concept of good will? Is there really incentive in opening up cheap or free services to business partners and the world and taking time to help the guy in Commercial Services with his question? Is Enterprise 2.0 for Hippies?

No.

Jevon McDonald, CEO of Firestoker and blogger at socialwrite.com, wrote a recent whitepaper where he argued that “Radical Transparency” is a byproduct of Enterprise 2.0. I agree. I am a firm believer that transparency manifests integrity (that’s why I named my blog socialglass, “glass” being transparent). Are companies afraid that opening their doors will reveal that the “door” is nothing more than a facade, that there’s nothing of value inside? Maybe. But instead of asking “why should I share this information?”, enterprises should start to ask “why shouldn’t I share it?”.

Transparency comes about when content from knowledge workers is as discoverable to the CEO as that from the CIO. It also happens when enterprises open up services to the outside world. Recognition, then, is the driving incentive for transparency. Enterprises get credit for creating a service that is, say, used in a mashup to help another enterprise excel. Knowledge workers get credit when the CEO reads their blogs.

As Rod Boothby points out, it is Adam Smith’s notion of the “Invisible Hand” that drives the Enterprise 2.0 ecosystem. A knowledge worker “…intends only his own gain”, he seeks recognition which can ultimately lead to promotion and increased salary. In describing the driving force behind free markets, Smith writes:

By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

The “selfish” contributions made by knowledge workers makes the enterprise as a whole better off. And the services the enterprise opens up makes other enterprises better off, and this is consitent with the “Invisible Hand”.

Enterprise 2.0 is not based on utopian ideals. It is instead based on the very principles that drive all free-market economies. Organisations that adopt enterprise 2.0 will do so for auto-preservation and corporate gain - to help their bottom line. Period.