Social Media Is Like a Light

Social media is often criticized for bringing out the ugliness of society. But isn't that what we want!? What we need?! Racism, sexism, ageism, the "isms" have been able to hide for far to long and social media works to ferret them out for everyone to see. The latest example was brought to light by the posting of a quote by Engineer, Isis Wegner of OneLogin along with her image in a recruitment advertisement. The post, reaction and commentary leads one to examine their own actions and words. Being brought into the light, the average person perpetuates the discussion online, traditional media picks it up, hashtags invite participation, and the conversation reverberates across the globe. 

Imagine if we didn't have social media? This story goes away in a day, maybe it doesn't happen at all and are we any better as a society? Without social media, it, like all it's related isms, sits and festers for years, periodically popping up in small disconnected pockets and quickly dissipating like puddles after a summer shower... only to return again and again. 

Social media gets none of the credit, nor does it seek it. It's a mere tool extending and expanding our humanity where I suspect ultimately good will triumph over evil with it's unrecognized help.

"Using social media and networking is like a light. It spreads and illuminates that which it is focused on and all objects around it. The spread breathes life into new forms of learning and growing and being and connecting."    - Kevin Jones

Big Social Isn't Always Best

I've been thinking more about how Social has become SO big, so fast. Maybe it's having been in Texas recently (where everything is bigger!) for mLearnCon last week or it's because I've been reading a lot of Stowe Boyd's reviews and research tied into his ideas on "sets vs. scenes." Social is not necessarily getting bigger in the sense of popularity but in the sense that enterprise social, to be deemed successful today, has to involve the entire organization - the scene as Stowe would call it.

My observations and conversations have led me to believe that technology is ruling the day and leading the narrative. And having a vibrant ESN is the golden calf (or is that hippo?). Successful social is not however in the depth and number of connections but in the meaningfulness of the social activity. Often, unfortunately, the larger the networks, the more superficial the relationships can be. Whereas In organizations, our closest, most impactful relationships are those that are around the work we do. A simple principle to grasp is that Social forms around objects, and the object in organizations is the work. The farther one is removed from the work we do, the farther they are from our interests and that is quite natural.

By PJ KAPDostie CC BY-SA 3.0 

In my work promoting "social" in my various organizations, I found another principle to be true; the smaller the better. Specific groups, already with a clear "object", be it shared work (department, project, program) shared experience (on-boarding, training), or shared problem (solutioning, crisis) were most successful. Larger roll-outs, not so much. Social technology success was achieved when it was used as a tool to solve small specific problems. From here it could scale, but please don't call it a community. People sharing, collaborating, and conversing should not instantly be seen as a community. A feature in a tool called a "community" is not a community, it is marketing spin by ESN vendors. True communities form when their is trust, common purpose and mutual support. This takes time, not tools. Can these gatherings in virtual places become communities? Absolutely. They can also scale but that takes nurturing and attention, support and communication. If your organization is not ready for this, it's OK. Organizations as community is not always the end goal or often immediately realistic. If groups come in and out of interactions using social tools to solve business problems then this should be seen as successful social too.

Maybe the message is as simple as the one I tell my kids; don't let others define what success is. Celebrate the small wins, they add up.

The Open Office: Right Idea, Wrong Approach

In a not so recent article (Dec 2014) criticizing the open office idea as getting it wrong and ruining the workplace, the author ranted about how negatively disruptive this disruptive approach has been in her own circumstance. To that I say exactly- it's not for everyone. Organizations are as unique as fingerprints and if companies don't first understand the nature of the work being performed and just blindly follow a trend, well damned they should be.

Lafayette Studios photographs: 1930s decade

The real problem for me with this trend though is that when people think of an open office, they think of the traditional 20th century workplace but with low or no walls separating people. That's it. Remove physical barriers and viola! Innovation! Really?

This is just simply getting a good idea all wrong.

Daniel Pink, among others, makes the claim in his book Free Agent Nation, that 50% of U.S. workers will be free agents by 2020. And an Intuit 2020 report predicted a while back that traditional employment will no longer be the norm. It will be replaced by contingent workers; free-agents, part-timers, contractual.  If accurate, then 2020 is only 5 years away and although those numbers seem aggressive it appears things are moving this direction. With more short-term contractual workers, employers definitely need an open office... but not the physical kind, that's just silly. Open is practice not a space. For a person it's an internal choice, for an organization, a group of people, being open is a cultural underpinning. Openness is sharing, open to collaborate, open to criticism and to criticize, open to contribution... from wherever you are seated. Openness, supported by collaborative technology, turns the physical office into a concept. The "office" becomes an artificial structure, no walls inside or out. 

Removing cubicle walls may allow others to see the machinery but real openness, between connected people anywhere, invites them to move the levers. The open office idea today is missing the point. It's similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, business as usual in an increasingly unusual world. 

We Don't Do Social Here

Implement, Do, Start, Launch, are all terms that indicate a program or project is underway. It's the language of the business initiative. But when these words precede the action of "Social", it's a bit perplexing.  

We don't "do" social, we are social. 

Being social is just connecting, communicating, and sharing usually with the key action of conversing. Don't let anyone tell you different. We should know too that being social is not purely positive. People can connect for the wrong reasons, communicate inappropriately, or share way, way too much. Therefore being social is neither something exclusively good or bad, it is just the essence of being human. To say things like "we are going to start doing social in our organization" is like saying "we are going to start doing breathing." This comparison is equally similar and different. Similar in that both actions, social and breathing are naturally occurring and required (in an organization or otherwise), and different in that breathing is not something that can ever be consciously done poorly or insincerely.

You can encourage people to increase their social connections, expand their networks, start more meaningful conversations and share ideas. But make no mistake, your organization is already social, it just may not be healthy enough to transform the work that's being done or make the environment less toxic, or draw people to connect with your service or products.

So if you're still thinking about "doing" social in your organization, maybe start by "being" a better organization, leader, employee, peer. Somethings you just can't project manage. 

Network Navigating

I've written recently about the futility of organizational internal social efforts. Their efforts to corral conversations into an ESN is ineffective and short sighted. Wirearchy is here. It exists with or without ones conscious effort as our networks extend in multiple directions and multiple "places."  We will go to where our people are and if our people overlap, all the better, but the reality is they rarely will. For example my running community members have zero interest in my social learning and social business discussions. 

So it is that we must learn to move in and out of various channels of conversations and relationships, adjusting as we need to to make it all work. However in the networked age this seems as overwhelming as the amount of information that comes at us.

Do choices have to be made? Of course. It's really no different than our behaviors prior to the advent of social technology. We made room and found balance then in things like our physical meeting spaces, telephone conversations, email, etc. We made choices then of how and where we would spend time. We (often unconsciously) seek out the people who matter most and in that seeking we inadvertently learn to navigate the places that keep us connected.

My networking "places" are as fragmented and unique as my relationships. Here are a few of my places I visit daily which I'm sure look much like yours.

• Twitter for amazing global relationships and conversations
• 2 Facebook groups for specific professional development and a book club
• LinkedIn for local ATD conversations and sharing
• iMessage groups (smaller, family & friends)
• Skype group for larger L&D discussions, tips, needs
• Evernote chat for project collaboration
• Yammer for organization cooperative and collaborative activities
• Slack for idea sharing in L&D topics for various activities

This is our reality. I doubt highly that as social tools evolve there will be one tool to rule them all or a way to link them. This reality may be inconvenient to many but social networking has always been inconvenient to some extent. Waving the white flag is not an option. We will learn these new network navigation skills through experimentation, increased exposure and they will strengthen with deeper experiences in the context of connecting. With modeling and guidance by those in the know, the learning curve can be reduced more quickly but even without the experts, we will learn to navigate, it's what we are built to do.

Social Inception

Have you seen the movie Inception? It's a fantastic sci-fi film where people infiltrate other people's subconscious while they sleep and remove information or, in the case of the title, plant an idea. When the person awakens, they think the idea is their own.

Now I do believe that the same idea can spring up independently from different people in different locations at the same time. Historically speaking, you can see that Pyramids of various sizes and constructs appeared all over the globe by different civilizations in or around the same time where the people had no contact with each other.  However time and space are no barriers anymore. As more and people find their voice online, begin sharing their stories, experiences, and ideas, an unintentional form of "Social Inception" can occur. When we engage in social networks we accumulate many ideas from many sources. Some can be fleeting, like those seen briefly in a Tweet. Others are deeper like those in articles, blog posts or videos and of course conversations. For me, I recently wrote about change happening one conversation at a time. The gist of my post was that we can just cut through all the fat about social media technology barriers, it's really as simple as helping people ask their internal questions out loud to those who are "connected" - Things like "where do you find the time?" "how did you start?" "How has it helped you?", etc. Good idea? Maybe. Was this my idea? I'm not so sure now. 

When I wrote it I was like, this is an interesting thought, I wonder what others would think? Flash forward to today. I'm scanning some favored Tweets looking for something in particular and I see:

It got me to thinking so I re-read the article. I was left with two thoughts. 1. This is brilliant and 2. Did I steal this concept?! 

Well, no, not consciously, not completely, and not with any intention to do so. I have always been very careful to sing the praises of the trailblazers (not sure that's a good term but I'm not a fan of the word Thought Leader). I vigorously read and promote the works of Jane Hart, Harold Jarche, Charles Jennings and many others in the learning/social learning space... including Euan Semple.  But here, over 115 days ago, he wrote an article of a very similar title to mine. Did I read this 115 days ago, process it internally, experience a triggering event and spew out my own interpretation as something really original? Did Euan plant more than a seed in my mind? Is this more common than I think?

Today information comes at us so fast, influencing our thoughts and practices in positive ways. We consume so quickly that even when we have trusted networks through which we have information curated the lines can blur between what is ours and what is others. Our thought, other's thoughts, our practices, experiences and reflections all blending together and in the end attribution is practically impossible as you walk away thinking... "This is an interesting thought, I wonder what others would think?"  

Well, then this is all I can offer - my mea culpa moment. For starters go read Euan's article here, as mine pales in comparison. If you can only read one, go to his.  Going forward, in addition to continuing to recognize the ideas of others in my posts and presentations, I'll revisit my Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) strategy and tools, and I'll continue to add to my blog roll as it serves as a great list of those who's work I find inspiring. These people continue to influence my thoughts and practices and I guess, as long as I keep them upfront and getting the attention they deserve, maybe my unintentional imitation is a sincere form of flattery. 

What ideas do you have to create a buffer against unintentional Social Inception?

Of Social Tools And Toys

"Twitter is for morons and b-level actors." 

I remember reading this in a Newsweek article in 2009. Funny thing is five years later I find many still believe this, and why not? Traditional media and late night talk show hosts do a wonderful job of highlighting only the harmful and the humorous. But what they don't know is how powerful this and other social tools are too many people for learning and growing through networks.

This got me wondering about who, how many and what in regard to social tool use.  Might there be a 90-9-1 use of social media?  If you don't recall, the 90-9-1 rule is where 90% of networks are made up of the equivalent of virtual voyeur, 9% contribute periodically, and the golden 1% create all the content that the lurkers and contributors consume or add to. 

I wondered then, when it comes to social tool use, do we have a comparable breakdown?

90% actors

9% marketers

1% makers

The 90%

No doubt social tools are a narcissists dream, where everyone can get their 15 minutes of fame. Traditional media does well to point out the sensationally bad behaviors of individuals and blames the medium as much, if not more than, as those making the blunder. These majority users aren't morons, as they still widely use social tools to connect and learn, yet much use is for telling their personal story with all it's comedy and tragedy displayed for the world to see. 

The 9%

Most businesses only toy with social technology. These "9%ers" build social brand promotion campaigns, sterilizing their customer "engagement" and then push so hard for ROI they excrete their humanity in the process. The hemorrhoids, of course, are too numerous to count. These companies rarely seem to get "it" right, but when they get it wrong, they get it really wrong; enduring black eyes for the silly games they play. Their half-baked approaches get chewed up and spit back in their faces like when they hijack a hashtag to sell a dress in the midst of a shooting or get into pissing matches with unhappy customers for the whole world to see. Who's the moron?

The 1%

The minority however are those getting the greatest value. They are using it in strategic ways that bypass old models, as one group's toy is another group's tool. All their activity is happening under the radar of the status quo; not much mainstream press for their success. Through networking, sharing and collaborating, they are silently growing skills and knowledge. They are finding unique ideas, challenging content, and brilliant minds through open sharing and humility. Each of their engagements is a stretch assignment, a mentor meeting or a chance for large group reflection. They are making progress through relationships. 

Of course we can't be pigeon held to one area. Just like 90-9-1 isn't a hard and fast rule where we are locked into one of three convenient lables of lurker, contributer, or creator. We are all simultaneously actors, weaving our tale. We are marketers, building our brand if we see it or not. And we are all makers, from time to time bringing value to others.  But I do think, through seeking and sincere interactions, the minority today don't just retain their humanity with these tools, they learn more about it and how powerful and rewarding it is to be real.

The Efficacy of Social

Recently it was reported that the Ebola epidemic is not getting the financial support it needs as the donations from wealthy countries is not coming in as hoped. This is surprising due to how horrific and enormous the problem is, and it being coupled with traditional media fear mongering. 

Or is it surprising?

According to Shankar Vedantam @Hiddenbrain, a social researcher with NPR, reporting in Why Your Brain Wants To Help One Child In Need - But Not Millions "as people feel more hopeless about a problem it greatly undermines their desire to do something about it."  There is an emotional conflict where "people decline to do what they can do because they feel bad about what they can't do."

AIDS, Cancer, Global Warming, Ebola all appear hopeless to correct or cure and the reason efforts fade over time is that we can respond to an individual need but as the numbers grow we lose the emotional connection. 

I find this research interesting and wonder at what point does the balance tip towards hopelessness and disconnection? If logic (the data) was tempered, would the emotional connection remain? It's the stories behind the data that maintains our attention.  Social tools are story tools. They support community, collaboration and sharing. They can make and sustain emotional connections. Social tools are personal tools, what you encounter with them always have a name and a face, are personal and can be emotional. Using social media you can directly connect with key people in a cause or even those afflicted. Social tools make the invisible visible and you can easily see the activities of others, maybe unknowingly, chipping away at big problems and the value it brings to them personally - emotional connections amplified. To some extent the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a good example. Although the problem seems hopeless as we appear far from a cure, social media helped people maintain a personal connection to the cause with unbelievable results.

Organizations too face large problems. Fixing revenue stream issues, customer satisfaction, or employee turnover are not insurmountable but can appear very daunting when looking at the data. Social allows you to cut through data and see the people and behaviors behind it. Social tools in organizations can surface individual stories and through open and inclusive conversation, solutions can be more quicker generated and imparted. 

Take the turnover issue for example. We know it's not just monetary rewards that entice people to stay. It's more about feeling connected, finding success, it's about recognition and growth opportunities. Each person has a story, a unique need, and social tools can bring that story to life and allow other individuals to see and to help. The assistance could be in the form of building a stronger relationship; it could be in offering a tip or some coaching; it could be a through a virtual pat on the back.  This is the efficacy of social. The engagement is completely transparent; in solving a small, seemingly personal issue, others vicariously experience the interaction. Maybe it addresses their own need or provides insights on how they can do the same. Think how the manager, who sees another manager offering encouragement or advice, can take on that behavior too and extend the practice in their own area. Social media extend and expand humanity, scaling support, making the big much smaller and seemingly more manageable. It can turn hopeless situations into hopeful ones.

FrankESNstein

"Hateful day when I received life!' I exclaimed in agony. 'Accursed creator!  Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?"  - Frankenstein's Monster

In 1818 Mary Shelley penned Frankenstein. In part the novel explored how electricity, a strange new power then might be used to create what only occurred naturally- life. 

The take away for me - don't mess with a good thing.

        Well, in the world of Enterprise Social I fear many didn't heed the warning. Our platforms often resemble the hideous Monster with it's parts fused together. Features such as streams, blogs, tags, filters, discussions, status updates, polling, places, groups, etc have value but when jumbled all together and released on the unsuspecting - they litter, complicate and ultimately frustrate and repel employees. It is often that the platforms resemble the 8' man-made man that terrifies the bewildered villagers. In some cases the people will slowly and only partially accept the platforms. In other cases they shun them and destroyed the incarnations through their inactivity versus overt aggression.

       Web 2.0 was a simple concept and simple technology but once brought inside an organization as an ESN it has been perverted and manipulated to mirror the comfortable but outdated systems and structures of the organization itself. 

The spirit of social technology is being crushed. It vaguely resembles the experimental, fun, easy world in which it was born. It is often a tool of the organization but not of the people. I've written about "simplicity" in the past and believe Simple is the New Black. That, like in Frankenstein, we have messed with the natural course. Twitter is a perfect example of "nature". A simple interface w/ simple rules and a simple goal to connect people which millions caught on to. It also had obvious affordances with its open API allowing for fantastic uses and integrations. Web 2.0 like Twitter blended seamlessly into the chaotic World Wide Web. In it's simplicity it amplified humanity, conversation, and sharing. The technology took a back seat. 

Work environments, like the web, are equally complex and growing more so with ever changing technology, system, customer need, and competition. Yet the answer for many is to release monstrous platforms that often add another layer of work to get working done. Ryan Tracy shared this, which I think nailed the issue because of how ridiculous it is. Yet if you swapped Facebook for many ESN implementations, it wouldn't be funny at all. Web2.0 vs. E2.0.

Social technology does work in some organizations but that depends on what one means by work and the organization using it. All are unique and one's definition of success, user adoption, is not the same as another's, work adaptation.   How do we avoid creating a monster enterprise social network? Yes we need advocacy and yes we need to draw on good examples and approaches promoted by the likes of Jane Hart but before that, potential community managers and leaders need to put egos aside and...

1. Ask yourself why? If your answer is to bring the workforce closer together, do they even want to be closer? Are they close now? It's a culture, people issue first.

2. Keep it simple. Start small doesn't mean just starting with a pilot, it means thinking of light design.

3. Play guide, not God. Encourage people to find A way, don't create THE way.

Learn from Dr. Frankenstein's mistake. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Know the needs. Know the culture. Know your limits.

The Space Between Us

In a recent webinar by Luis Suarez (@elsua) he asked the question of the attendees of what the biggest problem was in organizations today.  He stated that it was employee disengagement.  I do agree that it's a problem but I believe this disengagement is more a symptom of a greater problem. That problem being space; the space between us.

Space is created naturally or deliberately. It's also physical and psychological. We have space when organizations expand; space exists in time, geography, and culture. We have space when a workforce is geographically dispersed, no longer can we see the many we work and interact with. Space exists when hierarchy places people in rank and file as an artificial pecking order is created and this space between us defines who we are and how we interact.  Finally, our departmentalized functions create silos of work where space exists between them. And those functions of course are controlled by people who decide on how much space. 

When space exists we can choose to fill it constructively or like a vacuum, it just gets filled like silt settling after a heavy rain. Regardless, it never stays empty for long. Hierarchies fill the space with the written and unwritten. Policies serve to reinforce space between people by having somewhere to point to rather than someone to have conversation with. Unwritten protocol is that which maintains space by authority and creates a false respect based on fear. 

Disengagement then doesn't create space, space creates disengagement. 

What can be done? The opposite of disengage is to engage and to engage is an action of people and their work being drawn together. If we want to eliminate disengagement, we must first create the opportunities to engage, to fill the space.

Social media is that opportunity in organizations that bridges the geographic divides, opens up silos of work and can level hierarchy so meritocracy can flourish. There is no question it can do the job - but it can also be an empty vessel if not strengthened by the substance of meaningful conversation, dialog and debate. If social channels swell only with courtesies to avoid conflict, content that reinforces positions, or sharing to show off, then the space not only remains but becomes more permanent.

There are far more pressing questions to be answer in organizations than "how do we measure this?" Or "how do we get people to use this?" when considering social media in an organization.  We need to first be able to answer "Who are we?" And "who do we want to become?"

We're Going Social! (It's not what you think)

That title would imply adoption of a social technology but really that is only part of our strategy. We're "going social" as in placing people and connectedness at the heart of our performance ecosystem. It means we are focused on supporting and fostering relationships in a way that will better connect people for learning and working with and without the support of technology.  Simply put, our goal is: to create a connected and continuous learning organization. Here is where we are focusing today:

1. Mentoring

We are dubbing it "Sponsored Mentoring" because it is formally supported and designed as opposed to only encouraging it. The vision is ultimately to create a mentoring culture and if successful the formal scaffolding can be taken down.  Initially we are focusing on new hires in more of a buddy system. Eventually, as career pathing matures, mentoring will be a key activity in the journey. Along with this we hope to reinvent the IDP to have a more autonomous, transparent, and less pejorative leaning.  The 702010 forum has been invaluable in inspiring our approach. We have been careful to monitor current beliefs and approaches that exist in the organization. Melding these with our growing understanding should help the mentoring system gain a stronger foothold, or so we hope.

2. On Boarding

As noted above with Sponsored Mentoring, we are starting with new hires and working as closely as we can with current systems, approaches and understandings. Our managers tend to excel in project management but can struggle with people, motivation, and development. Time is not a luxury for them but we discovered in our research that managers and new hires were not on the same page in the first few weeks. Many discrepancies existed which contributed to inconsistent on boarding to systems, tools and team mates. Taking a page from The Checklist Manifesto, we crafted our own tool with great input from managers. Easy to use and respectful of unique department needs, it lays out a day-by-day, week- by-week schedule of suggested tasks and activities for managers to use in on boarding. The idea was to build consistency, reduce frustration, increase productivity, and welcome a new hire in a way that didn't create more work for the hiring manager. It's a simple device really and that is all we really wanted here. If following the sequence, the hiring manager is guaranteed to have more contact with their employee who can often be remote and that is a step in the right direction.

3. Resources
Resources over courses is the motto.  The majority of our workforce comes to us skilled up. And although its hard to break stakeholders of the "We Need Training" mindset, needs do arise. We are approaching it situationally through performance consulting with a training is the last option approach. Many of the processes and tools reside in the work and minds of our most senior people. Working with them as advisers, L&D guides them in the development of performance support tools to aid people in the work they do as opposed to taking them out of it.  Many of the resources come in the form of job aids, PowerPoint decks and other traditional tools. These "pull" user-generated resources form the backbone of the "University Library" but we are aware that most don't automatically turn to a library of resources for assistance, they turn to people first. Which leads me to number 4.

4. Sharing
Yes, our ESN plays a significant role but it is a solution among many that aligns to the vision of "Social at the Heart." Our workforce is geographically dispersed so the need is there to connect to the remote corners. We know the journey will be long to have the Network supplant other methods of communication such as email and conference calling. And in its infancy we see the network is highly cooperative but not very collaborative. The platform is robust but we were able to customize and remove features and functionality to focus on really one activity - sharing. We are modeling, guiding, reinforcing the act of sharing what one knows, what one needs, and what one is doing. Some groups have been using the tool for more project work and as they grow in expertise and see the value we continue to promote them.

I like to think we are making progress...

What's next?

• Curation
• Personal Knowledge Management

Helping our work force to develop into content curators and hone their broader but related personal knowledge management skill is key but will ultimately be the most challenging and longer-term. I think a more open and connected workforce at the organization, group and individual level will make some of this activity more apparent to each over time.

Mentoring, on boarding, resources and networking are the start. All serve to make the organization smaller. Our contention is that if we bring people closer in all ways then technology truly serves to support not lead people in their learning and work.

Call of the Wild

My wife recently took a position with the development department at the local zoo. As part of her on boarding she has been engaging in "behind the scenes" activities to see and engage the animals more closer with the keepers.  Last week she met with the Elephants. She learned of their love of jelly beans and was told that each night the Elephants check the locks as the keepers leave. Not to ensure they are locked but maybe in the hopes they might be unlocked.

This got me to thinking about captivity. How the once wild can remain wild in a controlled environment and if they really live as they had.   As we continue to support our internal network I'm curious of the specific interplay of people within an ESN (E2.0) vs. that of those in Web 2.0.  

How that, although the tools on the "inside" mimic the tools on the "outside", the behaviors on the inside differ greatly to those on the outside. For example the food and environment (habitat) are similar to an animal's natural environments but we know and more importantly, they know, they are captives.

In ESNs and zoo's the "members" are each dependent upon others to maintain their environment and therefore are no longer functioning as they would in the wild. Both are observed continually, fed on schedule from "keepers", limited in freedom, and regardless of the care, attention, and stimulization they receive, wouldn't they still just rather be free? Free to choose, free to roam, free to test their abilities and explore different environments? 

ESNs are not cages and employees are hardly captives but the question is, can we ever fully expect the vigor, beauty, comfort and energy of those engaging in the wild world of Web 2.0 to happen in an ESN? I think not. No more than we can expect captive animals to remain unchanged.  To even come close to the benefits we see in the wild there are few principles ESN "keepers" might be mindful of:

• Trust takes time. Trust as in trusting those with knowledge will share openly and share when its needed most. Trust as in revealing ones limitations is not judged as weakness. How much time? It's different for each and their "lifespan" or tenure in the organization too is different for each.
• Expand, not constrict the environment, encourage more of the outside look, feel and flexibility to come in. Remember, that unlike zoo animals, employees lead a double life inside and outside your network. Bridging the two is not a technical solution alone.
• Monitor to aid the inhabitants not to manipulate as a showcase for onlookers (stakeholders).
• Respect the ebb and flow of independent activity without forcing desired behaviors for the satisfaction of onlookers. 
• Support the needs of the inhabitants rather than drive the wants of the organization. Organizational impact is a result of a healthy environment.
• Maintain realistic expectations. No matter what you do, not all will *survive*.

As my wife grows into her role and connections at the zoo I want her to ask of the keepers, "how do you really know when an animal is not just surviving but thriving?" Might be something to look at more closely in our own environments. oh and if the Elephant finds the door unlocked, what then?

Surf's Up!: An Analogy for PKM

For a recent presentation designed to help people better understand Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) I anticipated that beyond the word Personal things would get sticky, lofty, and filled with preconception. "Knowledge Management" is loaded to say the least. As such it can serve as a barrier to understanding the information.  I decided to bookend the presentation with an analogy that ultimately seemed to help the attendees and spark some good discussion. I thought I'd share it here.

The Personal Knowledge Management approach I take reminds me of my early teen years body surfing on the shores of Lake Erie. When one body surfs, different than surfing with a board, you are immersing yourself in the waves (no board). You must stand or tread water waiting for the right wave to take you on a great ride. These waves are constant and consistent. Each is unique but connected to an immense body of water, more than you can imagine. You can't possibly surf every wave, so you must discriminate; selecting carefully to ensure the ride has value.  Of course if you try taking on too many waves you risk fatigue and if that happens you will likely leave the water altogether - and that's no fun. Body surfing wasn't done with alone. You did this with trusted people, your friends, which not only made it more enjoyable but served as models to identify best practices (and bad ones to avoid). You learned which emerging waves to track, and tips/techniques to position yourself within to get the most out of each. You spoke to each other. You watched and learned and likewise consciously shared your stories and more unconsciously your approaches as you were equally being watched. Unfortunately you can't capture a wave... much like you can't capture knowledge as its equally fluid.

Do you see the parallels to PKM? Each wave is symbolic for digital content. Much more than one could ever consume. We "tame" the voluminous information by discriminating; making decisions about what to seek, or risk being overwhelmed. When we ride a wave we influence it even slightly. Similarly too, the content is changed when we share it with others as we tell our story and our interpretation adding context and inviting others in. Most importantly in PKM is people. The network we craft is one of trusted advisers to help us in finding the right information and making sense of it all. They point, guide, share and support us.

Using an analogy like this helped connect a difficult and foreign practice to a more understandable one, maybe even one many have done before. However, I think you can risk over simplification using analogies but to counter that don't see them as the end all be all; Invite questions and reaction when using them.  My analogy was also done in a story format, my story, where people could visualize the scene and the emotions (critical to learning) tied to fear, fatigue, and fun as those are harder to feel in what is essentially a virtual activity with PKM.

Do you use analogies?  Which ones and for what? Last night #lrnchat engaged in a discussion about using analogies. I encourage you to see the transcript (which may or may not be up yet) as some really good thoughts swirled around there!

Learning Through Inexperts

One of the activities considered a great benefit to the transparency that social networks afford is the ability find, connect with, and learn from others. If we narrate our work in social networks, we gain contribution, get questions answered, and can see the work of others which improves our own knowledge and skills.

Many critics of social networking have exclaimed "what if the information being shared is wrong?" My typical response is that inaccurate information in the open sure beats it being perpetuated and propagated where nobody can see it and correct it - which is likely what is happening now!

But what if observing and mimicking others' mistakes actually helps us learn and perform better?  It's hard to promote the idea that we should tell folks to find inexpert, someone muddling through to watch and learn from but some interesting research suggests that we'd be better off than just going solo.

In Alan Winfield's post "Noisy Learning Speeds up Group Learning" He shares some interesting observations from recent robotics research. In the studies, a learning (novice) robot with the ability to observe and process another robot's novice actions, learned to solve its own problem faster than if it had learned through its own experience. Most interesting is that the robot's attempts to mimic are often imperfect, meaning the observing robot can't always do exactly as the robot it observed can do.

 "...it's as if you are spying on the other cook - try to copy what they're doing but get it wrong and, by accident, end up with better chicken soup." - Alan Winfield

So, two wrongs make a right?

One lesson we might take away is that in our ever increasing complex environments, where being an expert is a temporary status, is we need to learn more how to learn through others not just from them.

Where's this all going?

After I gave a local ASTD Chapter presentation I was asked by some attendees if I knew "where's all this going?"

Where's what going? I responded.  "All this change, you know, due to all the technology and connectedness you speak of."

I expressed that traditional "systems" will continue to get disrupted. But I thought that the term disrupted sounds kind of vague.

So I shared that I see disruption more as decentralization.

Humans are good at pattern recognition and when we look around and try to understand what is happening, what is coming, what are the trends in our work and lives one word comes to mind for me - Decentralized.

disconnected to high dynamic by Harold Jarche CC BY-NA-SA

So much is coming out of the hands of some central authority and into those of the individual. The authorities are us or other people or technologies we grant authority to.

Just think about the last trip you took. Likely booked online, no travel agency. On the way to airport you likely pumped your own gas, no attendant. You checked your Waze app to determine the fastest route, no waiting for a radio traffic report. Your lunch was relatively fast food, no waitstaff. At the airport you likely used a kiosk to print your boarding pass, no agent.

I. Me. Singular. Independent.

Learning is right in this mix. I can learn when I want, when I need to, where I'm at (physically), and where I'm at (cognitively), where I'm at in my work, and I can learn with whom I want and in the ways I want.

It's all on me. As it really has always been... and should be.

Too Small To Fail

I'm seeing L&D/T&D or rather the compartmentalization of "learning"as a lame duck practice. It's one of those 20th century institutions that people cling to maybe for nostalgia.  Like bookstores and those that still speak of their need because some just like the feel of a book.  Is it time to throw this, and possibly other functional departments, on the trash heap of history? Segmenting "learning" as a function away from the rest of the business just can't remain viable. Yes, training will always be needed but can we justify an entire department devoted to it?

We know learning is happening all the time with or without an L&D function. Can you imagine a company today having no L&D department? No training function? Sure, if the company is 25 people then doubtful they are having a formal department.  What about 250 or maybe even 2500? Now that seems more likely - but is it necessary?

The reason a L&D or T&D department didn't exist when a company was small (25 people) was because a new worker was hired expecting to having great skill already, the company was very flexible in regards to tools, processes and policies because priority one was survival. And learning the ways of the organization happened through peer-to-peer interactions.

Today the agility often found in start-ups is not a result of trying to survive, rather survival is a result of being agile. Information and expertise is a click (or tap) away. Web 2.0 and the various tools available to help us share knowledge, collaborate and build relationships have the ability to make a 2500 employee company move like one that has only 25.

And what was the need again for L&D when a company is that small?

The wind or the sun?

The Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger. Suddenly they saw a traveler coming down the road, and the Sun said: “I see a way to decide our dispute. Whichever of us can cause that traveler to take off his cloak shall be regarded as the stronger. You begin.” So the Sun retired behind a cloud, and the Wind began to blow as hard as it could upon the traveler. But the harder he blew the more closely did the traveler wrap his cloak round him, till at last the Wind had to give up in despair. Then the Sun came out and shone in all his glory upon the traveler, who soon found it too hot to walk with his cloak on. - Aesop

Many workers approach collaborative tools with skepticism,  fear, or as a burden; "something else I have to check." Others bring to the workplace their personal use bias and see them as frivolous time wasters. How are you addressing people's cloaks of resistance? Are you slowly and gently radiating the opportunities and advantages or are you just pushing hard for rapid adoption?

Networks Fuel "Minn-ovation"

"To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need. Innovation involves deliberate application of information, imagination, and initiative in deriving greater or different value from resources, and encompasses all processes by which new ideas are generated and converted into useful products."

                                                  - "Innovation." www.businessdictionary.com 2012. Web. 15 November 2012

Innovation should not always be equated to a grandiose product or service that takes a business to the next level. Rather innovation is more often in the form of micro bursts (which never get the press they deserve) that bring value in even the smallest of situations.


The need for speed

The real winners in the 21st century will be those who can navigate the chaotic and complex quickly. To do this, people must be problem solvers and critical /creative thinkers. Euan Semple (@Euan) in his book Organizations Don't Tweet, People Do made a strong point that an entrepreneur within an organization (Intrapreneur) should work to release Trojan mice - or small uses of social media to garner interest and results. These tools, by expanding connections and collaboration, help to solve problems faster. Furthermore, when people reach outside of their org using social tools to find solutions, they can share their results and the approach helping propel tool adoption; making a stronger case for support of deeper, external networks.


Minn-ovation

Earlier this year a key director sought my assistance in a presentation she was planning.  With only 2 days to go she lacked sound equipment to project her voice to over 40 people and thought I had a quick solution.  I did not.  Rather than pay (a highly inflated) price to rent equipment at the venue she simply wanted to plug a mic into her laptop and project out a set of auxiliary speakers.  The problem was - its not that easy. But could it be done? I set out and took the natural course of action - I dialed up the IT department and discovered that they hadn't a clue.

I then Tweeted the request to my PLN and in about 18 minutes Dave Havis (@dochavis) in the UK replied with a series of tweets on how it could be done as he, using Audacity, had a misstep once and discovered his voice coming through the speakers.   About 20 minutes later he had produced the following for me:

I sent a link to the Director and boxed up a wireless mic and receiver. She set it up, executed the meeting, and it went off perfectly.

The effort was small in a business sense, but innovative none-the-less as it saved time, money, and frustration. And the participants experienced a more effective event. Win-win.  My immediate response for this success was to credit the social tools and the network it fostered as the solution is terminal but the ability to generate solutions in the future - perpetual.

Networks drive continuous minn-ovation and minn-ovation matters. This is how work gets done.