Lead Social By Leading With Social

A colleague and friend who I regularly chat with, where we bounce ideas and thoughts off each other, is at the cusp of where many folks leading the social charge in organizations are; helping key leaders and stakeholder to build awareness and better understanding of the value of being more social themselves.

Meetings are being set, slides developed, activities, agendas, use cases identified and industry examples to share. This is the expectation. And that is a problem. It's the same old story, employee comes to executive's office or board room for a scheduled meeting, agenda set in advance, pitch is made and the executive takes it in, asks a few questions and applauds the effort. Maybe there is change, likely not, and it's back to business as usual.

This isn't a new sales approach or marketing campaign. And if it's also social supported by technology it is also not a new CMS or bug tracking tool. Yes, software it needs electricity and it is built on code but that's where the similarities end. Social is different. Social tools work to surface and amplify ideas, answers, and content but mostly they serve to extend and expand conversations, allowing the normally invisible interactions to be visible and this is exponentially more powerful for an organization. Conversation is the undercurrent of all business interaction. It's omnipresent and eternal. It is also the least understood or nurtured of business elements. 

We have essentially buried conversation, the epitome of humanity, under layers of politics, hierarchy, processes, protocols, and technology and my colleague is in the unfortunate position of having to encourage social in the most unsocial situation. How ironic. 

Not only is social about transparency and openness it also needs this openness and transparency in order to step out from underneath the weight of traditional business mindsets and gain a foothold. 

After initially falling into the trap of business as usual, I collected myself and suggest we lead with social. The alternative, the antithesis of social, is like planting a seed in concrete!  This is not traditional business, it's social business. So rearrange locations with the executive and meet in a neutral settings, a cafe perhaps. Set no calendar defaulted time limit, this is far too important for artificial restraint. Hell, wear jeans and ask that they dress comfortably too, social is casual. Scrap the agenda and see that they leave their title at the door, it will certainly be there when the conversation ends. And that's really the point of it - Have a conversation, everything else is pomp. You each know why you are there, it's no mystery. Set aside your presumptions, your status or lack of it and be humans engaging in the most fundamental, historical part of being human; a conversation... and see where it goes. 

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.

Hook 'em When They're Young

In the late 1980's the R.J. Reynold's tobacco company used a cartoon Joe Camel character to market it's cigarettes. The company received heavy criticism for what was seen as an insidious effort to get children to start smoking early> create a habit> get addicted >stay a smokers for life... a life which we know would be greatly shortened. Well, if it was an intentional effort, it was highly unethical but made business sense. However in a not so a devious way I think a similar pattern is best with extending, not shortening the life of a company - by making "Social" an organizational habit. The key too is to start when the organization is young.

Big Ships Turn Slowly, If At All

Like adults who are not as easily hooked on cigarettes, larger, established organizations are not easily swayed by new ideas and approaches. Many, locked in command and control structures (and successful by it) will never fully transform into an open and transparent organization; the utopian promise of social. They may see pockets of success but those will ebb and flow with inevitable turnover and org restructures tied to short-term market losses that typically plague bigger, private organizations. However I do think that most of these businesses will ultimately be transformed, not by internal social tools but by external social pressures. 

Just the opposite, when supported early in an organization's life, social tools can be used to actually promote the attitude of "that's not what we do here", especially when what is not done here are things like establishing rigid hierarchies, petty politics, hoarding knowledge, and imposing strangling policies. An organization that starts and remains connected is at a great advantage to stave off the unnecessary and demoralizing. Social tools, which make the invisible visible, serve as a buffer to preserve the norms that existed when the organization was founded. Forever within social tools can be found the conversations and living constitution that will guide the organization going forward and the history that pulls it back to center when pressure arises.

When picked up early a social addiction is a hard monkey to shake. Openness and transparency become a powerful habit maintained into adulthood. 

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?

Our Social Reflex

While being carried, an infant may lose its balance and unconsciously, instinctively, grab on to their mothers. This is known as the Moro Reflex and it is considered to be a sign of our only unlearned fear. For the infant, to disconnect is an emotional and physical fear, possibly one of short-term pain, long-term loss or ultimately death. According to research this reflex typically fades away after 6 months. I wonder though if it may be that we just transferred it? 

It appears that from our earliest days we instinctively require security, the security that comes from contact and support of another. Even without having ever felt the pain of a fall or the uncomfortableness found in a lack of contact, each human cell has been pre-programmed to know that without connection it's existence is in jeopardy. And as we grow from infant to adult our need to be connected continues as we fear not physical falling but emotionally, creatively, socially or financially failing. We instinctively reach, as we once did for the survival, to create relationships because still, deep within each cell, we know that without connection our existence is in jeopardy. 

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.

Being There

People often shake their heads at a common scene today; families in a restaurant, all tapping away at their phones, rarely looking up while loved ones sit a mere 2 feet away. Oh, the demise of the Family they cry! These of course are just snapshots in time and in no way reflect anti-social behavior, or should mark the downfall of the family unit. On the contrary, the family is exhibiting Supersocial behaviors by interacting with physical and virtual participants synchronous and asynchronously... simultaneously.

Recently a co-worker in IT pinged me on our internal IM system. He was inquiring about some images we might have to support an interface he wanted to redesign. I told him who to ask but encouraged him to post the request in our ESN and tag the person in Marketing. This way more than he could benefit from the exchange. He was hesitant and jokingly shared that the system he was developing was one that would get him hated throughout the organization.  He further explained that it was a password reset process to take place every 3 months and that he was to roll it out. OK, I thought, maybe not hated but certainly annoyed. We then preceded to exchanged funny, sarcastic comparisons; 5th horseman of the apocalypse, blame it on "Obama care" and on and on it went. I'm confident that in our 3 minute exchange we both chuckled quite a bit. In the end he got what he needed, a few new thoughts and all with a smile.

Later that day we passed in the hallway, eye contact and a head nod hello and on our way. Nothing more, no smirk or recall of our earlier humorous exchanges. It was over, it was actually over shortly after the last sarcastic quip. Some might say that is a problem, that we are perpetuating some type of anti-social behaviors and losing our ability to converse live. I pondered this experience for a bit and as I walked from his office to mine I counted that it was 28 steps away from my office. He could have been 2800 miles away as many of my exchanges; humorous or informative are. I thought that if communication is used to transfer ideas and information then this type of communication, the one we experienced together is the heart of social. It had cognitive fodder but also emotional sentiment. Between us, in that flurry of humorous exchanges, we felt the same emotions of happiness, connection, and a kindred spirit as if we had been seated together. It was just as real as being there.

Social tools can do much more than connect us to others as sources of knowledge, they can (if we accept it) extend the entirety of our humanity.

Let's Be Honest

I heard a short story on a local radio program this morning discussing the use of Traditional Media and Social Media. The story is not the part that caught my attention though. I got hung up on the use of the term "traditional" to define newsprint, television, radio, billboards, etc. I find it interesting (but not surprising) that the word "traditional" was used in particular by a medium that would use such an approach to market.

I've been intrigued by the terms we use and the meanings behind them and how that changes in different contexts ever since I read a wonderful book called Don't Think of an Elephant by Cognitive Linguist George Lakoff.  Words conjure images and feelings and depending on the listener (or reader), "Traditional" can mean things like Old and Stodgy or it can mean Stable, Secure, and Comfortable.   Likewise "Social" can imply Frivolous and Silly but can also mean Heartfelt, Human, and Conversational.

Considering the source, I think the station was implying stable and secure but in doing so they undermined (intentionally or not) the meaning of "Social".

These forms of media ("traditional and social") really lend themselves to better terms or categories, ones more aligned to how they actually interface with people.  Might we be better served to steal terms from L&D where we speak of learning as being Push or Pull?  In learning we often tag events that are created, marketed, and mandated as "Push" and learning that is more open, available and self selected as "Pull". The former is driven by others, the latter driven by oneself.

Radio, TV, Billboards, Direct Mail, etc are Pushed on us.  Interactions, conversations, and sharing Pull us in.

The terms may not be any better at placing a connotation in one's mind but I think they are at least more honest.

The Social Element in Motivation

As I launched my campaign to yet again run a 1/2 marathon and begin a training regiment that will involve early morning runs in the heart of winter, my wife encouraged me to join Method 360, an exercise class she's been attending several times a week to strengthen her core and improve he overall fitness. 

She has, for lack of a better word, become hooked.  

So I joined.  After my 4th visit I could see that the owner/ instructor, Trish Gallen had nailed the recipe for motivation that Daniel Pink identified in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

Autonomy - Mastery - Purpose

Autonomy: for every exercise Trish promotes, she has alternatives that do the same but give you an option based on your fitness level and as you fatigue. As a newbie who was fading fast during one of my first classes, Trish shared several options to all of us and we could select one during that circuit. It didn't lessen the exercise but change was good.  Because I had choice, I couldn't fail, I couldn't quit and I couldn't blame her for how crappy I felt!  The choice was there, I got to own the exercise and I took it.

Mastery: success is personal. It is in feeling you are improving and seeing results. In my first class, feeling lightheaded, I had to step out for 5 minutes while she carried on with the class. The next time I felt like vomiting at one point and my transition between exercise (15 seconds) was slow but I pushed through. by my 4th class I wasn't the quickest and I wasn't the most technically sound but I didn't feel sick, and I didn't stop. Additionally my form has improved as she isn't assisting me as much anymore in adjusting my position.  I am gaining mastery!

Purpose: I'm getting older. Each year I run, I seem to get a whole new injury (calf, foot, achilles, etc). A diverse exercise class like this serves to improve many supporting muscles, thus making my running more efficient and less damaging. I exercise in order to run better, longer. My purpose is clear.

The elements are present to maintain my motivation; control, growing success, and a goal.

The structure of the classes surely meets the 3 points above but now that I know this, can't I just do this all on my own?  No.  The one element not included here is that which ties them all together - Social, which in my opinion is critical.  Don't confuse this with just being around other people who share a common goal and some rah-rah. Social is being human and all the "real" that comes with it. Trish and her instructors connect with those in class; sincerely. Its nothing they do intentionally, they just show their humanity by sharing their stories, making mistakes, they laugh at themselves, they're open and transparent. Sure they know more than any in there about exercise but they listen, inquire and want to improve. It's a connected experience.

As I reflect on this seemingly unconscious motivational approach I wonder how well we (learning professionals) do the same in our efforts to help people improve work performance?  

• When formal course development is warranted are we involving the learners in the process?

• Are we designing to "their" goals as well as that of the organization?

• Is instruction encouraging and helping them see even incremental success? 

• Is failure treated as a part of the learning process?

• Are we offering alternatives to the traditional course model? Blended, performance support, coaching, mentoring, networking.

What about in the use of internal collaborative tools? 

• Are certain behaviors being demanded or do people have the time and space to experiment and learn? 

• Do they have a voice to express their concerns, fears, needs? 

• Are business results noted and shared or are we caught up in counting likes and shares, uploads and views?  

• Is the purpose clear? Is the tool helping them solve a problem specific to them?

• Is Be Human a key component to adoption and use

You'll know motivation is there when people fumble through the "exercise" of learning (or connecting), when they struggle, when they're slow to start but keep coming back. You'll know to keep encouraging and stay the course... they're hooked.





Speaking of exercise I'd be remiss if I didn't share that I run for charity.  Any donation amount (really, any!) will go a long way for me to help fellow Central New Yorkers and the Upstate Medical Foundation.  Check out my donation site and please spread the word and or give what you can.  Thank you!