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

Choices, Choices

When I was a kid we had about 7 maybe 8 television channels (I grew up somewhere between rabbit ears and cable). It was easy then to decide what to watch or if to watch at all. Today though I can have options of up to 650 channels. Do I need that many? No. Are most worth my time? No. But I will experiment and give some a chance. If I find value, they stay in my line up. If not they are quickly removed. I learn which channels present the best content, consistently and some I just visit from time to time. Some I've never selected based on title alone; just not of interest to me. New channels appear and others disappear, I make room when I can. This is not difficult even with hundreds of channels to choose from. To me that number could be 60,000 and I feel no stress in the fact that I can't watch them all or that I'll miss something important.

We know what moves us. We know what we need or want. We learn and can separate the good from the bad. We find something we treasure and we tune in. We talk to our friends, those people who's opinions we trust, and get their take on different programs and make choices from that. Who have you ever heard say TV is information overload or that they were suffering from a form of TV filter failure? Online time is the new TV time and yes, it's all the time but we have choices. And yet people speak of too much information, unreliable content, and going down rabbit holes online but not of television. I find it interesting that the technology parallels of broadcasting ideas and opinions are eerily similar, yet the societal complaints aren't at all.

Losing the Soul of Social

Technology can extend the human condition but it can also work to dehumanize, transforming the sincere ideals of community and relationships into exploitable resources. The vendor marketing machines have lots of money and content marketing is their new effort to turn spin doctors into gurus as they work to convince you they are not selling but educating. Let the buyer beware. Some "though leaders" in this space are really after mind control and in many ways I think it's working. For example I sat in a conference session recently which was a bit alarming. The discussion was centered on community building but was framed around tools. No discussion of trust and time and shared values or support. Rather it was a conversation about things like how to use gamification to get people to share! Or this recent post titled How to Master Social Marketing Quickly and Effectively which is chock full of advice like Automate It, Know Your Numbers, Get Followers. More likely than not some of the approaches in this article work in the short-term but are quite devoid of anything resembling sincerity or human relationship building.

Technology is seductive. I underestimated its power at my previous organization. I had leadership on board that improving transparency and collaboration would help in reducing redundancy and increase innovation; a huge win. Within days a team formed to assess social technology options! I was dismayed but also being new I figured it was best to tentatively support this as I naively believed that I could simultaneously explore technology solutions and also assess how we were currently collaborating and communicating throughout the organization. I carried on looking for where the pockets of healthy teams, departments and interactions were. I sought out conversations that informed me of barriers as well identified ambassadors or nodes in our already existing networks. I deepened my understanding of the business and culture. While I looked at business problems the tech train was gaining strength. My slow roll out was ultimately compromised by a need to justify the expense of a chosen solution. How ridiculous of me to a think we would leave a Porsche parked in the garage when it looked so sunny outside. The platform was on the table too soon and too many were letting tech take the wheel.  In the end the technology rolled out before the needs of the organization were really defined. Not quite a failure but definitely a struggle that was unnecessary as adoption became the goal not adaptation where real business value was.

"Money is in technology focus, but effect is in people focus." - James Tyer

Human history is littered with examples of where technology temporarily blinded us with devastating results to body and mind. The Industrial Revolution made people mere appendages of the machines and child labor was a widely accepted practice.  More recently (and far less cruel) Learning Management System spin has misled people into believing a formal course is how and where learning takes place and that access, completions and scores equate to learning - wasting time, money and reducing morale. The former was ultimately defeated through the birth of labor unions and progressive legislation and today, the LMS is under attack by progressive minds using data to help people see where learning is actually happening and change mindsets.  Eventually, as history shows, we do come to our senses. However, if we sit passively allowing the voices of deception to coexist with the sincere, the longer it will take us to realize the true benefits of social - benefits gained as we move through the machine not within it

Enter the Rectangle

Today when we encounter a little white rectangle on a screen, we instinctively know what to do don't we? 

Keyboard + interface with a text box = type. 

We also know through experience that selecting publish, send, post, or tweet can initiate a change in both ourselves and others, yet so many still hesitate or refuse to try. What really prevents people from engaging is not a technical barrier, not any more, it's much more complicated than code and functionality. 

It's about humility - "I've nothing to share." 

It's about fear - "how will I be perceived?" 

It's about confidence - "I don't have enough expertise in this topic." 

It's about time - "I have enough to do."

It's about value - "I have better things to do." 

Too many fight their basic human instinct to connect and share even when it is made incredibly easy. Looking again at the brief list above, maybe the way to overcome the complicated is to simply take it head on. Help people make these internal questions external. Real change happens one conversation at a time, so online or face to face we can start by asking others who are more open how they feel they are perceived, about the expertise they share, about how they make the time and what value they receive. 

Knowledge doesn't exist within us, it exists between us. But for that to be really understood, one must first get outside of themselves to get over themselves. 

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.

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?"

Openness: the agent of inclusivity

"How do we get people to ... ?"

I hear this all the time in my work on organizational learning initiatives and social tool use is definitely no exception. I've heard it so much that it's just became unquestioned white noise - until I heard it today, and something just felt wrong.

Worse than the directive of "get" is "we." The we here speaks of only those involved in the exclusive conversation and nobody else.

Us and them. Owner and worker. Manager and employee.... Have and have not.

If we start with a goal of changing people's behavior without those people in the conversation haven't we just set the stage for manipulation and disempowerment? Won't we just be playing the traditional role of power broker reinforcing all that is wrong with hierarchy?

Here's the thing. Don't we instinctively speak differently when we know everyone is listening? If everyone could at least hear the conversation, be in that space (if they choose to listen or join in is on them), I suspect the "how do we get people to..." questions wouldn't even be uttered or better yet, would be phrased in a very inclusive way. How could they not?

More community, less control.

Learning's Battle Against Tradition

What if you presented a tool or process to the c-suite, something that would (not could) increase revenue, improve morale and increase efficiency? No doubt they would leap at the opportunity right?

Not quite...

I recently heard a story (Axe Bat Wins Converts, But Has To Overcome Baseball Traditionalists) that immediately made me see parallels to innovations in organizational learning and performance. The story was about a modern innovation applied to the baseball bat, which has remained in its basic form for around 150 years.

 Felling Axe by タクナワン 
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Drawing upon the even older design of axe handles, the Axe Bat is more oval than the current cylinder style, similar if not identical to axes use in chopping wood, an efficient design used since neolithic times. The reporter explained that technology now allows us to easily craft a bat handle in any shape where in the past, using a lathe, round was the only option.  The proponents of the Axe Bat claim, like its wood chopping forefather, that it's more efficient, effective, and reduces injuries caused by the unnatural ergonomics of traditional bat handles. 

In essence the Axe Bat would help players and help the game.

Yet in face of this information and a readily available alternative, there are few takers. 

Sound vaguely familiar?  Read on...

Age old technique (social learning) made more apparent with advent of new technology (Web 2.0) can transform accepted practice (organizational learning) and challenge long held conventions (learning via formal only). 

In essence social media for learning would help employees and help the organization.

Ironically though, the same resistance the hinders an innovation for baseball exists for organizational learning. This resistance is of course 'Tradition'. The age old subconscious cry of "but this is how we've always done it." People want to stick with what is comfortable even in the face of new or better. With the Axe Bat, teams would try it in practice situations but come game time they returned to the traditional bat.  With social media, people readily use and support it in their personal lives but are resistant to it's use or promote it for learning in their professional ones.

Further reading of the story reveals the Axe Bat manufacturers are approaching increased adoption by doing the following:

1.  Focusing on the newest to the game. 
"just let them pick one, they'll pick [the Axe Bat] because it feels the best. It feels natural to you."
2.  Doing a lot of demos.
3.  Getting high profile endorsers.
"...get more high-profile endorsers as some of those college players turn pro."
4.  Believing. 
"we know we're going to overcome this (tradition)."

Sound vaguely familiar?  

If its social learning or innovative baseball bats, it's a slow road to change when faced with well entrenched tradition. 

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.

Twitter Triggers

Most of my Personal Learning Network (PLN) resides in Twitter and therefore it is here that I find the most value in my networks.  Over the years I have done well to streamline and focus my PLN so that much of my time within is efficient and deliberate.  However, I do subscribe to serendipity. I think it's critical to venture away from your focused interests even if that departure is only a mere step away as opposed to a mile - there is much value to be gained. 

Recently I had a meta-cognitive moment as I scrolled my Twitter lists. I wondered, after the fact, "why" I clicked on a particular Tweet over others in my more serendipitous streams. With only 140 characters to work with there's not too much about the link can be revealed but something makes you take action.

The Tweet below serves as a pretty good example of a one I selected that's a step away from my focus and bit about why.

Tozier, Bill, Twitter post, January 5, 2014, 7:08 a.m., http://twitter.com/vaguery

I was able to boil my triggers down to 3 as I retraced my steps. In the tweets I tend to explore beyond the surface I find they must be:

1. Relevant - connects to my current focus based on subject or author

2. Resonant - added context piques my interest

3. Reliable - historically trustworthy source of curation or creation

I'm sure this is not unusual however I wonder what triggers you to take action and further explore?

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?

A Conversation for Innovation

Innovation is the engine to advance organizations today and although conversation is key to spurring creative thinking and innovative action, it is naive to think that just having more conversations where information is shared and people collaborate is enough. These conversations, often spontaneous, can be unconsciously valuable but we should strive for dialog if we want to see growth. 

"[Dialog is] a conversation in which the intention is to generate something in the conversation itself that did not exist in any one of the participants before the conversation began."

- Michael McMaster, The Intelligence Advantage

Dialog is not debate or discussion and its not brainstorming. Dialog calls for strong discipline to refrain from judging, and reacting. It's having the ability to hold fast to a position of listening and for raising more questions that add to the conversation rather than trying to end it with answers.

Dialog is the stream that carries knowledge. And like knowledge itself, it too is ever expansive and ever flowing. 

Knowledge doesn't exist with in us but rather it exists between us in our [conscious] conversations [dialog].

The barrier to more dialog is innately a human condition; we are competitive. Our business hierarchies only serve to reinforce this by rewarding those with quick wit, quicker ideas, and for being the loudest voice in the room. Social Media however is a great equalizer, it can support dialog; a conversation for innovation. Social Media provides an important buffer to this human condition, one of time and space. This buffer allows for (but can't guarantee) reflection; a pause.  In social tools I can write my response immediately but I don't have to hit submit immediately. I can sit idle and wait for those societal reinforced and rewarded behaviors to pass and use my response to seek clarity rather than try to provide it.

As always, the technology can only support the practice of dialog. This behavior, like most, is best learned through experience, practice, and reflection. Yet it must also be modeled and supported by leadership; those that hold innovation so dear... and where better for them to do it than in the tools that make the practice most visible.

Residue Not Retention as a Strategy

Two relatively recent tweets helped formulate my thinking about our mobile workforce.

The first a vision, the second a reality.

"The firm of the future may be ten million people working together for ten minutes" - @EskoKilpi

“Hans: It would be ridiculous for my company to invest in me, where I expect to change job every few years” - @shackletonjones (referencing a speaker’s quote at #LEARN12)

Mobile is an activity, not a technology. We hear much that the average worker will have numerous jobs in his/her life. The number varies depending on the estimator but nobody seems surprised anymore that the number is not 2. Some employees are flying out the door because working in their current company is a fate worse than death but others move on because of a lack of opportunity or bad fit of skills to organization need – not always a harsh criticism of the organization then. The bottom line is that 2 years not 20 is the new normal.

So lets be honest employers, your people are leaving you or you're leaving them. Lets not kid ourselves anymore, it's a revolving door and its only going to continue. No sense in fighting it and desperately trying to hang on with grandiose (and expensive) retention strategies... but then again don't just throw up your hands on trying to "engage" them.  Be human, be compassionate, be fair, compensate accordingly, grant the time deserved to do good work, make it meaningful, give them a say, and hand out "atta boy's" like candy at Halloween. Do this not because you are trying to get them to stay but in the name of sincere appreciation for what they do.  In the end your employee may stick around but even when they don't, they won't exit with a slew of brand destroying tweets either (It's better to have loved and lost...).

As employees continue to pass through like vapor, employers must shift thinking from retention strategies alone to ones that embraces expected attrition. Workers are fluid like the knowledge they consume and expel. You won't hold them for long but what organizations need to do is hang on to their residue.  This residue being the rich artifacts of their time in the organization. I am not talking work product so much as work process; the wiki's they contributed to, the blog posts and comments they made, the quick collaborations and Q&As in micro-blog tools, and the bookmarked (tagged) content. 

As they exit, others enter and the give-n-take cycle begins again. This is where the energy and time should be put. T&D needs to beat their swords (of classes and courses) into ploughshares (for carving out rows and rows of connections). T&D needs to show workers how to plant the seeds and reap the fruits that fuel their labor. HR needs to orient and on-board by introducing employees to a rich culture that invites their contribution. 

T&D should be modeling, encouraging, and sharing Personal Knowledge Management (PKM)  approaches with employees and demonstrating the value of narrating one's work. PKM should be the default approach for all but especially the increasing transient workforce we see today; Make it unavoidable and easy.

Organizations can't stop the transition of employees any more than mankind can stop the sun from rising or the wind from blowing. Mankind has transitioned to embrace and leverage this continual motion. It's a shift for organizations like the shift in energy policy we see today, as nations turn to solar and wind. This type of force strikes and continues on; unconstrained, it briefly turns the blade or fills the cell. The energy though is captured with ample, efficient, and strategically placed tools. This energy is used and then replenished again and again through movement. Organizations too must focus on capturing for brief moments the force of people, as they and their knowledge is in constant motion. 

Social Media Oneness

Yesterday I had a very salient moment regarding my use of social media. Until now my use of it has been very conspicuous and conscious; social media is something that has been an add-on in my life and in my work.

Currently, among other initiatives in the formal learning space I am also deeply engaged in exploring enterprise 2.0 tool use at my organization. In addition to tinkering around with Chatter (SalesForce) features, I'm am also using it and promoting it's use to exclusively communicate with various individuals in the pilot effort we are crafting. I firmly believe these tools are not something to be trained in but rather believe all must jump in to really learn them and see their value (learn by doing).

In addition to discussing features and functions of this particular tool, I am also raising issues related to culture, transparency, and the philosophy of networked community for 21st century organizational learning. I am sharing and discussing articles, and posting findings from my Twitter PLN in an effort to show value outside the island that is enterprise social media tools. I am using the chat feature with key people in marketing to drill down about video creation, style guides and debate intranet pros and cons. I am sharing stories and humor with business analysts I've never physically met and this is all happening each day, sporadically, as the need arises or as a new discovery drives me to share with this new network. These are the things I engage in outside of my work context, with my PLN, speaking at conferences, educating my peers, etc.

Yesterday, in a teleconference meeting with another group, I was asked to share what I've been working on. Without pause I launched into details regarding the work I am doing in supporting a new software roll out and its performance support. I briefed them on the self-paced orientation I created and plans for future needs analysis. However I left off the very item I am most immersed in, the one which I believe can transform the organization, the very thing that is threaded continuously in each and every day...only until prompted did I remember!

Why didn't I lead with it?

In short I think it's that social media and the social learning and networking it enhances and empowers has simply become a part of me. Social media, like mobile devises that support it, has become ubiquitous to me as it has for many others. So I didn't see the internal social media effort as being a project...because social media for me just is.

Have you experienced the Oneness?

Community as the Cornerstone

There is a rush to social everything today. Organizations who rush to connect their workforce often painfully find out their big efforts fail.  I must say, that the idea of a completely connected workforce sharing and collaborating with knowledge flowing freely through Wirearchies is very enticing and frankly the right goal to strive for.  I want to be there too …but I am willing to move somewhat slower as I fear that what is being lost is the fact that social media, in its simplest definition, is a tool.

The social media tools we have today are useful for building up community, increasing collaboration and for sharing. If you have a business problem that can be addressed by one of these three, then social media should be explored and as success is achieved, expansion can be the next logical step.  Maybe if we target smaller problems first through a "Trojan Mice" approach as Euan Semple speaks of, we will change our organization's collective belief about "social" and ultimately change the culture... one collaborative practice at a time. 

"Culture is an emergent property of the many practices that happen every day. Change the practices and a new culture will emerge." - Harold Jarche

An area I had the opportunity to target with a social solution was Employee On boarding.

The two high level goals of on boarding are: 

1.  To make new employees feel welcome and comfortable in their new surrounding.
2.  Minimize the time before new employees are productive members of their new team.


The reality is that most on boarding efforts fall quite short of meeting each of these goals. A 2011 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) revealed some very sobering data:

• Most on boarding lasts less than 8 days.
• Only 8% of organizations surveyed do extensive monitoring of their formal on boarding programs.
• Only 15% of organizations surveyed conduct an extensive evaluation of their on boarding program's effectiveness.

Of significance also is that only 57% of surveyed organizations provided new hires a personal mentor and 35% engaged the employees in any significant socialization efforts with their new work group. Yet 94% said these two activities are critical!

The biggest culprits noted:

Lack of time, Lack of resources, Lack of management support, and Lack of financial support

In the end, 6% of organizations surveyed reported that on boarding is longer in duration than it was 5 years ago with less responsibility given to newcomers to "figure things out for themselves." Well intentioned I'm sure but is the right direction one that provides for less autonomy when organizations are clearly struggling to provide an effective formal on boarding program?

It would appear that most on boarding efforts are top heavy, top down formal approaches. And frankly... formal is failing.  The truth is most organizations I fear focus on goal 2 (job skill development), for good reason but unfortunately they completely neglect goal 1 (socialization).

The Business Problem:

I was presented with a business problem related to on boarding new employees for a single department and I wondered openly about the current approaches in this area and what role social media could play in this effort. The head of recruitment intended to more than double the size of his recruitment team (9-20). He expressed that he needed help getting them up to speed on the company and the various roles they need to hire for (i.e. Dentists) These folks were experienced recruiters but not experienced in our industry. He hoped I could develop a training plan for them. Though he expressed that it wasn't ideal to bring them in for training as they would lose productive time in the field. On a secondary note he was tired of answering the same questions over and over in 1:1 calls and emails with his current group as this was taking him away from more strategic activities.

I believed the answer to his business problem was not a formal approach but in flipping the focus and getting the new employees to productivity by placing community (Goal 1) as the cornerstone and build knowledge through this community rather than begin with formal training programs detached from the job (Goal 2). 


Step 1: Buy-in 
Its more common than we want to admit but many present the solution before really knowing the problem. Digging deeper and having the executive articulate the real issues made it much easier to present a different approach and shake the training default mentality. It's nearly impossible to argue with ones own data.

Step 2: Partner with Your People 
On boarding should be a group effort. There are benefits for all involved to have the new hire succeed so all should play a role in making that happen. 

I suggested he ask his current experienced recruiters what the top questions Dentists interested in our organization ask during the recruitment process.  The group generated 85 unique questions! We placed these in a wiki and then had different recruiters answer each of the questions. The executive was able to review and was surprised at some of the inaccuracies but pleased that they were surfaced to be corrected. This short process provided a knowledge base immediately useful for new hires to draw upon.

Step 3: Social Media Introduction
My current use of Yammer in a small pilot within L&D made the tool selection easier. Plus, although it has many features, it is relatively simple to use and mirrors familiar personal tools like Facebook. Since the group was small I was able to take an opportunity to have all Recruiters in a 2hr discussion and overview of social media. The emphasis was on "why" not how.  I started by using a frame game I adapted from Thiagi, "Improved Solutions", where after being presented with an authentic problem the groups move through sessions where they generate, criticize, defend, collaborate and ultimately produce a viable new solution. I then collect all the papers, ripped them up and threw them in the garbage.  I remind them that this is what happens when we use email or phone calls to share and collaborate.  It resonated quite well and then we shifted to start playing with Yammer...yes, playing. Doing this together allowed more savvy folks to share with others on the "how to's" and I spent most of the time leading with phrases like "check this out." and "now you can ...". It was impactful because it was casual, experiential and meaningful to their work.  

Step 4: Encourage, Model, Acknowledge 
No training. The main ingredient is consistent leadership activity and my executive partner was more than willing (yes, maybe I was blessed or maybe it was due to step 1). Each email or call he received from one of his team members he asked that they post it on Yammer and get more heads around it - this took a major mind-shift  He was quick to jump into conversations and not give the answer but to stir up discussion and seek more voices. He used hash tags and shared them, he posted humorous material to show that it was OK to just chat and share. He leaned on me for advice and encouragement to stay the course early on and it paid off.

By January, only 8 months after launch the 24 member Yammer group generated over 1600 posts/comments.  We analyzed each and placed them into categories with the following percentages:   

Community: 34% - wit, wishes, jabs, and kudos

Collaboration: 36% - problem solving Q and A

Sharing: 30% - serendipitous offerings

The solution was small in scale: focused on a key group, and targeted results (rapid OTJ learning in work context). Social media could be leveraged to eliminate the need for out of work flow formal activities and allow the new hires to tap into the expertise of the veteran to find solutions, information and collaborate in real time. Furthermore it allowed the new folks to openly share their learned knowledge from previous organizations with the senior team members; adding value and with it a deeper sense of purpose to the community.

In the end the approach addressed many of the barriers to on boarding noted in the SHRM survey:

1. Limited monitoring and evaluating 
What could be easier and more transparent than using social media? Current efforts to monitor involve subjective feedback and delayed evaluations all well past the opportunity to impact those involved. Social media enables continuous monitoring and a sort of formative evaluation when adjustments can be made very quickly and benefit the new hire the most.

2. Lack of time
No longer was there a need to pull people out of production (HR, Training, etc) to support a new hire, they have a Community of Practice at their fingertips not only getting useful approaches and valuable information but gaining critical context from those within their work group, who really know the ins-n-outs of the job and the organization.

3. Lack of management support
When a solution calls for limited financial contribution and less drain on "human" resources it's a bit easier to gain agreement. CoPs with active community facilitation can guide a new hire to productivity quickly, efficiently and without all the unnecessary hand holding that is typically seen.

4. Lack of financial support
Our total monthly Yammer expense was 5.00 per person per month.  Small in comparison to using multiple professionals for training and material development, travel expenses, opportunity costs etc.  In the end, the on boarding project became a ongoing program reaping benefits far beyond ramping up a new employee. A community exists now that moved from basic knowledge and skill acquisition to collaborative innovation.

Start Small, Think Big, Go Fast!
It's time to rebuild on boarding programs around community and not control as the cornerstone of the new structure; we can't afford these any more. Moving away from formal designs, as social media charged networks offer a cost effective, resource relieving, transparent solution to the shortcomings inherent in formal on boarding programs. A slow growth strategy is one that if employed can strategically solve a specific problem in the short-term while working to create an collaborative culture in the long-term. 

Frankly, I don't believe organization wide social media platform adoption should be the terminal goal. The real goal is workers employing Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) skills in fertile networks both inside and outside the organization.  Platforms should then serve to support social initiatives and groups but should eventually exist as only a part of the workforce's overall network and tool set.

Below is my Webinar with Jane Hart from April 2012 which digs a bit deeper into my use of Social Media for learning approaches beyond this on boarding effort.

Going Tech-for-Tat

In a Twitter conversation with Craig Taylor, who had recently surfaced a year old post he had done titled "I got it wrong...Or did I?", regarding the reaction to using technology while in a traditional face-to-face meeting I noted that the perception of technology use in meetings is still less than favorable a year removed.

Many still assume the worst when people are taping away on a screen rather than placing pen to paper. The misconception of course is that if on a device the individual is likely engaging in texting with a friend, accessing social media or playing a game; i.e. technology is folly and the devils playground. Ironically none of these same critics would ever consider the reality that the "notes" being documented by others using more traditional methods may be nothing more than the scribbling of cartoons or the start of a grocery list.

I may propose that what follows could be a solution for those who dare to wear the 21st century on our sleeve and work tirelessly to change beliefs and practices. This is a true story of a solution that involves not simply defending actions but proving them valuable.

A few months ago in a meeting a manager raised the issue that in a prior meeting she was discouraged by people texting on their phones during the event and proceeded to take a few moments to share her perspective with our group. Several people subtly slid their phones off the table and others seemed to distance themselves from their devices fearful of vibrating notifications or god forbid a call.  I was singled out with a sly comment by her of oddly enough, "not to single you out Mark..." but of course I was being singled out; lumped in and judged for I recalled the very meeting she was referencing and I did in fact use my phone. Of course I felt the immediate need to defend my actions and I let her know that I was actually documenting key points at which she interjected "likely story" with a slight smile... and the pushed on with the meeting.

Later as we wrapped up, she asked me how she could adjust push notifications on her new iPhone - and there it was! My eureka moment of how to turn from victim to vanquished.

In addition to providing her assistance in the request, I casually asked her about the apps she was using and suggested she look into Evernote. Time being money of course I simply said "well, we can chat off line about that." and we went our separate ways.

Later that day I shared my Evernote (via email) from the meeting that prompted her concern. When sharing a note from Evernote it prompts you to provide a message of which I wrote:

"This is Evernote that I told you about. You can see that it not only allows me to capture information on any device due to it being cloud-based but it allows me to share the information with anyone. Here are my notes from our May 10th Intranet meeting."
 

Snarky? Cheeky? Passive aggressive? ...maybe but remember:

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams