Social Tools: Organizational Learning's Uber

I had my first Uber service recently in Austin, TX.  It was nothing short of remarkable.  A few glitches (mostly self caused) but a far better experience than I have ever had in a cab. It was during this ride, and conversation with my driver William, that I made a few connections between business, learning and needs. It's got me to thinking that if content, context and connection is king, queen or some other type of royalty, then the Platform is God.

Uber, a platform, connects wants with resources. Nothing new.  But it is probably the most understandable idea of a platform for people who don't understand or think about platforms all that much. A service that connects a driver and their car with a passenger and a need. Simple.  The success of Uber (and other share platforms) is all predicated on the idea that 1. resources are plentiful (cars and drivers) 2. demand is greater than the current model of supply can support and 3. convenience and simplicity reigns supreme. It is also a great example of a modern paradigm shift for people who don't understand or think about paradigm shifts. For the better part of a century city dwellers couldn't see it any other way. This monopoly, like all monopolies, had some stress, like:

• If you needed a ride, you had to hail a cab
• hoping the driver speaks your language,
• hoping the vehicle doesn't stink 
• hoping you get to your destination safely,
• hoping you get to your destination quickly,
• hoping the cost was fair.

Sound familiar? Just swap out the word taxi for L&D or HR. 

These same criticisms have been levied against each for years but never so loudly as today. L&D and HR have long been the organizational learning taxi service, monopolizing organizational learning for far too long and supported by organizational leaders themselves like cities support taxi services; establishing a Learning Department has been default.  For the better part of a century employees couldn't see it any other way. This monopoly, like all monopolies, had some stress, like:

• If you needed to learn something, you had to hail L&D.
• hoping they speak your (business) language,
• hoping the (learning) vehicle doesn't stink, 
• hoping you get to your (learning) destination,
• hoping you get to your learning destination quickly,
• hoping the cost (your time and attention?) was fair.

But technology, and specifically the same technology concept (sharing) that launched Uber and others is changing this paradigm of the learning taxi service. People in organizations, through technology, are not waiting for the next course to be developed, instead they are using social platforms to building networks upon and connect with people and content regularly, and just-in-time as both are plentiful. Employees are not standing by waiting for the next resource to appear hoping it will meet their needs, they are actively seeking them out - rating them and their content as easily they do an Uber ride experience (for the benefit of others). The learning vehicles, like Uber's cars, vary in size and type. The drivers of the content, like Uber drivers, are not specialized but are knowledgeable and can offer quick value.

People are discovering the power of social tools to get just the information they need at the moment they need it. The power is in their hands to build strong networks and choose their own hassle free vehicle. In a recent Washington Post article about how Taxi services were uniting against Uber and other ride sharing services was this statement: "[Uber] threatens a taxi industry that critics say has been slow to modernize and keep up in a technology-driven era." 

Sounds familiar? So when people question the power of social technology to change the paradigm of learning, just ask them to look at Uber and the paradigm of transportation. 

Embraceable Me

Yesterday Tracy Parish challenged me to do a #Blimage. If you are unfamiliar, this is an interesting and fun approach to inspiring a blog post. It was introduced by Steve Wheeler and friends and the original post can be found here. Tracy wrote an excellent post based on an image of a cemetery titled Learning While Wandering. I enjoyed that she looked at learning very personally versus professionally and focused on the importance of reflection. Like all #Blimage challenges the object is to relate the image to learning and so she provided me this Star Wars snap from Flickr. 

First, let me begin by saying I am not a big Star Wars guy and fortunately I was able to immediately move past that part and look a bit deeper into the image (as if Star Wars Lego people can really be looked at deeply). Maybe the intent of the image is a Father-Son relationship or maybe it is to portray the comfort of hugging of a doll? For me, with the challenge of "learning" in mind, I see the "importance of the smaller self".

The world around us seems to be all about The Big. Big announcements (watch how products are rolled out), Big technology (The LMS and Enterprise Social Network platforms to name a few), and Big data (analytics, measurement). Yet at an individual level we long to get smaller. Our personal lives merge with our professional ones as humility and being real is how we make sincere connections. Social technology puts the the large planet in our pocket. We find personal satisfaction in tighter, more focused networks where the work gets done. And real power is in being a node in these networks not in being the know it all. 

This picture reminds me that our smaller, less imposing persona is what breaks down barriers between people and putting our smaller selves front and center is what matters most today.

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. 

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.