Whilst I’m not at all convinced by that made-up-on-the-spot term ‘social technology’, I’m otherwise lost to find a sensible umbrella term for the diverse ensemble of social networking, social media and other so-called ‘Web 2.0’ tools. Web 2.0 can’t be the sensible umbrella term, since it sounds like you might need a new socket installed in your home/office to receive it. ‘Social networking’ isn’t so bad, but from a business perspective, how often is social networking just assumed to be time-wasting frivolity on Facebook?!
In essence, they’re all ‘technologies for socialising’, be it information, thoughts, ideas, photos, videos, etc. Unfortunately, socialising is probably a bad word too – how many people would more immediately link it to ‘going out on a Saturday night’? However, thinking back to my business school days, ‘socialising’ in an innovation context, was described as the process of individuals sharing tacit knowledge. Sociologists or psychologists would perhaps alternately describe socialisation as ‘the process of learning one’s culture and how to live within it‘.
I think for what follows, all three definitions are useful for exploring the ‘social’ and ‘socialising’ nature of how people are using these new technological tools.
There was an organisation; we’ll call it ‘Jelly Productions’ for anonymity’s sake. Jelly Productions had five divisions, Red, Green, Blue, Yellow and Orange. Some divisions worked together a little, some got on quietly on their own, some competed against others and some actively despised other divisions – or so at least folklore dictated.
Left to manage many of their own affairs and located in different buildings across ‘Jelly Town’, each division had developed its own cultural norms. Apart from maybe senior management – and informal linkages – staff in each division would by and large identify with their division and not stray from that group.
However, within those informal linkages were the seeds of change. If a person in Blue is a friend or acquaintance with a person in Red, an exchange of information and insight can take place, which undermines the physical and cultural barriers that have otherwise come to encircle each division. Whilst often derided as idle gossip networks, there can be real power in utilising informal linkages, albeit ‘out in the open’. And that’s what started to happen…
Using freely available tools on the Internet, some staff established blogs to record their work, experiences and ideas. Other net-savvy members of staff discovered these blogs and joined in, to the point where a small blogging community was formed. Also, sometime before the recent media furore over Twitter, people had started to experiment with that too.
With this social technology to link, share and collaborate, physical and cultural barriers to communication, amongst these people at least, had been broken. The cultural norms that people would otherwise be socialised into now encompassed all of Jelly Productions. These pioneers were in essence establishing a new Jelly Productions-wide culture.
The direct result of that wasn’t a rebellious group of individuals negatively undermining traditional management and communication structures. They used their new-found tools and opportunities to do their jobs more effectively.
In one example, people from Red were holding an event in Blue’s building. Learning about this event from Twitter – and being part of the newfound “we’re all on the same side actually” networked group – someone from Blue arranged for some extra help for Red. Red could have managed the event on their own, but with Blue’s local knowledge and few extra hands, the event was even more successful. In another example, someone in Orange decided to run a trial with a social networking tool. They blogged about it, so people from Blue and Red were able to follow the trial, share ideas and join the learning experience.
These are just small examples, but possibly reason enough to get sociologists excited about the potential impact of social technologies on organisations – and potentially society in general. Of course, being a manager in a networked ‘conversation organisation’ (yes, I’m groaning at that one too) presents a raft of new challenges. Not least because instead of just looking up and down the organisational chart, you’ve got to look from side to side and all around! Above all else, they just need to be part of the network, not resisting it. Resistance is futile, unless you can stop your people using the internet or their mobile phones at all times.
From a knowledge management perspective, there are further potential advantages of the ‘conversation organisation’. Once, through a chance meeting (a friend of a friend’s cousin type link), Blue and Yellow discovered that they could link their seemingly unrelated expertise together for a new project, which turned out to be a major success.
What if you increased the probability of these chance meetings? If the organisation is networked, talking and sharing, then aren’t you doing just that? Perhaps it isn’t necessary or desirable in every organisation, but in a knowledge-based one, it seems vital to unlock the full potential of that organisation.
I’m sure if I Google’d all this, I’d find several large, probably technology-centric, US companies doing this already. However, I’m also sure that I’d find plenty of UK companies and organisations who regard ‘internal communications’ as the task of producing a quarterly Sunday supplement-esque glossy newsletter, filled with ‘top-down’ propaganda.
0 Responses to “Breaking organisational barriers with ’social technology’”