Harold Jarche

The future of management is talent development

by

What is the major difference between the scientific management framework that informed so many of our work practices, and the new management requirements for the connected enterprise in the network age?

Frederick Winslow Taylor started with a basic assumption about the difference between labour and management. Labour was stupid and management was intelligent.

Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work.-  F.W. Taylor in Principles of Scientific Management (1911)

This attitude still permeates our organizations, whether we realize it or not.

Taylorism-derived job analysis, evaluation and measurement are the tools (along with their underlying assumptions) that are used to create the skeletal architecture of hierarchical organizations, the pyramid we all know. – Jon Husband in Knowledge, power, and an historic shift in work and organizational design

The assumption of an organizational hierarchy is that the further up the organization chart you go, then the more educated and intelligent you are. But what happens when the work at the bottom of the pyramid gets automated or outsourced? Taylor assumed that only management could see the whole system. In the connected enterprise, everyone has to see the whole system, all the time. This makes many of our assumptions about how work should be organized completely irrelevant, and perhaps even dangerous for any organization where its outputs are important to society, investors, management, or workers.

Network management assumes human creative potential can be realized in supportive and challenging environments by engaging everyone.

We need creativity at the company level to respond effectively to increasing competition and uncertainty. We also need creativity at the worker level to define jobs that will be augmented, rather than replaced, by machines … The reason for the firm to exist now? Talent development. Firms will exist so that workers can learn and grow much faster than they could on their own. – John Hagel in Wired: Here’s How to Keep the Robots From Stealing Our Jobs

A focus on Talent development means growing and supporting customized work and letting the robots do the Labour. It requires some fundamental organizational redesign, from compensation, to competencies, and even redefining management. Network management focuses on Talent development. Everything else is superfluous.

future management

 

Lessons from an early MOOC

by

In September 2008, Michele Martin, Tony Karrer and I hosted a 6-week open professional development program on social media. We did this for the eLearning Guild as a run-up to the annual DevLearn conference. It was an asynchronous (no time-scheduled activities) program. We developed all activities for three levels of participation: Spectator; Joiner; and Creator, with different requirements for each. The majority fell into the first category, but the Creators were able to take on the role of facilitating, which became important as we grew.

Here was the program we created:

  1. Introduction to Social Networks
  2. Social Bookmarks
  3. Blogs
  4. Aggregators
  5. Wikis
  6. Implications / Summary

We had to be flexible because we originally expected about 50 participants. We actually had over 900 people in what today could be viewed as a professional development MOOC, where the C did not stand for course, but rather content. Developing the content was a major effort shared between Michele and myself. I learned a lot, including the insight not to do another one of these for free. It took a lot of work to develop the program and even more to facilitate and keep as many people as possible engaged for six weeks. There was a lot of reading, reflection, and writing.

One experience of the program still stands out for me. Paul Lowe, course leader of the MA in Photojournalism and Documentary Photography at the London College of Communication, spontaneously gave a live web presentation on his use of blogs with his master’s students and shared what he had learned so far.

  • blogs act as the glue between synchronous events
  • blogs are ways of mapping the learning journey
  • every blog is unique and gives a whole-person view, which you don’t get with assignments
  • blogs encourage dialogue and show how to relate to an audience, which is good for photographers in training
  • there is peer group feedback
  • blogs allow for rich media – images, video, sound, links to other resources; all of which can be mashed up, tagged, recomposed, mixed – by all participants
  • blogs can also be emotional and playful

I also noted that Paul’s student blogs were not used as assessment vehicles. To ensure that blogs and comments were read, the course assigned small groups of  “blog buddies” to read and comment on each others’ blogs. Graduates could also keep their blogs, as they were not hosted by the university and this helped to give a sense of ownership to the students. This course was an excellent example of some pragmatic uses of social media and is still pertinent today.

Here are some other things I learned during those six weeks.

  • A loose-knit online learning community can scale to many participants and remain effective.
  • Only a small percentage ~10% of members will be active.
  • If facilitators can seed good questions and provide feedback, then conversations can flourish.
  • Use a very gentle hand in controlling the learners and some will become highly participative (insight shared by Paul Lowe)
  • Create the role of “synthesizer”. I found it quite helpful when Tony and Michele summarized (curated) the previous week’s activities.
  • Keep the structure loose enough so that it can grow or change according to the needs of the community.

Michele Martin also shared her thoughts in Deconstructing the Work Literacy Learning Event.

What I do think we managed to do was create and foster a community of practice that, for a period of time, brought together a large group of people who wanted to work together on learning about using Web 2.0 tools for learning. Through this network of connections and discussion, we also created an excellent resource that will be available to other people who may want to explore these tools on their own, at their leisure. [note that the platform we used, Ning, began charging for service in 2010, so the resource is no longer available]

As Ning was shutting down its free service, I tried to capture some of the resources we had created, like the Introduction to Social Networking. In 2013 the technology available has changed and MOOC’s are now all the rage (or is that already over?). The Internet has made social and cooperative learning much easier. It still takes focus, guidance and flexibility to make it work though. I am glad we did this five years ago and learned these lessons for ourselves.

Let me close with a reflective note by one of the participants. Catherine Lombardozzi said that we need to really think about learning.

One of my favorite quotes is from Kent Seibert: ‘Reject the myth that we learn from experience and accept the reality that we learn by reflecting on experience.’ My experiences in this experiment underscored for me how important it is to reflect “out loud” – if not by engaging online, by taking some of what you’re thinking about and talking about it with others. These kinds of tools make it possible to compose and share your thoughts on what you are learning, to ask questions, to get feedback from others (many of whom you have never met). Tools also make it possible to learn from others… following their bookmarks, for example, or using the tools to make contacts, simplify your own research, and more. They expand our learning support system in fabulous ways.

we are the internet

Moving forward with Social Collaboration

by

Change Agents Worldwide is a new type of consultancy, which functions as a transparent cooperative. It includes solo change agents (like me) and enterprise change agents who are trying to bring about change in their respective workplaces. This is a network of progressive and passionate professionals, who really want to bring about substantive change in how work gets done.

ctwftw-226x300This is how I would describe what Change Agents Worldwide is trying to achieve:

We know that people have always sought meaning in their work. But people and their workplaces have not always been aligned. In the emerging network era we are finding that successful organizations foster openness, so that value can be created by every node in their network. In a truly connected enterprise, knowledge comes from diverse viewpoints through active seeking, sense-making, and sharing. Trust emerges from the transparency of working out loud. Credibility is achieved from the questioning of all assumptions, while a focus on results distributes authority throughout the network. Everyone can and should work in an organization like this.

Later this week we will describe the disruptive changes facing organizations today, as well as some frameworks to address them. Susan Scrupski (USA), Simon Terry (AUS) and I will talk about the issues and also discuss some real business examples.

Please sign up and join us on Thursday, 12 December for Moving forward with Social Collaboration in partnership with Socialcast by VMware. It’s free.

To get a feel for the ideas and people at Change Agents Worldwide, here are some recent quotes from our blog.

Just as the railroads need a precise sense of time, our new economy demands new precision in ideas like collaboration, work, trust, community and value. – Simon Terry

We’ve demonstrated that being “social” doesn’t necessarily open up new risks, but can in fact be more successful at bringing risk to the forefront earlier and when there is still a chance to remedy the issue … in contrast to when inappropriate behaviors occur out of pure naïveté, in private channels, and aren’t discovered until it is too late to remedy … leaving only damage control to come to the rescue. – Bryce Williams

But, anyone who’s played in both these camps will readily acknowledge that a digital strategist or VP of Consumer Strategy has no idea what social collaboration is inside the enterprise and most likely spends his/her entire day in email, teleconferences, meetings, and ppt. And, someone who’s running an internal enterprise social network has no idea who the top players are in SMMS (or what that acronym even means). – Susan Scrupski

As more and more knowledge work is carried out by people communicating and exchanging information using hyperlinks in social networks (where knowledge lives ) and routing it to where it is needed at any point in time, vertical arrangements of knowledge are disrupted, if not subverted. – Jon Husband

The value of Twitter

by

Friday’s Finds:

friday2“From @SteveMartinToGo interview: “Writing is now so essential to our lives online. Sometimes it’s the only thing people see of us.” So true.” – @thinkitcreative

What an anonymous British sheep farmer can teach us about the power of  Twitter: “though it took me a while to realize it, I had the tools to connect to thousands of people around the world” – via @mathewi

“Twitter gives you an amplifier for your voice… It cuts out the middleman (I don’t need you to interpret and translate my life and my work for other people – sorry journalists but I’m a shepherd not an idiot). It lets you find your niche (and that niche can be massive). It lets you sell things … and it lets you connect with weirdly interesting other people.”

The real value of Twitter in 1 image, by @ValaAfshar @tom_peters @sandymaxey

the value of twitterRich people don’t actually create the jobs – via @eprenen

But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company’s customers’ ability and willingness to pay for the company’s products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Suggesting that “rich entrepreneurs and investors” create the jobs, therefore, Hanauer observes, is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution.

 

@Kasparov63: “21st century democracy needs to adapt to 21st-century technology. The gap between information to public & government response has grown too big.”

Some fundamental changes

by

But neither the flat organization nor empowered employees have been fully realized. The reason is that most of us have been working over the years to solve problems by creating new and improved companies, rather than by equipping individuals with their own empowering tools. What we still need are tools that make individuals both independent of companies and better able to engage with companies (or with organizations of any kind). Social tools alone won’t do it — especially ones that are still corporate silos. (And, forgive me, even Quora is an example of that.) – Doc Searls: Answering “Why has the empowered employee predicted in the Cluetrain Manifesto not emerged?” in Quora

You cannot read the rest of Doc’s answer unless you log into Quora, which is a pretty good example that most social media companies are just as control-oriented as any industrial organization was. If you have not read The Cluetrain, you should at least peruse some of its 95 theses. The initial thesis of The Cluetrain Manifesto is that markets are conversations, but I think that theses 10 through 12 describe the big potential change in relationships brought on by the Internet.

#10. As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally.

#11. People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about adding value to commoditized products.

#12. There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

As Doc mentions, the big challenge is equipping individuals with their own empowering tools. These tools are hardware, software, and most importantly, skills and attitudes. Taking control of our learning is a challenge for individuals used to working inside hierarchies that demand conformity and compliance. Note that without compliance training there would be almost no e-learning industry. The deck is still stacked against networked individuals.

So if you read the Cluetrain back in 1999, or have since quoted it, then it’s time to think about how to implement it. I have written about hierarchies and connected organizations for the past few weeks here. I have no doubt that major systemic change is necessary to deal with the wicked problems that face society today. Critical components that need to change are how we work and how we learn in organizations. That change has to start with people. Individuals need to build their own interdependent learning networks.

wicked-problems-joachim-strohThis is not a leadership or a management responsibility. This is a people issue. Each one of us should start seeking knowledge, building upon it, and sharing it, all in public. In this way we can develop an aggressively intelligent and engaged citizenry.

For the first time in history we have the means to learn together without any institutional or organizational intermediaries. We don’t need schools, or even corporate MOOC’s. It is not easy, but it is possible to create a global group of co-learners around almost any problem or subject. What’s holding us back? I think we are holding ourselves back.

If participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally, then it’s time to make some fundamental changes. Here is an example of re-thinking market relationships. Doc Searls is working with the Vendor Relationship Management project, which is “based on the belief that free customers are more valuable than captive ones — to themselves, to vendors, and to the larger economy. To be free —”

  1. Customers must enter relationships with vendors as independent actors.
  2. Customers must be the points of integration for their own data.
  3. Customers must have control of data they generate and gather. This means they must be able to share data selectively and voluntarily.
  4. Customers must be able to assert their own terms of engagement.
  5. Customers must be free to express their demands and intentions outside of any one company’s control.

Similar changes can be made in education and employment.

  • Free learners are more valuable than captive ones.
  • Free employees are more valuable than captive ones.

Thanks to Jon Husband for inspiring this little manifesto.

Ask what value you can add

by

Remember when someone older than you first got an email account? They probably sent you at least one joke, and it was likely to a long list of recipients. Actually, they probably sent a lot of jokes. There is a similar phenomenon with social media. While it may not be jokes, we are inundated with over-sharing of the same stuff.

First of all, there is a difference between sharing and making something public. Posting a social bookmark to a service like Diigo does not create additional noise for your networked peers in a social network. This is making your work public. But posting your latest collection of webpages in an activity stream is sharing. Doing it poorly adds more noise than signal.

For example, I recently passed on a tagged collection of social bookmarks as a result of a conversation in an online community of practice. I shared this tag when the occasion arose. I did not post every time I created a new bookmark. In my PKM framework of Seek > Sense > Share, this is called discernment, or knowing when, and with whom to share.

As good social learners, sharing is not as important as knowing when to share. This does not preclude us from collecting lots of information (Seek), but it should make us consider appropriate ways to share. We should be ready to share when the time is right.

The most important and difficult part of PKM is sense-making. Little should be shared if there has been no value added. The value I added when sharing my bookmarks was not so much in terms of adding my own insights, which were negligible, but there was value in the timing. The context for sharing was optimal.

Read more

Hierarchies are obsolete

by

Your hierarchy is the smallest & least valuable part of your network — Simon Terry

Hierarchies may technically be networks, but they are merely simple branching ones. They work well when information flows mostly in one direction: down. Hierarchies are good for command and control. They are handy to get things done in small groups. But hierarchies are rather useless to create, innovate, or change.

org-chart-dennisonImage: Richard Dennison

We have known for quite a while that hierarchies are ineffective when things get complex. Matrix Management was an attempt to address the weakness of organizational silos resulting from simple, branching hierarchies. I remember in 1992 working on a capital project that required 17 signatures in order to proceed to the next step. By the time all the issues were addressed by a high ranking officer in the hierarchy, the situation had changed and we had achieved nothing, other than producing a lot of paper. During my 12 months on the project, no progress was made at all. In fact, the project later died. This was matrix management at defence headquarters.

Any hierarchy, even one wrapped in matrices, becomes an immovable beast as soon as it is created. The only way to get real change in a hierarchical organization is to create a new hierarchy. This is why reorganizations are so popular — and so ineffective. Most organizations still deal with complexity through reorganization. Just think of the last time a new CEO came in to ‘fix’ a large corporation.

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. Presumably the plans for our employment were being changed. I was to learn later in life that, perhaps because we are so good at organising, we tend as a nation to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization. —Charlton Ogburn: Merrill’s Marauders (Harper’s Magazine – 1957)

Reorganization has to be part of an organization, not something done to it. This is why everyone, from an individual contributor to the CEO, has to understand networks. Networks enable organizations to deal with complexity by empowering people to connect with whom they need to, without permission. Enterprise social network platforms epitomize this, usually letting anyone connect to another colleague, and where the default permission to get access to information is public.

Networks are in a state of perpetual Beta. Unlike hierarchies, they can continuously change shape, size, and composition, without the need for a formal reorganization. Our thinking needs to continuously change as well. Of course this means letting go of control. Hierarchies were essentially a solution to a communications problem. They are artifacts of a time when information was scarce and hard to share, and when connections with others were difficult to make. That time is over.

So here’s the situation — markets, competitors, customers, suppliers, are already highly connected. The Internet has done this. It is why a connected enterprise needs to be organized more like the Internet, and less like a tightly controlled machine.

@MarietjeD66 [Member of European Parliament (D66/ALDE Group)] RT @carlbildt [Foreign Minister of Sweden since 2006] Tried to sort out 21st century statecraft at #bf7 [Brussels Forum]. Hierarchies losing and networks gaining in a world of hyperconnectivity. [2012]

Do you want to be efficient or effective?

by

“What is it about the ‘organization’ of the Internet that has allowed it to thrive despite its massive size and lack of hierarchy?

The work of identifying which relationships and connections to build and grow and maintain is dispersed to the nodes themselves — and they’re the ones who know which ones to focus on. That’s why the Internet can be so massive, and get infinitely larger, without falling apart. No one is in control; no one needs to hold it together. It’s a model of complexity. And, like nature, like an ecosystem, it is much more resilient than a complicated system, more effective, and boundary-less. And, like nature, that resilience and effectiveness comes at a price — it is less ‘efficient’ than a complicated system, full of redundancy and evolution and failure and learning. But that’s exactly why it works. “—Dave Pollard: What if Everything Ran Like the Internet?

connected enterprsie network
While a certain amount of hierarchy may be necessary to get specific project work done, networks function best when each node can choose with whom and when it connects. Hierarchies should be seen as temporary, negotiated agreements to get work done, not immutable power structures. Networks enable work to be done more effectively when that work is complex and there are no simple answers, best practices, or case studies to fall back on.

Thinking like a node in a network and not as a position in a hierarchy is the first mental shift required to move to a connected enterprise. The old traits of the industrial/information worker may have been intellect and diligence but networks need people who are creative and take initiative. People cannot be creative on demand. Nurturing creativity becomes a primary management responsibility.

The Internet has finally given us a glimpse of the power of networks. We are just beginning to realize how we can use networks as our primary organizational form for living and working. A connected enterprise has to be based on looser hierarchies and stronger networks.

In networks, even established practices like teamwork can be counter-productive. Teams promote unity of purpose. Sports metaphors are often used in teamwork, but in sports there is only one coach and everybody has a specific job to do within tight constraints. In today’s workplace, there’s more than one ball and the coach cannot see the entire field. The team, as a work vehicle, is outdated. In a complex world, team unity may be efficient, but not very effective.

Exception-handling also becomes more important in the connected enterprise. Automated systems can handle the routine stuff while people working together deal with the exceptions. As these exceptions get addressed, some or all of the solutions can get automated, and so the process evolves. Complexity increases the need for both collaboration (working together on a problem) and cooperation (sharing without any specific objective). Networks enable rapid shifts in the composition of work groups, without any formal reorganization. Networked colleagues, learning together, can close the gap between knowing and doing.

“Many conventional thought leaders conceive of the current global crisis in terms of closing a knowledge gap: if only we could close the knowledge gap (on how to address the current challenges), we would be able to take appropriate action. But true change making practitioners often express the other view: the real gap today is not a knowledge gap, it’s a gap between knowing and doing. That is, the real problem is a collective capacity gap of sensing and shaping the emerging future at the scale of the whole system. If that is so, how can we create new spaces that allow people to co-sense, lean into, and co-shape the emerging future?” —Otto Sharmer: Fire from Within

The connected enterprise adoption curve

by

[First …] Here’s the final word on social business from me: informal social relationships have always been linked to effective performance.

[So …] Now here we are with all that we know, or should know, about the importance of informal relationships, creating high performance work environments and learning cultures.

[But …] Mental models, behaviours and formal systems remain stubbornly resistant to change.

– Anne Marie McEwan

Socbiz fullcircleYou have the enterprise social technology and you may have even developed training programs, in conjunction with supporting collaboration aligned with the workflow. But it’s those pesky “mental models, behaviours and formal systems” that still stand in your way of becoming an open, connected enterprise.

Very few organizations are truly open. The same ones keep getting cited: W.L. Gore, Automattic, Zappos, Semco SA. These are the innovators. There are others who are moving to a more cooperative work environment, where outside and inside are allowed to mix, without undo control. These are the early adopters. The majority of companies are still satisfied with improving internal collaboration and getting the job done, blind to the faster moving competition building up outside. Finally, the laggards are merely coordinating work, according to some timetable, oblivious to the end of the industrial era.

the connected enterpriseIf “informal social relationships have always been linked to effective performance” then open organizations are really a business necessity. Helping move organizations to the left is my work.