Connected leadership is not the status quo

by

What is connected leadership? It’s not the status quo. Stephen Downes provides a succinct counterpoint to certain popular leadership literature, especially ‘great man’ theories.

‘Leadership’ is the trait people who have been successful ascribe as the reason for their success.
It is one of those properties that appears to be empirically unverifiable and is probably fictional.

As organizations, markets, and society become networked, complexity in all human endeavors increases. There are more variables as a result of more connections. In complex adaptive systems, the relationship between cause and effect can only be known after the fact. This makes traditional planning and control obsolete. Connected organizations must learn how to deal with ambiguity and complexity. Those in positions of leadership have to find ways to nurture creativity and critical thinking. The connected workplace is all about understanding networks, modelling networked learning, and strengthening networks. In networks, anyone can show leadership, not just those appointed by management.

Read more

Only people can let knowledge flow

by

The knowledge sharing paradox is that while sharing our knowledge is good for the organization, each individual has to see a personal benefit as well. The more the enterprise directs knowledge-sharing, the less likely it will happen. Conversely, the less structured the process, the more difficult it is for the organization to benefit. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, or so it seems. Helen Blunden neatly sums up what can happen to those who freely share their knowledge.

I felt that my network, my trusted network which I worked hard to maintain, cultivate, nurture, trust and grow was going to be exploited by other individuals within the organisation who saw me as their ‘free ride’ to some quick answers.

Aye, there’s the rub; as Helen goes on:

My key learning point always goes back to looking at the culture of the organisation.  If there is a genuine, authentic opportunity to share and learn and be respectful of each other’s networks then I have no problem with it at all.  If it is mandated, or if my networks are used, misused or discounted, then I’d question why I’m even working there.

Knowledge flows when individuals actively engage in teams, communities, and networks by working and learning out loud. Both cooperative and collaborative behaviours, depending on the situation, are required. However, most organizations only focus on collaboration and fixed goals. Management often views cooperation as an aimless waste of time, which it can be. But collaboration and too much focus on teamwork can be detrimental to the organization as well.

knowledge flowsCommunities of practice can connect the knowledge flows between those messy social networks and focused work. This is where PKM (personal knowledge mastery) and PLN (personal learning networks) appear to differ. One aim of PKM is to connect learning and work. Steve Wheeler sees communities of practice as separate from the PLN, which he describes as mostly in the informal and opportunity-driven social network space.

One of the key differences I see between the two is that in PLNs, connections can be fairly random and interactions largely informal. Often there is a common ground such as a mutual interest or shared concern, but generally those who make up my PLN are a fairly ad hoc group of friends, colleagues, family and also those who have casually connected with me either through my instigation or theirs. In CoPs, connections are generally more deliberate, focused upon practice, often of a professional nature, and the interactions are focused largely upon the shared business of that community of practice.

PKM is focused on individuals who must negotiate and transcend the artificial barriers between their teams, communities of practice, and networks. Inside that person’s head, there are no knowledge barriers. However, discerning with whom and when to share, remains a key part of effective PKM. Social learning requires social intelligence, but organizations have to establish ways to support the multifaceted knowledge worker, or continue to face the knowledge sharing paradox. Understanding that people, not management systems, enable knowledge flow would be a good start.

connecting with PKM

Leveraging visualization

by

Stowe Boyd and I had an email conversation a few weeks ago, which is now posted on his Socialogy site:

[Stowe] The thesis of Socialogy is that scientific findings about sociality, social networks, and human cognition are only slowly becoming part of management thinking, and as a result, much of what goes on as established practice in business is actually folklore dressed up as policy. Where do you see the greatest point of leverage in the application of scientific understanding of social connection in business?

…

[Harold] Cognitive science, anthropology, bioeconomics and other sciences may be the long lever, but visualization [with tools like social network analysis] is the fulcrum to widespread understanding of social connection in business.

As any marketing professional knows, ideas don’t spread themselves, they need to be in a form that first gets the recipient’s attention. Dan Pink talks about this with his six  types of sales pitches, giving the same message in different ways. I have found that the visualization that social network analysis provides can be very powerful, and network thinking can fundamentally change our view of social connection in business. Seeing is believing. Visualizing network relationships can give the initial leverage of getting complex new ideas accepted into general management thinking.

leverageFor example, I once used value network analysis to help a steering group see their internal community of practice in a new light. For the first time, they saw it mapped as a value network, not a hierarchy. They immediately realized that they were pushing solutions instead of listening to their community. This was obvious when all arrows pointed toward the user community, but no tangible or intangible value arrows pointed out. As a result, they decided to change their Charter and develop more network-centric practices. Thinking in terms of networks enabled them to see with new eyes.

HJ-network-map

Map of my LinkedIn connections, by LinkedIn Labs

Rebels on the edges

by

At the end of the nineteenth century, mechanization changed the economy, the workforce, and society. Many countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, shifted from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Human muscle was replaced by machines. Farm workers left their fields and migrated to the factories.

Today we are a witnessing a similar shift, as human information processing is being drastically surpassed by integrated technology systems. This has been called the second economy. I frequently discuss the implications of work automation on what is becoming a post-job economy. Consider that about 35% of existing jobs have a 85% or greater chance of being automated. The challenge we face is how to distribute wealth when capital accrues to the few and there is no need to hire as much labour to run that capital. Industrial powerhouse General Motors still employs over 200,000 people, but who knows how long that will last. In comparison, computer hardware maker, and iTunes master, Apple has about 80,000 employees, while the search/advertising giant Google has 46,000. It seems that the more intangible the goods and services, the fewer people are required.

I mentioned the creative economy in a recent post and given the growth of this second economy, and fewer jobs produced in the current economy, we need to seriously reconsider how value, wealth, and economic independence can be achieved. The key is creativity. “Identifying the new” will be a critical skill. The creative economy will be led by people testing the limits of all fields of endeavour. This will be fueled by big (and distributed) data, in conjunction with networked people. Innovation will be so essential that it may no longer be discussed. Innovation and creativity will be the new literacies.

This is scary because most of our schools and other institutions do not foster innovation and creativity. I think many people will be left on the sidelines of the creative economy until we develop support systems that can help people tap their innate abilities that were ignored for much of the past century. Machines have already replaced most physical labour. Networked computer systems will continue to rapidly replace human thinking for logical and analytical processes.What is left is creativity. The demand for innovative ideas (like new business models) and creative ideas (like games and movies) is probably infinite. However, at this time, the supply is still limited. Platforms that can leverage collective creativity may be a way to get people into the new economy. Some existing organizations, like corporations or universities, could help, but they must significantly restructure.

Céline Schillinger, says that companies must cultivate their rebels in order to remain relevant to their workers, while staying competitive in their arenas. These rebels can let them see beyond the organization’s walls. Rebellious people are essential for a new economy that no longer requires the diligence and obedience now provided by networked computers. The rebel spirit is the competitive advantage for innovation and creativity. Most organizations do everything possible to extinguish it, but rebels can help cycle more quickly through increasingly shorter stages of competitive advantage. The new economy’s equivalent of the industrial assembly line will likely be some system that celebrates rebels. This will be an epochal shift in management thinking.

Rawn Shah once told me that knowledge is evolving faster than can be codified in formal systems and is depreciating in value over time. This pretty well sums up the situation. Humans have the ability to deal with some very complex things, yet too often our societal and organizational barriers block us from using our abilities. In the new economy, it’s not what you know, but what you do with what you can learn, that will be valued. It will take rebels on the edges to do this.

“I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over; on the edge you find things you can’t see from the center.” – Kurt Vonnegut.

edges_gapingvoidImage: GapingVoid.com

Peddling ideas

by

Friday’s Finds:

friday2

“If I knew where the good songs came from, I’d go there more often.” – Leonard Cohen

“If your network isn’t offending you, you’re stuck in an echo chamber.” – Howard Rheingold, via @opencontent

@shareski – “For too many kids, school has been about finding out what you suck at and spending time getting better at things you really don’t like anyway.”

@alexhimelfarb – “What kind of future do we build together when taxpayer & consumer have displaced citizen & the common good?”

Does Technology Improve Employee Engagement? by @dhinchcliffe

In other words, it shouldn’t be surprising that acquiring a powerful new engagement technology, and then not focusing on using what makes it so powerful, results in poor outcomes. A few test questions can illuminate this point: Are you rolling out social media broadly across the organization, yet not methodically opening up business processes to wider participation and scrutiny? Then you’ll get limited results. Are you creating a new intranet with some social features but keeping the publishing process locked down? Not much new will happen. Are you letting employees talk to customers via social media? Then customer care is going to stay expensive and poor quality.

Google’s Employee to Employee Learning, via @jaycross

Telling your employees that you want them to learn is different than asking them to promote that culture themselves. Giving employees teaching roles, says Google’s head of people operations, Karen May, makes learning part of the way employees work together rather than something HR is making them do.

How affordable CNC can re-make industry: thoughts on technology and business structure via @jhagel

What are the organizational implications of this coming disruption?  What is the right model to house this technology?

One possibility is a return to the putting-out system, which preceded the factory.  Perhaps independent contractors, each owning one or two tools in garage workshop, could do components of the job, passing work in progress to the next contractor.  Blade Runner, anyone?

The Idea Peddler: A 21st Century Pioneer, via @zecool

It’s incredibly difficult.  Being an idea peddler, a 21st century pioneer will require high levels of perseverance and stamina.  Much like the pioneers of the 1800’s.  Only different.  Less physical, more mental.

And as a 21st century pioneer, you have to understand that any time you push against the mainstream, against the status quo … you will have to spend periods of time serving as an outsider, an outlier.

How to work in the creative economy

by

Gary Hamel says that we are moving from an Industrial to a Creative Economy, which requires more independent workers with initiative, creativity, and passion.

What other changes will this creative economy drive? I see changes on several levels.

  1. Core ideas about valued work:
    1. from producing tangible goods to intangible services;
    2. from looking for best practices to constantly developing emergent practices;
    3. from standardized jobs to being transparent in changing work practices as one learns while working.
  2. The underlying technology that enables work:
    1. from centralized factories to distributed and dynamic workplaces.
  3. Organizational models to get work done:
    1. from centralized physical workplaces, to decentralized and dynamically changing ones.
  4. Distribution and sharing of knowledge about how work is managed:
    1. from schools of business, removed from the workplace, to communities of professionals learning as they work.
  5. The ideology behind business and work:
    1. from the principles of scientific management based on:
      1. hierarchies
      2. standardized practices
      3. specialized tasks and jobs
      4. planning and control
      5. predominantly extrinsic rewards
    2. to an understanding of complexity and the necessity to continuously Probe-Sense-Respond and engage workers by enabling autonomy, mastery and a sense of purpose.

work is changing

Solo change agents set you free

by

Here is what Domino’s Pizza learned about implementing personal knowledge management practices, after their recent pilot project:

First, learners want some guidance about the changing boundaries of professional development. Traditional models of learning involve taking a chunk of time to step out of the workplace. PKM makes learning a real-time activity within the flow of work. The company needs to clarify what people are allowed and expected to do in terms of learning during the workday.

Second, information services, particularly information security, needs to be a partner in the effort. The director of information security consulted throughout the effort and attended the workshop, where he was able to offer some valuable insights.

Finally, as learning practitioners, we’re awash in information about social tools and technology-enabled learning. It can be easy to overlook how unfamiliar busy professionals are with some of these technologies—especially in a work context. We need to take the time to help familiarize them with new tools, using practical, realistic examples. – Eric Kammerer

There were three key considerations: 1) how to take control of your professional development; 2) how to do this within a particular organizational structure, and 3) how to do this with the available tools and abilities of users. Unlike PKM at an individual level, in a corporate implementation there needs to be a balance found between organizational objectives and personal ones. In this case, I helped set the stage, provided some initial guidance, and then Eric and his team continued on their journey.

A key difference between a solo change agent and a corporate consultant, is that the former is there to set you free, not chain you to proprietary methods and processes. Had I been working for one of the big name consultancies on this PKM project I would likely have lost my job for not selling an ongoing engagement to my client at Domino’s. Instead, I provided enough support to get them going on their own. I am not selling fish, and I am not teaching people how to fish. I help people learn for themselves how to fish. This is social consulting and it does not scale the way traditional consultancies do. Instead, it grows through transparency, authenticity, results, and especially trust.fishing-nets

I have said before to beware of anyone trying to sell cookie cutter solutions for complex organizational issues. Companies have to do the hard part of organizational change themselves by putting in the effort. As a solo change agent, I can get you started, give coaching and advice, and provide ongoing resources. I cannot do it for you. Domino’s is an excellent example of a company that understands this. Is your company getting the best value from its consultants?

networks are the new companies

by

Nilofer Merchant wrote in The New How that, “Permission to innovate without asking happens when the strategy is co-owned.” This is a necessity in an economy where the average company lifespan continues to decrease. The company no longer offers the stability it once did as innovation, and resulting business disruption, comes from all corners. Economic value has been redistributed to creative workers, and then diffused through knowledge networks. In an interview with Stowe Boyd, Nilofer succinctly explains several of the pieces that must come together in structuring work in the network era.

“Independent of the term, we all agree value comes from the creative source of a connected human. And to the earlier point, networks are the new companies. Connected individuals can now do what once only large organizations could. That tosses Ronald Coase’s work out the window. And those strategic constructs from the Porter frame of mind that suggest you can have an advantage over time are largely moot because sustainable advantages aren’t so sustainable anymore.” —Socialogy: An Interview with Nilofer Merchant

1) “value comes from the creative source of a connected human”

How can any organization create value if people are not connected? This should be the main concern for any support function within the enterprise. If HR, IT, or L&D departments are not enabling better connections, then they are decreasing business value. Measuring how connected workers are should be a prime indicator of relationship capital.

2) “networks are the new companies”

The biggest impact of this new reality will be on management. Networked workers do not need bosses as work becomes transparent. Inserting managers into a network decreases connections between workers and creates bottlenecks. The relationship between contributors (workers) and coordinators (managers) is flipping. Managers in networks are called assistants.

3) “Connected individuals can now do what once only large organizations could”

The evidence is mounting that work can get done with a minimal amount of managerial friction. Network-centric organizations are smaller than their industrial counterparts. Crowd-sourced funding platforms, like Indiegogo, require less management than traditional investment firms. Network transparency and the ability to connect to anybody, decrease transactional costs.

4) “tosses Ronald Coase’s work out the window”

One of the main criticisms of Coase’s work is also being tossed out the window. “So, a key criticism is that the [Coase] theorem is almost always inapplicable in economic reality, because real-world transaction costs are rarely low enough to allow for efficient bargaining.” —Wikipedia. In the network era, real-world transaction costs diminish. Furthermore, transaction costs between networked individuals are getting to be less than transaction costs inside organizations. Workers today often have faster access to knowledge outside their enterprises. With knowledge work, this begs the question of why we need organizations for anything other than support.

5) “sustainable advantages aren’t so sustainable anymore”

The example of large consulting firms purchasing others in order to create even larger entities shows that these companies are losing their sustainable advantage and taking short-term actions to try to increase value. But as the consulting industry amalgamates and becomes a monoculture, it will be ever more open to diverse and innovative disruption from outside. As Nilofer’s point #1 states, value today comes from connected humans, not monolithic structures.

Structuring for the network era

by

It’s about networks

It is 2013 and F.W. Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management (1911) are still the basis for most of our current management systems.

It is only through enforced standardization of  methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone.

These principles assume that management knows best and that the higher up the hierarchy, the more competent and knowledgeable that person is. Of course, this is wrong. But it is why companies have such great expectations every time a new CEO is hired. We read about these in all the business media, and the cult of the leader helps to sell books, speaking engagements, and training programs. Many large enterprises are still looking for cookie-cutter best practices to save their businesses.

The “principles of networked management” should read more like this:

It is only through innovative and contextual methods, the self-selection of the most appropriate tools and work conditions, and willing cooperation that more productive work can be assured. The duty of being transparent in our work and sharing our knowledge rests with all workers.

Collaboration is not the same as cooperation. Collaboration means working together, with an objective, and usually for a boss. This can work well when the objective is clear and the conditions do not change. Cooperation means sharing and helping others without expectations of direct reciprocation. Cooperation helps to strengthen networks, where there is no central management. In times of rapid change, and decreasing lifespans of companies, cooperation trumps collaboration.

In complex environments, weak hierarchies and strong networks are the best organizing principle. While many organizations today have strong networks, they are too often coupled with strong central control. Letting go of control is necessary for individuals and organizations to thrive in the network era.

It’s about knowledge

Research shows that sharing complex knowledge requires strong interpersonal relationships. But discovering innovative ideas usually comes through loose social ties. Organizations need both, and communities of practice can help to connect tight work teams with loose social networks. Communities of practice can provide a safe space for professionals to share knowledge and challenge each other at the cutting edge of their expertise.

Effective organizational knowledge-sharing for this new world of work needs individuals who are adept at sense-making. One framework for this is personal knowledge management (PKM) because organizations don’t create or manage knowledge, people do.

PKM is a technology-neutral framework to promote common understanding through ongoing conversations. PKM is based on personal practices that are independent from enterprise software. It is a simple framework that needs experimentation and practice to master, but mostly it requires sharing. PKM makes knowledge-sharing a personal responsibility, so that each node contributes to the network. These knowledge networks need trust to function well.

It’s about trust

Solving problems is what most knowledge workers are hired to do. But complex problems usually cannot be solved alone. They require the sharing of tacit knowledge, which is knowledge that cannot easily be put into a manual or procedural guide. Research shows that tacit knowledge flows best in trusted networks. Trust promotes individual autonomy and this becomes a foundation for more open social learning. Without trust, few are willing to share their knowledge. An effective knowledge network also cultivates the diversity and autonomy of each worker.

People naturally like to be helpful and get recognition for their work. But humans need more than extrinsic compensation, as our behaviour on Wikipedia and online social networks proves. For the most part, people like to help others. Cooperation makes for more resilient knowledge networks, which are better for business.

As markets get more complex in the network era, business value is created through innovation. But innovative ideas come through loose social ties and diverse opinions. Organizations therefore need to push work beyond the coordination of tasks, and past collaborative work, in order to improve trusted cooperation amongst peers. Openness improves internal task coordination, so that all problems can be seen. Transparency can improve collaboration to get tasks done better. In such a work environment, trust emerges. With openness and transparency in place, cooperation with more diverse knowledge networks can then lead to real business value.

chance favours the connected companyIt’s about structures

In the network era there is a need to balance structured work and the sharing of complex knowledge with the concurrent requirement for unstructured social networking which can increase innovation through a diversity of ideas. Communities of practice are a middle ground, sometimes inside and sometimes outside the organization, that can link collaboration and cooperation, and help weave the organization and its people into a wirearchy.

Wirearchy – “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology.” – Jon Husband

We know that many jobs today are getting automated or outsourced. The job was the way we structured human work for the past century. We now need to focus on creating more opportunities for creative work. For institutions, employers, educators and workers, that means giving up control and co-creating a new social contract for a networked economy. It starts with understanding networks, then sharing our knowledge in trusted networks, in order to build the necessary structures for the network era.

Old dogs, new tricks

by

Senior folks have seen technology hucksterism too many times before to fall for hard sell, but equally more and more of them are becoming aware that, partly thanks to the internet, things are changing as never before. They know that they need to get their heads around what is happening — even if they decide that active engagement in it isn’t right for them or their organisations. —Euan Semple

After a presentation to the Conference Board of Canada’s HR Executives Forum, a senior VP told me that there was no way some kid was going to advise him on social media. However, he was willing to listen to me, as I was in my fifties, seemed to understand his situation, and didn’t make him feel uncomfortable. I think there is a great need to teach old dogs new tricks, especially senior managers and executives — my generation.

For example, the project leader for a client of mine was suddenly laid off, after 15 years in the same job. His professional network consisted almost entirely of people in that company. They were mostly useless in helping him find new work. A new LinkedIn profile, created the day someone needs to find work is like seeing a deer caught in the headlights. The sad part is that many salaried professionals think that social networks have no value other than looking for new work.

I have spoken at various venues and always come across people who do not see any reason to adapt to the network era. I am also seeing people who desperately jump on some social media platform because everyone else is doing so. But merely having a LinkedIn profile does not make you a networked professional. As Céline Schillinger recently remarked, “if you cannot find a community of practice for your professional development, then create one”.

Here’s the new trick for old dogs: you have to take some control in this networked, do-it-yourself, world. The good news is that you don’t have to do it alone. There are plenty of communities and networks to engage with, but creating a profile and waiting to see what happens is not engagement.

dogs_playing_pokerAs a single node in a network, you have to show that you are of some value. This means contributing your knowledge, in whatever form you like. I have suggested 14 ways to add value and 10 ways to share for starters. If you do not share, you will not benefit from a knowledge network or community of practice. But knowledge sharing requires practice, like working out loud or narrating your work.

The trick for old dogs is to find some way to practice these new skills. It may be difficult to do this at work, especially for those in positions of authority. But these skills can be developed outside the workplace as well. Take a hobby or interest and find networks where others share their passions. It could be finding wine lovers on Twitter, Facebook, or a more niche network. While it may take thousands of hours to master a skill, basic competence can be developed fairly quickly. I have seen people become adept at Twitter for professional knowledge-sharing within a few months.

I offer coaching and more structured workshops to show that even we old dogs can learn new tricks. As I look back on my own learning, I note that I took my first computer programming course in 1978 and swore I would never touch a computer again for as long as I lived. Over time, we learn not to say things like that.