by Paula Thornton
September 8, 2009 at 4:59 pm
· Filed under Dead Paradigms, Enterprise 2.0
Are there people who are perfectly willing to talk about potential change that business needs to go through, until it impacts them directly, or fundamentally challenges the basis of activities their career is founded upon? In the 2.0 economy we repeatedly find examples of what happens when a business tries to ‘control’ conversations. In the interest of giving ‘place’ to a conversation that was shut down just as it started, I bring attention to it here.
People comfortable in a pre-2.0 era mindset appear to be uncomfortable with conversations that challenge the status quo. Heck, while I don’t necessarily agree with his approach, it was clear that many of us agreed with some of the rants that Dennis Howlett recently lodged against Enterprise 2.0 (and for which he sent out a tease today of more to come). Conversations such as these are critical. We must relish talking through the issues and making sure that we’re not just a bunch of bobbleheads not sure what we’re agreeing to and not willing to challenge everything that we embrace as assumptions (including the ways we’ve been used to doing business).
One of the principles that we support is that conversations need to be allowed to work themselves out — they need to be self-policing (with allowance for community ‘regulation’ — the level of ‘control’ that everyone agrees to). This is based on a reality that ‘flaming’ behaviors actually have a tenancy to burn themselves out (individuals are not taken seriously). In many cases, what is perceived as flaming is often mistaken passion and outright wrong conclusions being jumped to (we’ve all seen how quickly that can happen on Twitter due to limited context). Assuming that a blog post is not intended to initiate conversation, is clearly pre-2.0 thinking. Putting an end to conversation does not add to the understanding, nor does it allow for individuals to exercise their own ability to grow in the skills of ‘agreeing to disagree’.
Indeed, enabling such conversations to take place is fundamental to the entire 2.0 paradigm. So many times there are individuals who talk about making sure we spend more time in ‘live’ interaction. Clearly a balance in all things is relevant. But I’m beginning to suspect that we’ve suppressed our conversations for so long that we’re not really good at knowing how to have real dialog. You’ve likely been on those project calls where there is so much that goes unsaid, because everyone assumes that there is not enough time in the meeting to deal with the real issues — but then, they likely never get resolved. Sure, they might get ‘mitigated’: two people get together and work out some agreement that does not often include an individual that is critical to the conversation. Businesses are replete with unhealthy human behaviors — things that are ‘culturally’ acceptable as they reinforce all behaviors related to ‘not rocking the boat’. In psychology, suppressing such realities lead to any variety of psychoses. Never mind the fact that the boat is sinking.
Creative dissonance (perturbation) is fundamental to the principles of bifurcation (the precursor state to emergence) — a fundamental concept of complexity that not only is fundamental to the unstable ’shift’ we find ourselves in right now, but is also critical to similar ’shifts’ needed for all innovation. Yes, the noise of ‘feedback’ in a sound system is painful to our auditory sensibilities, but it’s a sure means by which someone is going to ‘fix’ the situation. The business reality is, it is often not economically feasible to grease the wheel until it starts squeaking. Enterprise 2.0 is the means by which to allow for considering squeaking wheels — sure we might grease it, but we darned well better be looking at whether or not it’s also about to fall off.
I welcome the addition of references to this post that reference things we need to consider to be able to be more successful at working through such dissonance — the things relevant to healthy dialog. Such references are essential for creating related E2.0 governance models. We’re not used to calling out such things as ‘conditions of use’, as part of the ‘deliverables’ — but for 2.0 they’re critical.
Permalink
As the host that shut down the conversation, I’d like to state that it was not difference of opinion nor a desire to sweep the points you were making under the rug that caused me to close comments. The conversation turned sour when you likened business analysts to those persecuted in Jerusalem. I didn’t see this conversation going anywhere productive. As a good BA I encourage productive conversation but also facilitate around unproductive conversation.
If you’d like to post an article laying out your position of how to approach a successful project (with or without requirements), I’d be happy to host a thoughtful article stating your point of view on http://www.bridging-the-gap.com.
Laura
Paula,
this episode reminds me of a turf-war among mafiosos or rival gang-members. on one side you have the people who follow tradition because that is what always worked, and gosh-darn, it won’t stop working now. on the other hand, you have someone who found a better way to extract an extra $10 in protection money, and have the victims thank them — but it goes against tradition.
here is the deal from my perspective: i don’t have a time-proven, market-tested methodology on how to do an E2.0 project. i am going to stick my neck out to get it chopped, but no one does. we are learning as we go along, improving with every project. sure, we have methodologies and templates, and MOs that work if adjusted to the current situation and that is what we are using. we are trailblazing as we go along, with a pocket full of what does not work anymore so we won’t repeat it. there are, on the other side, people who don’t believe us – who say that we are selling snake-oil. sounds too good to be true – and with no proof (i think someone in the original post commented on an un-quotable article from 20 years ago as being too convenient) nevertheless. no one will ever buy it. forget it.
guess what? the world of business has changed and will continue to change. you can chose to ignore your customers and continue to do things the way they always worked– and it may be ok for a short time. long-term, you are going to lose the war to your competitors who decided to go in a different direction.
so, if someone wants to tell me what i don’t have 20 case studies to proof that what i am doing works – you are correct. but i have 20 work-in-progress solutions in the market that are doing better than their competitors, adjusting their business, and happy with the results. and feel they are ready for the future.
which one would you chose as a dynamic executive in a competitive market?
yeah, i thought so…
Paula:
From the perspective of an observer in the aforementioned conversation, perhaps it’s not the message you are delivering but the messenger. What I saw in that conversation was someone who no one knows stepping up and telling everyone else that they were essentially idiots for doing the same thing again and again…which does not work. It might have been possible that the audience you are addressing might not agree with that heavy-handed description. Additionally, this person, who happened to be Paula, after insulting everyone there, proceeded to contradict herself with her own statements and could offer no evidence to back her claims, nor offer any better alternatives in an intelligible dialog. She did manage to equate herself with a prophet though.
You guys may have had this script reviewed and memorized during your last analyst sacrifice to the E2 gods, but in our humble world, we’re a bit more diplomatic when spewing diatribe. We have an opinion to share, but before we do so we actually do some research and have it available to refer to for others to learn from. We listen to others’ points of view and offer questions and rebuttal opinions. We don’t insult our peers, but offer respect for their views. We work off each others’ expertise to craft new solutions to problems that we recognize exist.
I really don’t think that any one of us, had we been engaged in a rational conversation, would have told you that everything we deal with is rock solid and works. That’s why we have the interaction that we do. Problems are anywhere one seeks to find them, but it’s something that we work to resolve as we go along. Just because you have decided to jump from the bridge and find that a reasonable solution to your problems doesn’t make it a justifiable fix for the rest of us. We just might happen to find value in what we do and maybe in the 20 years since you read your “come to Jesus” paper that no one but you knows anything about and you gave up on what you were doing…..just maybe we’ve made some advances that work.
The fact is, though, that we weren’t in a rational conversation. Paula, when you alienate everyone around you with your approach and come across strong arming us little stupid people, why would anyone want to listen to you? I’ll bet that you have some very valuable thoughts that any of us would have enjoyed hearing, but your delivery is atrocious. Laura is NOT someone that goes around shutting people up, but I can tell you that this particular conversation was over long before she shut it down, but the dialog was strained and VERY strange. She has an obligation to protect her own domain and to ensure that conversation is reasonably professional. I’m not trying to be rude…really, but if you want to be heard, you can’t come across as someone that just escaped from an asylum.
You might work on your tact, collaboration and professional communication skills going forward. As a backwards-ass traditional analyst, those are part of the basic soft-skill analyst capabilities that I can see you have truly forgotten in your quest to become greater than the rest of us, which is sad because your message is then lost.
Laura: The shutting down of the conversation led to not being able to discuss or clarify the situation. You jumped to conclusions over an accurate historical scenario that was fresh on my mind because it had been the focus of conversation in a class I’d taught that morning. The context of the historical story is very much like the situation that BAs face today.
Indeed, the work that the UX team did at EDS was completely redundant to the BA team’s efforts. I evolved my work to UX from a focus on BA types of activities.
Doug: I don’t like to waste my time. I joined the conversation with a specific desire to offer some insights that might be useful. It appears that there are ‘filters’ being applied to what I am attempting to share that prevent an understanding.
I’ve found that many are not prepared to pay attention unless they’re pushed off center. That’s why I’ve learned to use the approach. But I’m also used to engaging in mature ways, that allow for deeper understanding to evolve over time. If you feel threatened, say so…we discuss it, as we are doing here (only possible because I gave ‘place’ for this to happen — again reinforcing my point).
The point is, it doesn’t matter where we are or what our perspectives are. If we don’t discuss it, we will not add to our understanding.
We don’t have to agree, but I’ve found that my most profound discoveries are in the points of friction. But I have to be willing to step away from my own barriers to see the possibilities to consider and dig for any possible truths in what is being said. Finding common ground takes effort. I did not walk away from the conversation. I was still willing to find common ground.
» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
