The FASTForward Blog » Rules of Engagement: Enterprise 2.0 Blog: News, Coverage, and Commentary

Rules of Engagement

by Paula Thornton

July 20, 2010 at 10:01 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

With considerable attention paid to Enterprise 2.0 adoption, it’s time to turn the light on something lurking in the shadows: engagement — or, more appropriately, disengagement. This isn’t a matter of rejecting the technology — this is a matter of people not being able to get along.

Consider typical relationships and interactions. A relationship or interaction is abandoned when:

The useful reason for the relationship or interaction has been fulfilled
There were ‘irreconcilable differences’

At work, people are most effective when they can leverage all the resources available to them. Well-designed Enterprise 2.0 capabilities provide critical value by connecting resources to one another. But then what happens?

It turns out that we’ve been conditioned into behaviors that ill prepare us for the new opportunities that follow:

In school we are taught to listen quietly and raise our hand to speak — because one person speaking at a time brought order.
In business we originally used Memorandums (Memos) to say anything. But there was an implied formality of a memo, wherein if you spoke you were speaking formally on behalf of the company. After all, the memo often bore the company logo.
Memos were replaced by email which was more interactive, but clearly lacked the real potential of an open conversation, and still carried the vestige of formality that was inherited from it’s memorandum roots.
Early forms of open conversations took place in digital bulletin boards, evolved from physical boards where people would post messages for each other: An exchange of messages; hardly a conversation.
Then there were digital discussion groups, which have evolved in various formats. But there’s a huge difference between having a discussion via an email listserve and one on LinkedIn where you can see an individual’s profile and other evidences of who they are.
Conversations often take place in meetings, but political dynamics often inhibit the exchange. Pixar executives (in extra features on The Incredibles DVD) talk about times when they’ve had to challenge people who have held back their real thoughts in a meeting, as such honesty is critical to their culture and the success of their projects.
I was reminded via a LinkedIn conversation that we are often chided into certain bad behaviors where others believe we should only contribute to that for which we are formally recognized to have expertise, as defined by our role.

If speaking one’s mind can still be an issue in Pixar’s culture, imagine the challenge elsewhere. Many think that disagreeing with something or someone is, well, disagreeable. Participants often pounce on individuals who express non-consenting views. In online discussions, people repeatedly bail out of conversations over misunderstandings that they didn’t stick around to clarify or otherwise attempt to reach common ground. Others haven’t learned the gentleman’s art of agreeing to disagree.

RulesOfEngagement

The University of Wisconsin thought the issue to be significant enough that they created an employee reference to improve the effectiveness of conversations, titled “Having Conversations at Work that Work!”

In order for any organization to be truly successful over time, its people must build and maintain strong, professional relationships with one another and that promote productive conversations about the work that is to be accomplished. Unfortunately, such relationships do not come easily or naturally. They require commitment, know-how, patience, and practice. Even then, successful outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Failure to develop them, though, usually guarantees frustration, conflict, and alienation between those who need to work together.

Let’s apply the “So what?” factor for a moment. So what if people bail out of conversations? So what if people can’t agree to disagree? How is this any different than the many decades we’ve been operating this way?

It turns out that we’ve been operating within the boundaries of a ‘fudge factor’. Businesses got away with errors because there was leeway to do so. Just as the efficiencies of markets squeeze the margins out of profits, the rate of change in businesses today is squeezing out the margins for error. The margins are also being squeezed by the exponential increase in the number of potential errors that can take place, and do. Businesses are discovering that there are errors that have been accommodated by these margins, which have never mattered…until now.

Can you imagine the conversations now going on at BP, which had they taken place openly over the past year could have potentially averted the successive errors that resulted in a global disaster? In the hearings, there was evidence that people had been told of the risks. Had these been open conversations would others have pushed back on the decisions? With more voices involved, would there have been more of a chorus of support to express the seriousness of the risks? Were these issues not similar to those that put Toyota in the Congressional hot seat as well?

What is it about these cultures that allowed for these gross errors to occur and not be challenged by others? Are there biases toward action over talk? In his book Informal Coalitions, Chris Rodgers challenges a common bias of action over talk:

For leaders, talk is action. Amonst other things:

Talk sets the context within which action takes place. failure to understand the critical link between context and action is, perhaps, one of the main causes of poor “follow through” and failed initiatives.

Talk is central to sensemaking and the creation of meaning.
…

Talk is essential to the effective implementation of action by aligning effort, solving unforeseen problems and charting progress.
…

Even where Enterprise 2.0 infrastructures provide the means for open conversations, will individuals have the courage and commitment to stay engaged in the exchange? Or will they revert to prior conditioning and disengage at the first sign of conflict?

Imagine the possibility of all businesses being at risk who lack the kind of open, supportive Pixarian leadership, who will encourage their people to stretch lethargic muscles of engagement. We will continue to witness the sad after-effects of those who do not.

Share and Enjoy:

Permalink

48 Tweets

54 Comments »

MIchael RicardJuly 21st, 2010 at 5:10 am

This topic goes to the heart of Enterprise 2.0 – it comes down to changing behaviors and years of conditioning. Openness and transparency are not easily achieved. Each employee has to, as you say, “have the courage and commitment to stay engaged in the exchange.”

Buying in all the E2.0 bells and whistles will be all for nought if there doesn’t take place an actual change in the hearts and minds of the people taking part.

Kimberlee MorrisonJuly 22nd, 2010 at 5:44 pm

Seems to me it comes down to a lack of interpersonal skills. People have become lazy about the communication and afraid of the honesty it takes to produce high quality collaborative projects. Ultimately, people have to get over themselves; their fear of being disliked, their fear of having their ideas being rejected and their fear of what other people will think if they tell the truth.

RotkapchenJuly 23rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Kimberlee: Indeed there is truth to what you say, but then the “So what?” In reality, this piece is intended to suggest that there’s more to it that just that, and that you can’t train it out of people. Why? Because I’ve seen in company after company that what happens in training is immediately undone by the reality of the culture.

What is a greater issue that HAS to be retrained in people is their belief that they need ‘permission’ to do something, anything — and their belief that if they get into trouble, they’ve done something wrong. Those of us who really attempt to change a culture do nothing but get into trouble — often getting fired in process.

The fears are real. Bad behaviors have strong defenses to protect them.

Most cultures shun honesty and expect those that work there to live by those morals. Granted they ’say’ otherwise, but you can walk around and gather the evidences of the ‘reality’. People cannot be expected to be honest with themselves when they are immersed in a vat of ‘dishonesty’.

Sharon VanderKaayAugust 5th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Hi Paula, Excellent point about time having run out on the margin for gross errors due to insular leadership. You’ve tackled a tragically neglected topic with interesting insight into the Pixovian view.

It always struck me that business articles focus on the ideals of creative thinking and engagement, while overlooking the pain and suffering that I find is the norm in practice. In years gone by, more than a few people have told me that my problem is I care. Cue the box of Kleenex.

If only CEOs in more organizations realized that (contrary to the assumption that dissent is easy) many thoughtful people find it more seductive to keep quiet, at great loss to the organization.

So it was a treat to read Dev Patnaik’s “Wired to Care” wherein he also references Pixar. On his website there is a slide image of that famous rat overlooking Paris along with these words, “Companies succeed when they reconnect with their humanity. Their empathy. Their creativity. Their courage.”

My hope is that, over time, the growth of Enterprise 2.0 combined with inquiry-based education models will advance our collective skills in critical thinking, empathy and respectful disagreement.

Angela Hill, Incitrio | creative solutions for global brandsAugust 16th, 2010 at 3:54 pm

How timely your article is…we just had a critical conversation at work today where we discussed the importance of open communication. And, yet it’s not enough to be open either. You must also have context.

“Yes, that project is on hold” is not the same as “Yes, that project is on hold because 1, 2 and 3.” Or, “Yes, that project is on hold until I get ____.” Now, I have actionable items whereby I can eliminate the bottleneck and streamline the work process.

Yes, we need open communication AND we must have context in order to induce positive outcomes.

RotkapchenAugust 17th, 2010 at 10:57 am

Angela: Thanks for that insightful addition. Now I am inspired. You’ve circled back to the critical topic of observable work, but you’ve added a requirement that what is expressed must be ‘fully’ expressed. That in addition to the ‘what’ there must also eventually be a ‘why’. The what is not actionable (or will often lead to the wrong conclusions). Actions must be taken on the ‘why’.

That’s why the principles of Design Thinking always start with ‘why’. It’s the first place to determine whether or not the focus is on the right problem, the ‘real’ problem (although if someone is bleeding, the bleeding must first be stopped).

I had not really paid that much attention to the ‘why’ being the catalyst for action. I’d seen it more as something ‘applied’ to a situation, not something ‘reflected by’ a situation — or reflected ‘in’ the language (or lacking therein). Your example of “The project is on hold” was a brilliant analogy that helped me really see these critical distinctions.

Thanks so much for taking the time to express it openly here.

rotkapchenJuly 20th, 2010 at 10:02 pm

@milouness You’ve been implicated. Well, actually, you were part of a collective of artifacts that inspired the piece http://twurl.nl/jgxz0p