Social Media and the Organization – Part 1
by Rob Paterson
Why is collaboration so hard in organizations? Every organization that I know tells me that it is hard. Hard – all but impossible! Why? Why? Can Social Media help improve collaboration? I have had no success with just the introduction of the technology. Is there something missing?
I think that I stumbled upon the something that may be missing this week as I was struggling with this question of why it is so hard for organizations to collaborate and to adopt social media. I think that the missing link is having the right context. Throughout history, technology has changed before the prevailing context. Two examples:
- In 1941, the French had more and better tanks than the Germans. But they were decisively beaten in days. Why? Because the French’s context for using tanks was still based in static defensive warfare – Tanks to them were mobile pill boxes. The Germans saw them as a raging offensive torrent. Same technology – different context – different result!
- All airlines except one – use the traditional model of mechanical “efficiency” – usually by playing off pilots with flight attendants versus ground staff versus check in staff. All airlines except one – thought that fleet unification or better use of technology – would save them money. Only one understood that the key to the single most important factor in keeping costs low – having the highest fleet utilization rate (Planes in the air versus on the ground – was not through efficiency but through collaboration on the ramp. Their entire organization is deigned to promote cross fertilization and collaboration. A host of rewards and penalties reinforce this aim. That airline makes more money that all the rest of the industry. None have been able to change their context to follow it – of course that airline is Souhwest.
My aha was this – If you introduce Social Media into your organization without thinking about the new context for enterprise – you will fail as did the French and the other airlines
So then what context?
[photopress:Photo_Org_Chart___2_L_1.jpg,full,alignleft]
When we use the word “Organization” we default to this model. An organization that breaks up work and people naturally into separate and competing parts. I say competing – because this is also how we allocate capital and resources – the parts compete for the attention of the “father” as kids do for the car keys. At the centre of this context is Budget and the idea that everyone and everything inside the department is “Property” that has to be owned by the Head. Hence my Feudal analogy.
This model excludes all externalities such as suppliers and customers. Departments will rather die that share resources with another department. Of course the people inside cannot collaborate – it is logical and wise that they don’t. For the real aim of the department is not the customer or even the larger good of the whole enterprise but the expansion and or the protection of the department itself. Hence the reason why most organizations in the end default into being self serving. They are designed to be so.
So what is the new organizational context?
[photopress:Pentagramorg_.png,full,alignleft]
I think it looks like the logo for Ross Mayfield’s Social Text. It’s intellectual father is Charles Handy. It is his Shamrock idea made real by Social Software.
In The Age of Unreason (1989) he proposed the Shamrock organisation as a business model. Many have tied the symbol to his Irish background. The shamrock has long been powerful in the Anglican Church of Ireland because of its apocryphal use by St Patrick as a symbol of the Holy Trinity.
For Handy the first of the three leaves represented the professional managers and administrators � the organisational core. This leaf is shrinking in size. The second leaf contained the contractual fringe. Its contributors to the organisation were vital, but they were outsiders. In the third leaf were those including the portfolio workers, as well as temporary workers and part-timers. They contributed much, but they could never be considered part of the organisation. Many didn�t want to be. They wanted jobs but not careers. They frequently worked for a number of disparate organisations. In Handy�s language they were like fleas feeding off elephants. The latter were the large organisations. This was an analogy he pursued in the autobiographical The Elephant and the Flea (2001).
Social Text’s logo sheds for me new light on Handy’s idea or an organic structure whose role id to get a lot of resources for much less cost that by having to own them all like a Feudal Lord.
Let’s briefly explore this idea in practice.
You are the president of a small Public TV station. Your staff is already maxed out with putting the existing world on air. How are you going to make the transition to being a public media company? You have no spare resources. You have only modest internal expertise in the new. You have no way of having God suddenly give you the money to create the new. But you know that if you don’t – you will be dead in maybe 5 years?
In part 2 – I will offer up how such a President could solve this paradox by using the Handy Model and Ross’s Pentogram as a guide. In the mean time – give this paradox a whirl yourself
