3 posts tagged “jp+rangaswami”

Zero.

Implementing social media systems in a business will only add value with adoption and usage. JP asks: "Does it make sense to have asymmetric information within the firm? Once we start acting as if information has value by and of itself, it is only a matter of time before people start using this information to gain personal advantage within the firm."

That is why social media in just about all its forms requires openness, transparency and trust. But, for all their protestations, that's not how businesses typically function. So I'm a little surprised that Martin Koser is stressed by the fact that "Management is supposed to be [a] people business, it is inherently social by all accounts."

Management is, but business is not. Business is mainly about the bottom line. And that is why Susan Scrupski points out that many businesses think 'social' equals productivity drag.

But collaboration using social media can help the bottom line if it is in the flow, a part of the every day, part of the nature of a business. Rob Paterson asks, hypothetically I think: "Isn’t an underlying principle of 2.0 that it uses nature’s rules and hence should make everything a lot easier?"

For early adopters of social media, social media already is part of everyday life. The SF Web2.0 Expo is not the first to use live audience participation (this time through Twitter), and sometime soon many company staff events will follow suit - a trojan mouse if ever there was one.

Unlocking the ability of a business to collaborate, to activate a virtuous circle able to create new knowledge is where the value of social media in the business lies. As JP concludes:

"We should concentrate on providing good service and good product, concentrate on providing that service honestly and diligently. And the money will flow. Not by hoarding information, but by freeing it up. Collaborating with each other, within the firm, with our customers, with our partners, with our markets. Even with our competitors."

A few weeks ago JP Rangaswami wrote some bullet points about groups. The penultimate of ten points was the following:

9. The people aren’t ready for enterprises. And the enterprises aren’t ready for the people.

Engagement is about opening up the discussion so that employees can do what the generally want to do - provide efficient support internally and externally, and great customer service. Maybe people are ready for the enterprise to give them real influence, but most people most days will have a thought or an idea about how an aspect of the job could be improved. I think the people are ready for the enterprise.

Among the comments to JP's muse was the following from Stephen Collins: "I see enterprises...trying to treat people as if the dark satanic mill was a possibility in the 21st Century, expecting them to come in and work mindlessly and unquestioningly in their cubes for eight hours a day."

So what remains is the latter statement from JP. The myriad ways that messages are distributed now means that the conversation has already opened up from an employee perspective. The question following from JP's statement is, 'How can companies credibly and permanently become a voice in that discussion?'

Considering there are still people out there coming to terms with e-mail fundamentals, once someone has decided to try out Enterprise2.0 systems, that really only is the end of the beginning.

Reading Chris Brogan's August wrap-up, I was reminded of a post detailing how to improve your social network. Very useful. particularly if you subscribe to the view that a "strong social network requires some tending and care, just the way real live relationships need attention and deliberate effort."

So, following a recommendation from JP Rangaswami's Confused of Calcutta, I have downloaded Amy Jo Kim's Community Building on the Web.