Dion Hinchcliffe
Real
or
Fiction
Dennis Howlett
Best Argument:
Real
Audience Favored:
Real (66%)
List of Events:
Opening Statements
Viable and valuable
Dion Hinchcliffe: Social media began as a consumer phenomenon and has gone on to become one of the great communication and cultural shifts of our time. It's now clear that this revolution has moved into the workplace, affecting everything that companies do, from product development and customer support to marketing and sales. The numbers bear out that this is indeed happening: About half of enterprises employ social tools for their workforce. Data from McKinsey and others show that the numbers of large global firms that are socially networked inside and out is in the low hundreds.
The story about the benefits that are realized by better, more open, and participative business methods has emerged as well. The very real value proposition of the social enterprise are numerous and varied but notably include significantly higher revenue and profit for those that make the transition. Ultimately, it is these bottom line factors that will be convincing for the remaining companies that have not made the transition. There's little question now that the social enterprise is a viable and valuable model, the only real debate is whether some companies can or will make the transition.
Laughable, even ridiculous
Dennis Howlett: The notion of a social enterprise is at best laughable and at worst ridiculous.
Enterprises are artificial constructs designed with one purpose - the creation of wealth for the benefit of shareholders. The fact that such enterprises may employ people doesn't distract from the primary purpose. That's why we have hierarchies, rules, command and control. They serve to constrain people into behaving rationally and only for the benefit of the enterprise.
Some argue that the very fact enterprises require people makes them social. That is a logical fallacy. The notion of a social enterprise is merely the latest in a long line of fashion-driven management constructs designed to make employees believe that the enterprise cares. Which of course it doesn't. Instead it wants to suck more out of its employees. That's anti-social and makes the whole notion of a social enterprise impossible to achieve.
The Rebuttal
Closing Statements
Success is the evidence
Dion Hinchcliffe
I believe that yesterday's Great Debate on the social enterprise clearly demonstrated several key points.
1. There are numerous success stories and clear evidence -- please see my ZDNet blog http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hinchcliffe over the years for hard data from many sources -- today that social media is being used extensively both internally and externally in enterprises. There are also those that refuse to acknowledge the enormous progress that's been made. My point that millions of businesses are currently using social media across the full spectrum of success is the take-away here.
2. Most of us readily appreciate point #1: The live voting feature of this Great Debate is certainly unscientific but it puts my argument squarely in the Fact column. The comments further confirm this point.
That's not to say I don't think this topic is worthy of further debate and discussion. This always shines much needed light on what we can do to improve our work. I look forward to another debate with Dennis in a more interactive venue.
Mere marketing fodder
Dennis Howlett
Those who support the social enterprise as real have many problems to overcome in order to convince. Much as I respect Dion's practical application, he wasn't able to bring a demonstrable fact to the table. His blog cites examples for sure but even there it is easy to poke holes in the arguments as either 'early,' 'nascent' or 'failed.'
A fundamental difficulty comes in thinking of 'social' as being defined in the context of operational silos. I didn't hear anything in Dion's argument that adequately addressed this problem. Instead I saw two distinct arguments (internal/external) that serve to reinforce silos, which in turn goes right against the notion of flattened organisations.
Similarly, I didn't hear anything that persuades me this is little more than good marketing fodder for those who class themselves as social gurus, experts and consultants. In some cases, it is clear that Dion has swallowed what he has been told without questioning the veracity of the information provided.
In short I heard nothing new that persuades me we are at a place where social is correctly addressing the problems enterprises face in a manner that is transformational. It is when social acts as a transformational rather than emerging phenomenon that enterprise benefits in a sustainable manner. That has not been convincingly proven except via ad hoc projects and anecdotal statements. Regardless how 'good' social might appear, the C-Suite needs rather more than that.
The risk of inaction
Jason Hiner
I've never judged a Great Debate that was harder to call than this one, probably because the two sides are so far apart and I don't think either has the whole issue totally nailed. But both perspectives provide a lot of value that can help people make good decisions about the social enterprise.
Dion did a good job of summing up a lot of the conventional wisdom about the social enterprise, while Dennis gave us the solid business-focused angle that constantly reminds us not to get too caught up in the latest trends or waste resources chasing things that have dubious value.
In the end, I'm going to give the nod to Dion because the risk of inaction in this case is that your competitors could become faster than you and better connected to customers. But, I'd encourage everyone to heed the warnings from Dennis and be wise and disciplined about social.
More from "The Great Debate"
While Dennis is right about the intent of organizations, he downplays THE key point. Companies are ultimately composed of people. People with their own perspectives, talents and approaches to problems. The Social Enterprise embraces this fact to help companies deliver more bottom line for their shareholders.
Look at how rapidly social media has overtaken email usage. Chances are employees in your company spend more time on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the like than on email. And when your employees are online, is it on their PCs, or on mobile devices (company provided OR personal)? So shouldn't companies recognize and embrace this? Shouldn't productivity transition to methods and technologies that employees - and customers - are more comfortable with? And if so, wouldn't it be better if the tools to enable this allowed users to reach broader and deeper in their company than before to find people who can help solve problems or address customer issues?
This is just the start of what the Social Enterprise is all about. It is not just a "management construct", it is a recognition that our fundamental work processes, communication and collaboration methods and even technology have changed.
There is far more to the argument for the reality of the Social Enterprise... relationship development for salespeople, aiding customers who no longer consider contacting the manufacturer when they have a product question/concern/problem/complaint. Taking advantage of social technology to provide access to company info in productive ways never possible before. Managing a brand in the world of Social media (when a brand today is not what your COMPANY says it is, but what your CUSTOMERS do). Even socially enabling products so users get more benefit from them.
The Social Enterprise is all this and more. It is Real. It is Here. It is Now.
Look at how rapidly social media has overtaken email usage. Chances are employees in your company spend more time on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the like than on email. And when your employees are online, is it on their PCs, or on mobile devices (company provided OR personal)? So shouldn't companies recognize and embrace this? Shouldn't productivity transition to methods and technologies that employees - and customers - are more comfortable with? And if so, wouldn't it be better if the tools to enable this allowed users to reach broader and deeper in their company than before to find people who can help solve problems or address customer issues?
This is just the start of what the Social Enterprise is all about. It is not just a "management construct", it is a recognition that our fundamental work processes, communication and collaboration methods and even technology have changed.
There is far more to the argument for the reality of the Social Enterprise... relationship development for salespeople, aiding customers who no longer consider contacting the manufacturer when they have a product question/concern/problem/complaint. Taking advantage of social technology to provide access to company info in productive ways never possible before. Managing a brand in the world of Social media (when a brand today is not what your COMPANY says it is, but what your CUSTOMERS do). Even socially enabling products so users get more benefit from them.
The Social Enterprise is all this and more. It is Real. It is Here. It is Now.
You make the classic mistake so many others do - not bringing facts to the table and especially not facts related to the enterprise. Precision matters.
I found your "argument" to be a loosely-connected stream of alternatively anecdotal and oversimplistic vagueness. Your overall thesis seems to be "I don't see how this can work" which of course is evidence of nothing. Nary a fact in sight.
Social media are conduits for conversation. They are increasingly-important conduits that people throughout the enterprise need to learn how to master for the simple reason that their customers want them to do so. Soon that this is even a question will seem as stupid as asking if people really need to know how to use a telephone.
Social media are conduits for conversation. They are increasingly-important conduits that people throughout the enterprise need to learn how to master for the simple reason that their customers want them to do so. Soon that this is even a question will seem as stupid as asking if people really need to know how to use a telephone.
No one is debating the social channels, just how business support those.
Social Business is not real, nor will it ever be, since you cannot base a business decision (and move the entire business to work in a different way) based on a set of channels (unless you have a new product that relies on those channels, 900-numbers come to mind).
Bring arguments about the value of Facebook and Social Channels and we can talk, else you are just pushing the hype that "customers want it thus we have to do it". Customers want everything faster, cheaper (if not free), and easier -- your job in business (if you want to remain in business) is to make the decisions between what they want and what brings value to everyone (customer and organization).
Show me value, not "this is the same as the telephone" arguments. If you are saying that you have to build your business around social channels as we have built it around the telephone -- i don't know any business that simply operates because of a telephone is there --- it is just a tool. Same as email, sharepoint (or similar) and many others. Businesses have not been doomed for not having them as long as the basics of business remain.
Businesses are about inventing, designing, building, marketing, selling, delivering, and supporting products and services -- nothing more (maybe I forgot a couple, you get the idea). Show me any one business that cannot do any of those functions without the new social channels and I will concede that they are mandatory.
I will show you, in exchange, that any business today can do what they do without social channels and if they choose to implement them it is not because "they will perish without them" but rather because it makes business sense (regardless of whether customers want them or not).
Social Business is not real, nor will it ever be, since you cannot base a business decision (and move the entire business to work in a different way) based on a set of channels (unless you have a new product that relies on those channels, 900-numbers come to mind).
Bring arguments about the value of Facebook and Social Channels and we can talk, else you are just pushing the hype that "customers want it thus we have to do it". Customers want everything faster, cheaper (if not free), and easier -- your job in business (if you want to remain in business) is to make the decisions between what they want and what brings value to everyone (customer and organization).
Show me value, not "this is the same as the telephone" arguments. If you are saying that you have to build your business around social channels as we have built it around the telephone -- i don't know any business that simply operates because of a telephone is there --- it is just a tool. Same as email, sharepoint (or similar) and many others. Businesses have not been doomed for not having them as long as the basics of business remain.
Businesses are about inventing, designing, building, marketing, selling, delivering, and supporting products and services -- nothing more (maybe I forgot a couple, you get the idea). Show me any one business that cannot do any of those functions without the new social channels and I will concede that they are mandatory.
I will show you, in exchange, that any business today can do what they do without social channels and if they choose to implement them it is not because "they will perish without them" but rather because it makes business sense (regardless of whether customers want them or not).
Esteban.Kolsky:
Take two identical companies, one with a vibrant and active social media strategy and one without. All things being equal, the social business (so long as the effort is not too costly -- and social media activity is dirt cheap) will do better in the marketplace than the anti-social business.
Nobody is saying that it is impossible for a business to exist unless is does all of its business over social media channels (or any of its business). The point is not that it's possible for businesses to exist even today without telephones. It's that all things being equal, the business that has better means and strategies to reach out to its customers and suppliers will outcompete those that don't.
The same arguments you make against the need for social media were made in the 90s against the need for e-commerce on the web. There are plenty of examples of businesses that thrive even today without a basic web presence let alone a social media one. But pointing to those examples doesn't give you license to dismiss the general necessity of the web in modern business. In how many industries did its equivalent to Gateway get crushed under the heel of its Dell? Or its Borders under its Amazon?
Social connections between businesses and customers is more vital than ever. Who can deny that the crux of the success of Apple stores is in the fact that their new approach to retail provides such intimate social contact between the business and its customers? Keep the store setup with the same product interaction, but remove the greeters, floor workers and Geniuses and you get Best Buy with nice marble floors.
It's plain to see that social media channels offer cheap and effective interaction with customers and all things being equal, the businesses that master them will outcompete the businesses that don't.
Take two identical companies, one with a vibrant and active social media strategy and one without. All things being equal, the social business (so long as the effort is not too costly -- and social media activity is dirt cheap) will do better in the marketplace than the anti-social business.
Nobody is saying that it is impossible for a business to exist unless is does all of its business over social media channels (or any of its business). The point is not that it's possible for businesses to exist even today without telephones. It's that all things being equal, the business that has better means and strategies to reach out to its customers and suppliers will outcompete those that don't.
The same arguments you make against the need for social media were made in the 90s against the need for e-commerce on the web. There are plenty of examples of businesses that thrive even today without a basic web presence let alone a social media one. But pointing to those examples doesn't give you license to dismiss the general necessity of the web in modern business. In how many industries did its equivalent to Gateway get crushed under the heel of its Dell? Or its Borders under its Amazon?
Social connections between businesses and customers is more vital than ever. Who can deny that the crux of the success of Apple stores is in the fact that their new approach to retail provides such intimate social contact between the business and its customers? Keep the store setup with the same product interaction, but remove the greeters, floor workers and Geniuses and you get Best Buy with nice marble floors.
It's plain to see that social media channels offer cheap and effective interaction with customers and all things being equal, the businesses that master them will outcompete the businesses that don't.
"Look at how rapidly social media has overtaken email usage."
And to be honest, I'd say email is one of the first forms of social media.
And to be honest, I'd say email is one of the first forms of social media.
One thing I would like to see in all businesses is better communication, especially with the top levels of the organization. Often there's so many layers in the hierarchy that it's baffling how they make decisions.
Not to mention the top of many organizations focuses too much on technological toys rather than the situation on the ground. Dashboards and "big data" are interesting from a technology standpoint, but TV shows like "Undercover Boss" show the real dangers of staying in an ivory tower and not paying attention to the ground level.
Technology can be used to create the ivory tower or break it down. I vote break it down - I want managers to be online, communicating, and engaged with the rest of the organization and its customers. I don't want to see them hiding behind dashboards and widgets and statistics and "big data."
That being said - is "social media" the solution to the communications problems to businesses? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there's another solution out there. So I think I'll stay undecided for this one.
Not to mention the top of many organizations focuses too much on technological toys rather than the situation on the ground. Dashboards and "big data" are interesting from a technology standpoint, but TV shows like "Undercover Boss" show the real dangers of staying in an ivory tower and not paying attention to the ground level.
Technology can be used to create the ivory tower or break it down. I vote break it down - I want managers to be online, communicating, and engaged with the rest of the organization and its customers. I don't want to see them hiding behind dashboards and widgets and statistics and "big data."
That being said - is "social media" the solution to the communications problems to businesses? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there's another solution out there. So I think I'll stay undecided for this one.
CobraA1, your are absolutely right. What I've seen is that when the C-Suite gets involved with Social Enterprise, the organization flattens. Check out what has happened at companies like Dell, Symantec, and even Salesforce itself. CEO involvement has allowed for information to flow MORE freely, and break down the walls.
...at least in the case of Dell (the most recent I've seen) it hasn't helped the bottom line. Unless someone can tell me it has defended what's left of it? That's what matters. The rest is fluff.
"...at least in the case of Dell (the most recent I've seen) it hasn't helped the bottom line."
I'm unaware of Dell's exact situation, but I will say that we're in a pretty early stage at this point. I don't think we've quite figured it out yet.
"Unless someone can tell me it has defended what's left of it?"
Uh, what? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. The first use of the word "it" seems to have no context, and the sentence structure seems to be missing something.
I'm unaware of Dell's exact situation, but I will say that we're in a pretty early stage at this point. I don't think we've quite figured it out yet.
"Unless someone can tell me it has defended what's left of it?"
Uh, what? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. The first use of the word "it" seems to have no context, and the sentence structure seems to be missing something.
I'm for fiction. I haven't seen anything yet of any value on any social site. I don't care if you mopped the floor today or had tacos for lunch.
I have work to do and can't fritter away my time with such inane garbage.
Our marketing people have the company on Facebook. They have to spend time every day clearing out the garbage from people who "like us" just to create a link to themselves. Or clear out the hate messages or phony "bargain" stuff.
Facebook: a pure time waster.
I have work to do and can't fritter away my time with such inane garbage.
Our marketing people have the company on Facebook. They have to spend time every day clearing out the garbage from people who "like us" just to create a link to themselves. Or clear out the hate messages or phony "bargain" stuff.
Facebook: a pure time waster.
Ghirte... you are right about Facebook being wrong for business, but if you've never experienced a social media tool designed for business then you are truly missing out on the benefits. Check out Chatter as an example when implemented in a corporation, the "garbage" goes away, and the platform becomes a true communication and collaboration enabler.
Beyond having an enterprise "presence" in social media, it is nothing but a distraction and complete waste of time for regular employees. Trying to wade through all that crap is worse than email SPAM.
There is little added value to social media that you cannot use other technologies to accomplish, e.g., GoogleApps (minus Google+), email and websites.
There is little added value to social media that you cannot use other technologies to accomplish, e.g., GoogleApps (minus Google+), email and websites.
I think you two are a bit off your mark. A social enterprise is a business that's purpose is to be contribute to the great good. Certainly they want profits, but it does not go to the owners or shareholders benefit, it goes in most case trusts and charities to further expand the entreprise.
I work for a social enterprise. Our mandate is to support those with mental & physical challenges. We do this several ways. We have residential facilities. We have a vocational training facility. And we also provide community based employment through our store and cafe. Our profits go to our foundation, which then filters this funding throughout the rest of the organization.
Social Enterprise is not about communication, is about invoking change in society! It is very much a real thing, and will become more common place in the coming years.
I work for a social enterprise. Our mandate is to support those with mental & physical challenges. We do this several ways. We have residential facilities. We have a vocational training facility. And we also provide community based employment through our store and cafe. Our profits go to our foundation, which then filters this funding throughout the rest of the organization.
Social Enterprise is not about communication, is about invoking change in society! It is very much a real thing, and will become more common place in the coming years.
i used to run a company of about 100 people. four rules: get your work done on time (no time clocks--come whenever, as long as that rule is followed); keep our customers happy (no calls to me, the CEO, from irate clients); no personal sales or proselytizing on the premises; and no offense to co-workers
if an employee wanted to tweet or fritter away the time (as in facebook), i could've cared less. as for it being a great enhancer to production--nah.
if an employee wanted to tweet or fritter away the time (as in facebook), i could've cared less. as for it being a great enhancer to production--nah.
Social enterprise isn't about Twitter and Facebook; it's about using social tools in the construct of business to help with #1 and #2 of your goals. Even a small company may not know who knows what skills, languages, interests, background everyone else has. Expertise location, "knowledge accidents", faster sharing of information, activity coordination, these are all the things that Dion is talking about.
" four rules: get your work done on time"
Agreed. I don't want this to be Facebook, filled with distractions. However, I do want to make it easier to talk about things that are related to work.
"keep our customers happy "
Communication with customers is vital to keeping them happy. And, actually, you do want to know when customers are irate, because that's a big red flag that something is wrong and you need to fix it. I consider feedback (both positive and negative) to be vital to the success of a business.
If you don't know something's wrong, you can't fix it. And if you don't know if something's right, you can't make it policy.
" no personal sales or proselytizing on the premises"
Does "proselytizing" include the atheists? Or are they allowed to try to convince other employees that God doesn't exist? A policy like that should be all inclusive
.
But that has little to do with business communications, and more to do with policy.
" and no offense to co-workers"
Impossible. People get offended over everything. But that has little to do with business communications, and more to do with policy.
Agreed. I don't want this to be Facebook, filled with distractions. However, I do want to make it easier to talk about things that are related to work.
"keep our customers happy "
Communication with customers is vital to keeping them happy. And, actually, you do want to know when customers are irate, because that's a big red flag that something is wrong and you need to fix it. I consider feedback (both positive and negative) to be vital to the success of a business.
If you don't know something's wrong, you can't fix it. And if you don't know if something's right, you can't make it policy.
" no personal sales or proselytizing on the premises"
Does "proselytizing" include the atheists? Or are they allowed to try to convince other employees that God doesn't exist? A policy like that should be all inclusive
.But that has little to do with business communications, and more to do with policy.
" and no offense to co-workers"
Impossible. People get offended over everything. But that has little to do with business communications, and more to do with policy.
Many large organizations, such as government bureaucracies, are in the "business" of connecting with recipients of programs and services. These connections run the gamut from providing something the recipients (citizens) need to helping to design the programs and services. This can be done using "traditional" approaches, but it is a whole lot more useful to engage citizens using tools and techniques that enable the bureaucrats to be networked effectively with them.
The essential nature of social networking in this context is fundamentally different from much of what private sector companies need to pay attention to. However, even if you concede that difference, I would still argue that there is a larger imperative driven by forces that executives running most businesses (and governments) don't clearly understand. If you don't believe it, read the Cluetrain Manifesto (http://www.cluetrain.com/).
The essential nature of social networking in this context is fundamentally different from much of what private sector companies need to pay attention to. However, even if you concede that difference, I would still argue that there is a larger imperative driven by forces that executives running most businesses (and governments) don't clearly understand. If you don't believe it, read the Cluetrain Manifesto (http://www.cluetrain.com/).
But employees do their work, in large part, based on information and information sharing. Words like "team work", "synergy" and the like have echoed through the halls and water coolers for decades.
Now that a new paradigm has been created with demonstrable aptitudes for these things, there could be nothing more surprising than businesses choosing NOT to employ them where warranted.
Now that a new paradigm has been created with demonstrable aptitudes for these things, there could be nothing more surprising than businesses choosing NOT to employ them where warranted.
Sorry but its just another way for people to screw off when they are supposed to be (gasp) working. Corps aren't stupid and tehy'll see it for what it is.
I agree, you don't want employees "screwing off."
That is not to say, however, that they shouldn't be communicating about things that are clearly business related.
That is not to say, however, that they shouldn't be communicating about things that are clearly business related.
So far the arguments against Social Enterprise I've see here are from people who think that the phrase "Social Enterprise" means, "Let the employees have unmonitored access to Facebook all day". This is not the case. Social Enterprise is the use of social media-inspired tools to enable greater collaboration and real-time information sharing amongst employees to facilitate quicker results and thereby improve the bottom-line. SharePoint is a prime example of how socially-focused tools can greatly help to improve productivity. I have actually used Facebook Groups to collaborate with a large number of people on a project and it simplified the process and made the group much more efficient.
I'm gonna go ahead and vote for it - I like the idea of organization-wide communication, and no it doesn't have to be something like Facebook.
" I can remember how difficult it was in 1999 to go beyond the egos of other commissioned salesmen in new equipment sales at Catapillar Corporation as a Parts and Service Representative when my discussions with clients crossed into "Major Accounts" at work. We used email internally for some stuff but it was tracked heavily by the owners, so no one was really comfortable with it; and couldn't create a thread."
"The owners seemed to be more interested in their computer skills than the rest of us."
"The owners seemed to be more interested in their computer skills than the rest of us."
We need to remember that these constructs are not rigid. Also the human player is the primary tool, by far, of any organisational success. Thus they will change as people change and particularly as the new generation (the Millenials?) get a grip on them. Change or die. I am looking forward to the greater social dynamics in how we communicate and market and do team work and involve ideas across the board.
I object to "Enterprises are artificial constructs designed with one purpose - the creation of wealth for the benefit of shareholders."
Yeah, let's all march behind that notion right back to serfdom and slavery.
Enterprises form for many reasons. The commercial darwinians that have glorified the greediest and most predatory amongst us, and further forced this notion into our commercial codes in the form of fiduciary responsibility through the use of hostile takeovers and shareholder lawsuits are the bane of humanistic civilization. It is possible to be social and prosperous - how prosperous do you really need to be?
Yeah, let's all march behind that notion right back to serfdom and slavery.
Enterprises form for many reasons. The commercial darwinians that have glorified the greediest and most predatory amongst us, and further forced this notion into our commercial codes in the form of fiduciary responsibility through the use of hostile takeovers and shareholder lawsuits are the bane of humanistic civilization. It is possible to be social and prosperous - how prosperous do you really need to be?
But at this point it's mostly fiction. Some companies have provided examples of where they've leveraged social tools and been successful. Some of this content has been made up to create a more compelling story. I've personally witnessed mostly failures in the area of social enterprise. I do see a future, however, where I can potentially leverage social tools to be closer to customers - know who our loyal customers are, respond to their inquiries faster, understand their requirements better, and so on...
"Enterprises are artificial constructs designed with one purpose - the creation of wealth for the benefit of shareholders."
Ugh. You know what? That's not a world I really want to see glorified and exemplified. I want to live in a world where they are designed to give consumers products and services. I want to live in a world where businesses are open and honest about their products and policies, both to consumers and to their own employees.
Making money for shareholders should be secondary to providing products and services - it should not be primary. Now I really am glad I didn't vote for Dennis.
Ugh. You know what? That's not a world I really want to see glorified and exemplified. I want to live in a world where they are designed to give consumers products and services. I want to live in a world where businesses are open and honest about their products and policies, both to consumers and to their own employees.
Making money for shareholders should be secondary to providing products and services - it should not be primary. Now I really am glad I didn't vote for Dennis.
As can be seen from the perspectives of the two protagonists and from the many comments already posted this is a multi-dimensional question and there is a good deal of confusion about the whole subject. Dennis paints a bleak view of the corporate world in which the only imperative is greed, and there is no social dimension of any value or substance. Whilst there are many organisations out there that have a purely profit driven to the exclusion of all else approach, this is far from universal. What Dennis overlooks is that work patterns, customer engagement models and employee communications are all being affected and changed by the new communication paradigms driven by consumer social networking.
Dion clearly gets this! However, he perhaps credits corporations with too much willingness to adapt. Social networks are by their nature somewhat anarchic and provide an opportunity for consumers to give free reign to their thoughts and impressions of major brands with no filter whatsoever. Corporations place significant value on their brand equity and hence have no choice but to embrace social channels in order to head off negative sentiment - how willingly they do so is a matter of conjecture!
Finally, when reading the previous comments it is also clear that there is another interpretation of the social enterprise - and one which is related to social networks by name only. The "Social Enterprise" is a recognised label for a category of organisation that operates along commercial lines but has as its mandate the support of a social mission rather than creation of shareholder value. This is a non-profit enterprise - an alternate to charitable status allowing more commercial governance.
So does the social enterprise exist? Yes - if we class it as an organisation that champions and supports a social mission. Beyond that I believe there are more organisations beginning to adopt social network paradigms for all classes of stakeholder communication - and that is likely to prove a good thing, but it should not be confused with a Social Enterprise.
Dion clearly gets this! However, he perhaps credits corporations with too much willingness to adapt. Social networks are by their nature somewhat anarchic and provide an opportunity for consumers to give free reign to their thoughts and impressions of major brands with no filter whatsoever. Corporations place significant value on their brand equity and hence have no choice but to embrace social channels in order to head off negative sentiment - how willingly they do so is a matter of conjecture!
Finally, when reading the previous comments it is also clear that there is another interpretation of the social enterprise - and one which is related to social networks by name only. The "Social Enterprise" is a recognised label for a category of organisation that operates along commercial lines but has as its mandate the support of a social mission rather than creation of shareholder value. This is a non-profit enterprise - an alternate to charitable status allowing more commercial governance.
So does the social enterprise exist? Yes - if we class it as an organisation that champions and supports a social mission. Beyond that I believe there are more organisations beginning to adopt social network paradigms for all classes of stakeholder communication - and that is likely to prove a good thing, but it should not be confused with a Social Enterprise.
Dennis is right when it comes to the purpose of an enterprise. However, any enterprise consists of both people, processes and technology that enable that purpose.
In the social enterprise for example collaboration technology has an impact on how processes are managed and people behave. Therefore impacting the organizational culture and creating a whole new reality for how companies manage and do business.
Long story short..I am with Dion.
Bart Schrooten at Lumo Research
http://www.lumoflow.com
In the social enterprise for example collaboration technology has an impact on how processes are managed and people behave. Therefore impacting the organizational culture and creating a whole new reality for how companies manage and do business.
Long story short..I am with Dion.
Bart Schrooten at Lumo Research
http://www.lumoflow.com
....what are you flogging? Dion barely touched collaboration. Remember we've been talking about departmental collaboration for years. No one has truly made it work at scale. Social doesn't help that. It only puts a layer on something that is not really changing.
To this I'd add that plenty of companies and other organizations are getting very real results from the way social tools help them improve the how they collaborate.
For example:
- Every single open source project every created is a collaborative Enterprise 2.0 effort with the community discussion platform and the code itself as the social environment. This is thousands upon thousands of large, geographically distributed software development efforts turning out some of the most amazing products in history. Some of these are even traditional enterprises.
- For Confluence alone, the number of big companies that have reported from good to great results is amazing. I come across them all the time personally and they include Morgan Stanley, T. Rowe Price, Nike, and many others. There are solid case studies on these.
- SharePoint has been driving some genuine outcomes if you're willing to make the investment to make it social enough (typically by adding NewsGator). Good results have come out of Accenture, Raytheon, General Mills, Kraft, and many others.
- The public sector has had some solid stories over the years including A-Space, the CIA's Intellipedia, many areas of the DoD, and so on.
- Social CRM stories have been particularly notable as well including those from Time Warner, Dell, and others which have hundreds of full-time social media staff members collaborating on customer problems using social tools.
Yes, for all of these stories you can find folks that will complain about them, just like you find plenty of those in the pro category. These are not the details of the stories, but if you dig into them, it's notable how much better information is being captured across silos, over periods of time when large amounts of turnover take place, and the ability for people to simply and easily update their intranet and make their contribution on the company public in a permanent way.
So I'd just observe the while 1) some companies are indeed, as Dennis says, not changing how they collaborate, 2) some are adding social and finding they aren't changing that much either, there are also 3) companies that are adding social and actually changing how they work for the better. To say everyone in the world is in category 1 or 2 is false.
For example:
- Every single open source project every created is a collaborative Enterprise 2.0 effort with the community discussion platform and the code itself as the social environment. This is thousands upon thousands of large, geographically distributed software development efforts turning out some of the most amazing products in history. Some of these are even traditional enterprises.
- For Confluence alone, the number of big companies that have reported from good to great results is amazing. I come across them all the time personally and they include Morgan Stanley, T. Rowe Price, Nike, and many others. There are solid case studies on these.
- SharePoint has been driving some genuine outcomes if you're willing to make the investment to make it social enough (typically by adding NewsGator). Good results have come out of Accenture, Raytheon, General Mills, Kraft, and many others.
- The public sector has had some solid stories over the years including A-Space, the CIA's Intellipedia, many areas of the DoD, and so on.
- Social CRM stories have been particularly notable as well including those from Time Warner, Dell, and others which have hundreds of full-time social media staff members collaborating on customer problems using social tools.
Yes, for all of these stories you can find folks that will complain about them, just like you find plenty of those in the pro category. These are not the details of the stories, but if you dig into them, it's notable how much better information is being captured across silos, over periods of time when large amounts of turnover take place, and the ability for people to simply and easily update their intranet and make their contribution on the company public in a permanent way.
So I'd just observe the while 1) some companies are indeed, as Dennis says, not changing how they collaborate, 2) some are adding social and finding they aren't changing that much either, there are also 3) companies that are adding social and actually changing how they work for the better. To say everyone in the world is in category 1 or 2 is false.
Is Dennis the same guy who said "there's no need for a computer at home" or "nobody will ever buy anything on-line" or "IT will never move to the cloud"? Sure the social enterprise is real, we at Astadia are a social enterprise and I coach our clients every day on how to become one. I have a 1000 use cases that prove the value of becoming social both inside your organization and with your customers.
Wow - you're doing well. Now - where are they? And no - I never said any of those things. You're misunderstanding the context. What I am saying is that attempting to layer social is the wrong thing to do. Hence we will see numerous failures before we see sustained success.
Organisations needs have not changed since the industrial revolution but the role workers play in that role has. The adoption of social (or maybe we do need a better word to reflect the virtual engagement or connecting behaviours that was so hard to attain for a worker) starts to give a voice to people who actually understand and do the work. This has incredible impact in terms of changing the way organisations are structured. Anyone who goes through the pain of appraisal processes, training courses and many of the practices that belonged in the 1980s realise the potential of thsi digital workplace to change the way employees begin to take control of their working lives. Organisations still have the power to hire and fire but now employees have the ability to create wider networks and not leave their careers in the hand of one boss or organisation.
You're talking theory not practice. Orgs want things they can action.
I agree with Dion that things are changing, but the reality on the ground in most companies is that social enterprise is not embedded in the way people work right now. Although 50% of organizations (that respond to social surveys!) say they use some kind of social tool, if you strip out all the pilots and niche uses, that number falls to around 25% or less.
Longer term, I believe that number will rise, but by then we'll probably have stopped talking about it and see a social layer on top of business process as 'normal'.
Will it usurp the hierarchy? I'm with Dennis on this one. Isn't it ironic that we want to remove layers of leadership and yet keep saying that for social to succeed it needs those very leaders to back it? Reminds me of the pig in the "Restaurant at the end of the Universe"
Longer term, I believe that number will rise, but by then we'll probably have stopped talking about it and see a social layer on top of business process as 'normal'.
Will it usurp the hierarchy? I'm with Dennis on this one. Isn't it ironic that we want to remove layers of leadership and yet keep saying that for social to succeed it needs those very leaders to back it? Reminds me of the pig in the "Restaurant at the end of the Universe"
A very poor example. The vast majority of controversy is around what he did and whether he could truly perform miracles - there is little to no controversy among scholars about his existence.
christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html
And I would say that if these tools are used for business, and that it doesn't become a Facebook filled with distractions, it can be a very positive thing.
christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html
And I would say that if these tools are used for business, and that it doesn't become a Facebook filled with distractions, it can be a very positive thing.
An enterprise that mutes over 90% of a subjects ability to communicate is simply
an incitement to problems, and close to insane, probably, mostly generating
indecisive Zombies participating in complex and diffuse grids.
an incitement to problems, and close to insane, probably, mostly generating
indecisive Zombies participating in complex and diffuse grids.
It is all in your cranium's hard drive; respect for reality means we must control our senses. I believe in tighter controls within the learning spectrum; we need giants - like Microsoft - to keep the drumming of the heartbeat going without aphasic algorhythms. I suppose history shows man's will to survive and as usual it is a "system of checks and balances".
most things we build now depend on more insight and expertise than we can hold in a single mind (http://www.media.mit.edu/events/movies/video.php?id=nun-2011-10-12-4) means we're more dependent on one another than ever. better ways of working together are an imperative, not a sweet nice to have
There was a time when you couldn't receive personal calls on most jobs, whoops along comes the mobile phone and Bob's your Uncle! You not only can receive a call on the job, you can make a call too. Oh the boss didn't like it but soon he had one also and like it or not, moved on with bigger fish to fry. Same thing repeats itself in the form of a "social network" whatever the form, rhyme or reason, tell the boss to get used to it and figure out how to make it work. Now we consider a company phone normal (and in some cases expected)...20yrs later. Get on or get out of the way. Stand there and I'll run you over!
Dion has made some good points but mostly stuck in "should and could" - no surprise as little evidence of Social Success has been delivered so far. Apple is so successful because they offer their customers no choice whatsoever - can't even swap the battery in your iDevice
Dennis has made some good points as well and mostly stuck in "hasn't and won't" - no surprise either as little evidence of Social Success has been delivered so far
I'm stuck in the middle a bit, although I lean towards Dennis. An enterprise exists by anonymity, and openness would have it implode.
Social entrepreneurism, social SMB? No advocates of that so far, because they're social by nature - because of their size. An enterprise is successful because it's anti-social
If we forget about the all-or-nothing approach, what can be achieved? Feeding the right Social channels into the right departments to the right people, and giving the proper social tools to the proper people - C&C can't go away.
Social could be abused, on top of that, to pamper the disgruntled workers, e.g. by rolling out Chatter or Yammer
On the other hand, lots of money will be spent (yes, spent) on Social tools or social layers on top of exisiting applications. The crucial question will be: how do we take all that unstructured social data and put that into our solid structured company records?
Only people will do that - they'll interpret the data, act on it, and that will lead to an old-fashioned transaction. And you'll have to trust them to do that in a right way, or control it, or a bit of both (putting my money on the latter)
Meanwhile, there's a new market out here that will change into something else over time, slowly mature, and get absorbed as usual.
Revolution? Never. Evolution? Where it will do most good, yes - but the biggest impact by far of Social will be on society at large, and not within the old dinosaurs
Dennis has made some good points as well and mostly stuck in "hasn't and won't" - no surprise either as little evidence of Social Success has been delivered so far
I'm stuck in the middle a bit, although I lean towards Dennis. An enterprise exists by anonymity, and openness would have it implode.
Social entrepreneurism, social SMB? No advocates of that so far, because they're social by nature - because of their size. An enterprise is successful because it's anti-social
If we forget about the all-or-nothing approach, what can be achieved? Feeding the right Social channels into the right departments to the right people, and giving the proper social tools to the proper people - C&C can't go away.
Social could be abused, on top of that, to pamper the disgruntled workers, e.g. by rolling out Chatter or Yammer
On the other hand, lots of money will be spent (yes, spent) on Social tools or social layers on top of exisiting applications. The crucial question will be: how do we take all that unstructured social data and put that into our solid structured company records?
Only people will do that - they'll interpret the data, act on it, and that will lead to an old-fashioned transaction. And you'll have to trust them to do that in a right way, or control it, or a bit of both (putting my money on the latter)
Meanwhile, there's a new market out here that will change into something else over time, slowly mature, and get absorbed as usual.
Revolution? Never. Evolution? Where it will do most good, yes - but the biggest impact by far of Social will be on society at large, and not within the old dinosaurs
The strength of companies has always been in their employees and their knowledge. Social - whether via LinkedIn groups, Twitter or other media - gives employees an edge. Those who keep pace with social increase their knowledge, extend their business network, and are ahead of the game. Their expertise provides real benefits to their employers. If their employers don't value it or, even worse, obstruct their opportunities, socially connected employees will find no difficulty finding employers who do value their expertise. During recruitment, socially connected interviewees will stand out from the crowd with their CVs, their social profiles, and the strength of their business knowledge. Their new socially-agile employer will gain the expertise of the crowd, their old employer will lose the expertise that was taken away in one person's head.
I'm not bothering to read the whole thing in its entirety - I'm a bit too tired right now. However, from a quick scan of things, I'd say perhaps there's a bit too much overthinking going on here.
The goal should be to facilitate better communication, plain and simple. Better communications means people can work together better, there's a better idea of why things are being done the way they are, and people don't feel as if their ideas are unimportant just because they're at the bottom of the hierarchy.
-No, it's not just about marketing, it's about communicating, period.
-Yes, I would like to see more communications with customers outside of marketing. Some of my favorite businesses allow employees to freely converse with customers.
-Although it's probably hard to measure, I do firmly believe that there's a positive ROI on communication. Especially since communication is actually quite cheap if you do it the right way.
-IMO any culture benefits from transparency. My father works with people a lot, and I personally have had experience in a wide variety of people, cultures, and businesses. I'd say a very large percentage of troubles people/businesses have arise from a lack of communication. The solution, of course, is usually better communication. I see no use for intentionally blocking communications; blocking communications almost always leads to dysfunction.
IMO it probably shouldn't be overthought. It should be easy to use. It should allow communication between all levels of the organization. It should afford the free flow of information with little hindrance, but should also afford targeted information for groups of users or individuals (to avoid spam and information overload).
In some ways, it probably should be something akin to a corporate-specific social network. In fact, I'd be very interested to know how something like Google+ would work in a corporation.
The goal should be to facilitate better communication, plain and simple. Better communications means people can work together better, there's a better idea of why things are being done the way they are, and people don't feel as if their ideas are unimportant just because they're at the bottom of the hierarchy.
-No, it's not just about marketing, it's about communicating, period.
-Yes, I would like to see more communications with customers outside of marketing. Some of my favorite businesses allow employees to freely converse with customers.
-Although it's probably hard to measure, I do firmly believe that there's a positive ROI on communication. Especially since communication is actually quite cheap if you do it the right way.
-IMO any culture benefits from transparency. My father works with people a lot, and I personally have had experience in a wide variety of people, cultures, and businesses. I'd say a very large percentage of troubles people/businesses have arise from a lack of communication. The solution, of course, is usually better communication. I see no use for intentionally blocking communications; blocking communications almost always leads to dysfunction.
IMO it probably shouldn't be overthought. It should be easy to use. It should allow communication between all levels of the organization. It should afford the free flow of information with little hindrance, but should also afford targeted information for groups of users or individuals (to avoid spam and information overload).
In some ways, it probably should be something akin to a corporate-specific social network. In fact, I'd be very interested to know how something like Google+ would work in a corporation.
I believe in the Social Enterprise because I have seen the results in action here at IBM and in numerous clients.
A social enterprise is all about business outcomes -- strong results that happen when a business -- either internally or externally -- leverages social enterprise tools to become more engaging, transparent, and nimble. It is not about a random twitter campaign, or Facebook page nor is it about tracking fans or followers.
It works when a company embeds social into its business processes for competitive advantage. There are numerous examples of great results coming from this strategy -- IBM, Hilton, TD Bank, GAD, Singapore Airlines, Russell Convenience Stores, and many more.
The secret is leverage social to make your business objectives more doable. It is not only about social but social that adds to your business strategy (i.e. you have to have a strong business model -- perhaps designed by your employees or clients!). In fact, I agree on the "laughable" side, that if the social enterprise is to be a reality then it has to have sustainably strategic intent.
For example, embedding social analytics into your customer service process to drive stronger loyalty, or taking social into your talent retention process to reduce costs of retraining new employees, or using social to save intellectual capital when 50% of your workforce will retire in 2015.
Today employees and customers don't want to be spectators but participants in what companies do. The smart ones, the ones with strong ROI will be those that embed Social. McKinsey and company did a study that showed the ROI benefit of adding social into a variety of processes. For instance, adding social into your innovation process can increase success of a new product introduction by 20%.
Some of the places I've seen social work include:
* Enable an effective workforce: Operations, human resources and other departments can increase overall employee productivity and job satisfaction through improved knowledge capture, expertise location, and collaboration. Travel, training and teleconferencing expenses also can be reduced.
* Accelerate innovation: Product research and development teams can quicken internal idea sharing and discovery, as well as transform how they generate ideas, share strategies and gather feedback from key customers and partners.
* Deepen customer relationships: With more immediate access to content and expertise, customer service representatives can work more efficiently and provide higher-quality service. Marketing and sales teams can have more time to spend with customers and to dedicate to customer-focused initiatives.
This is FOR Real!
A social enterprise is all about business outcomes -- strong results that happen when a business -- either internally or externally -- leverages social enterprise tools to become more engaging, transparent, and nimble. It is not about a random twitter campaign, or Facebook page nor is it about tracking fans or followers.
It works when a company embeds social into its business processes for competitive advantage. There are numerous examples of great results coming from this strategy -- IBM, Hilton, TD Bank, GAD, Singapore Airlines, Russell Convenience Stores, and many more.
The secret is leverage social to make your business objectives more doable. It is not only about social but social that adds to your business strategy (i.e. you have to have a strong business model -- perhaps designed by your employees or clients!). In fact, I agree on the "laughable" side, that if the social enterprise is to be a reality then it has to have sustainably strategic intent.
For example, embedding social analytics into your customer service process to drive stronger loyalty, or taking social into your talent retention process to reduce costs of retraining new employees, or using social to save intellectual capital when 50% of your workforce will retire in 2015.
Today employees and customers don't want to be spectators but participants in what companies do. The smart ones, the ones with strong ROI will be those that embed Social. McKinsey and company did a study that showed the ROI benefit of adding social into a variety of processes. For instance, adding social into your innovation process can increase success of a new product introduction by 20%.
Some of the places I've seen social work include:
* Enable an effective workforce: Operations, human resources and other departments can increase overall employee productivity and job satisfaction through improved knowledge capture, expertise location, and collaboration. Travel, training and teleconferencing expenses also can be reduced.
* Accelerate innovation: Product research and development teams can quicken internal idea sharing and discovery, as well as transform how they generate ideas, share strategies and gather feedback from key customers and partners.
* Deepen customer relationships: With more immediate access to content and expertise, customer service representatives can work more efficiently and provide higher-quality service. Marketing and sales teams can have more time to spend with customers and to dedicate to customer-focused initiatives.
This is FOR Real!
Keeping your team on the same page, in today???s mobile work environment, is imperative. Social enterprise and web based communication tools are expanding very fast especially in latest years. That is why we need to learn using the right communication tools, that are solid and free and will give everyone an opportunity to manage their team, company and business.
Check this blog for more information :
http://blog.beezway.com/
Check this blog for more information :
http://blog.beezway.com/
"Enterprises are artificial constructs designed with one purpose - the creation of wealth for the benefit of shareholders." Ouch! I wouldn't want to work at one of those.... (and I am a shareholder).
Social Enterprise for me is, like Dion and some of the others here have stated first and foremost about changing the company culture, recognizing that the workforce and the customer base are not single uniform entities but a pool of talented, connected, inquisitive and communicative individuals with a stake in the business process. Be it getting good products, be it revenue, be it job satisfaction be it as simple as getting through the day so you get your pay check at the end of the month. For me social business is about recognizing those individual stakeholders and asking the question: Ok, how can we improve on the process so that we all get to where we want to be and in a way that ultimately benefits us all.
By offering social tools and building an environment in which people are able to use their individual strengths to expand and improve upon their role within the process you not only gain from having access to a much broader and better connected knowledge base but also from having a more motivated workforce and a more satisfied customer base.
Call me an optimist but in the 14 years Ive been working the number of motivated, invested people, dedicated to their job Ive seen at companies far outweighs the number of those that are there just thinking "how fast can I get out of here". And the same goes for customers, who mostly just want to feel good about the products they buy. So why not recognize that and use that to further improve on the business processes and results?
For me that is what being a social business is all about.
Social Enterprise for me is, like Dion and some of the others here have stated first and foremost about changing the company culture, recognizing that the workforce and the customer base are not single uniform entities but a pool of talented, connected, inquisitive and communicative individuals with a stake in the business process. Be it getting good products, be it revenue, be it job satisfaction be it as simple as getting through the day so you get your pay check at the end of the month. For me social business is about recognizing those individual stakeholders and asking the question: Ok, how can we improve on the process so that we all get to where we want to be and in a way that ultimately benefits us all.
By offering social tools and building an environment in which people are able to use their individual strengths to expand and improve upon their role within the process you not only gain from having access to a much broader and better connected knowledge base but also from having a more motivated workforce and a more satisfied customer base.
Call me an optimist but in the 14 years Ive been working the number of motivated, invested people, dedicated to their job Ive seen at companies far outweighs the number of those that are there just thinking "how fast can I get out of here". And the same goes for customers, who mostly just want to feel good about the products they buy. So why not recognize that and use that to further improve on the business processes and results?
For me that is what being a social business is all about.
Regardless of the technology or the politics its all wide open for GenerationY to deliver thanks to "Social"!! OR as Ive found out in working with young people, the future CXO's, the future artists, the future politicians, the future volunteers, the future parents its GenerationWhyNOT!!
Join the conversation!
Debate Event Reminders
The Great Debate Newsletter
With the Great Debate newsletter, you get a front-row seat to every argument until the final gavel falls.
Upcoming Debate
-
Can PC makers survive in a post PC world?
May 29, 2012 | 7:00 AM PDT
Add to Calendar
Comments from the floor
Facebook Activity
Its a GENERATION thing!
Only dependent on the 'social index' of the organization...
Before any efforts of social enterprise can begin, organizations should have a clear understanding of their social index and a target of the expected value addition. Only by constantly evaluating these factors and updating them based on the feedback, can an organization expect to see any ROI of the efforts.
Great debate!
Social is the extension of knowledge management
When video first came out many predicted the death of the cinema - people would sit at home and watch movies. We all know this is not the case now as people enjoy the collaborative shared experience of the movies.
I believe the social enterprise, which fosters common purpose is very real and those that harness it really will deliver on their goals.
How can clearer communication be anything but positive?
Flexible work hours, global teams, virtual meetings, e-learning, smartphones -- all of these workplace trends beg for a social enterprise solution that encourages clear communication, collaboration and knowledge sharing.
Welcome to the workplace of the future.