[e2.0] Enterprise Live Debate: Andrew McAfee and Tom Davenport at Enterprise 2.0 – Fixing the Generation Gap – Part V
Posted on Jul 9, 2007 | Categories: Collaboration, Communities, Enterprise2.0, Innovation, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Tools, Personal KM, Social Enterprise | 1 Comment
Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, e2.0, Collaboration Technologies, Social Computing, Social Networking, Social Software, Social Media, Web 2.0, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Personal Knowledge Management, PKM, Collaboration, Remote Collaboration, Social Networks, Communities, Learning, Tom Davenport, Andrew McAfee, Innovation, Org. Change, Business Transformation, Generations, Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, Mentoring
At this point Andrew mentioned how most of the social software tools currently available within the enterprise are just in their infancy and it may well be far too early to judge how useful they would be. Well, this may well be the case, but there is no denying that some of these technologies have been there for over a decade and therefore have got more consistency than initially thought. I think the main issue is not so much the tools themselves, but how people make use of them. Again, the focus on the people is key. They are going to define how mature a technology is or not and adopt it accordingly or not depending on how receptive they may well be towards that particular tool.
I also found interesting how Andrew mentioned that things may well change drastically when the younger generations enter the workforce and I must say that although it would be nice to see how it plays out, there is nothing out there that would indicate that social networking, for instance, is just meant for the younger generations. As an example, most of my social networks have got folks that would probably not consider themselves younger any longer (Yes, you know who you are!), and they still keep using them every day.
I doubt it would be much an issue about age making use of them, but more a culture thing. Would a mature workforce want to change the way they have been working for years, even if that would make them more effective, as opposed to how comfortable they are at the moment in their own settled working environment? I doubt it. There would be folks who would, but there would be a majority of them that would reject changing their habits. So I am not sure it is an age issue in here any longer. Plus there are plenty of solutions available out there to tackle this problem, like mutual mentoring between the younger and baby boomers generations (Something that I may weblog about it some more in the near future).
(To be continued …)
[e2.0] Enterprise Live Debate: Andrew McAfee and Tom Davenport at Enterprise 2.0 – Finding the Talent within Your Organisation – Part IV
Posted on Jul 9, 2007 | Categories: Collaboration, Communities, Enterprise2.0, Innovation, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Tools, Personal KM, Social Enterprise | 1 Comment
Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, e2.0, Collaboration Technologies, Social Computing, Social Networking, Social Software, Social Media, Web 2.0, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Personal Knowledge Management, PKM, Collaboration, Remote Collaboration, Social Networks, Communities, Learning, Tom Davenport, Andrew McAfee, Innovation, Org. Change, Business Transformation, Knowledge Enterprise, Knowledge Corporation, Talent Management, Leadership, Passion
Goodness! What is this obsession with knowledge and collaboration tools? I was actually disappointed how part of the debate was about the traditional KM tools and the next gen. of social software tools. If there is anything that we should have very clear, is that social computing is about everything, but tools. It is an attitude, a way of life that you breathe and embrace, a voice that knowledge workers are entitled to have so that they can connect with others and exchange their knowledge and experiences with others, who may have similar interests or are passionate about similar subjects. Where are the tools in there? They are just enablers, as far I am concerned, and nothing representative of the tools landscape that we have seen all over the place.
Moving on in the debate, and while on the subject of "What is it going to take to change culture?" there were a couple of answers provided: Enlightened leadership. Top execs? But then Tom mentioned something that resonated quite closely with something that I have been mentioning over here again and again: "[It is] Unrealistic to suggest that people who have got a lot of power within organisations will surrender it to people who are doing a bad job and blog about it [...]"
Two key things in here. First one, that command-and-control attitude I have mentioned before, which I think is going to be the key differentiator between those companies that will survive in the knowledge economy and those that won’t. And second key thing coming out of that quote. If you business currently has got people doing a bad job and blogging about it, then you have got the wrong people in their jobs in the first place! There is a huge amount of incredible talent out there and certainly state that people do bad jobs is just not a fair statement for most of that great talent.
I have always thought that people don’t do bad jobs per se, it is just that their talent is wasted in doing something they never wanted to do in the first place. And here is the case where blogging can certainly help re-focus and place the emphasis on talent where it should have been in the first place. How many times have we been told that weblogging is all about writing on stuff you are passionate about. I bet that for those folks out there doing a bad job and weblogging along, you would be able to find out what they excel at and re-channel through their strengths into what they would really want to do. Because, after all, who wants to do a bad job nowadays? Any one out there? I doubt it. I doubt that even companies would hire people who do a bad job. They shouldn’t. They should instead find the talent and nurture it, before it is too late.
(To be continued …)
