I don’t need to recrunch the ’social’ thing but it is an important factor that in my mind amply illustrates the lack of intellectual rigor around solution creation. It is good to see that in the discourse even my sharpest critics have acknowledged the emphasis and use of ’social’ as a dreadful mistake.

I think the ‘social’ thing is such an issue because it is one that very few technologists are able to get to grips with. There are notable exceptions, Dennis and Stowe Boyd amongst others. In the business 2.0 context the word ‘social’ has become burdened with a whole set of meaning that has little to do with the ‘social’ (small ‘s’) or ‘Social‘ aspects of business, but it is still an essential part of the debate, as Dennis goes on to say:

Last Friday I met a pal of mine who is in the business of implementing change. He argued that people don’t like change. It is too disruptive for many. Think about all those contradictory stats that talk about dis-satisfaction with technology but then the same people would not change what they have. Familiarity is comforting. At a time when many people are more concerned about job security than shiny new toys, it should be no surprise that implementing an E2.0 project will have a slim chance of success without the sponsorship and active participation of top management.

Finally, and here I am putting on my social psychologist’s hat. The nature-nurture debate that has rumbled on for more than 50 years among socpsych types shows no signs of abating. These key concepts have a place in our understanding of what can work but are largely ignored in the discourse.

The traditional nature/nurture debate Dennis mentions has formed the basis of many an undergraduate essay over the years (“Are you a product of your genes, or of your environment? Discuss”). However, it has been replaced by the more careful study of epigenetics – understanding the way that the environment interacts with our genes, enabling and disabling them. Conversely, our genetic make-up also influences our environment in a transactional sequence that changes it as it changes us. An irritable baby that never sleeps is eventually going to have tired, irritable parents. And how those irritable parents interact with the baby and nurture it may shape which of its genes become activated or deactivated, shaping its development.

And so, back to social computing, Web 2.0 and social media in business. When Dennis’ friend cites the importance of “the sponsorship and active participation of top management” it is worth thinking about why that is so important. The reason usually isn’t the obvious. Management sponsorship is a form of social proof that taps into the social dimension of business – culture. Business culture can help or hinder the adoption of 2.0 technologies, but 2.0 technologies are disruptive to the traditional power-bases and communication structures within the business. The two things dance an intertwined-transactional dance. Social software changes the cutlure, but culture also changes the way that the software is used. For me  that creates a demand for careful ‘social’ design, to get the technologies adopted, and then careful change-management to pick up the pace and the full benefits in creating a more dynamic and innovative business culture. A place where ideas emerge, are captured and nurtured, and delivered to customers.

Lastly, back to a comment in Dennis’ post that caused a wry smile as I sat reading it: “cult-ure” versus “culture”. Some businesses have very, very strong cultures. They resist change because they are as much cult as company. When the cult is working, that is amazingly powerful – they preserve their culture even with rapid growth, and smash through any obstacles in their way. I think you know the kinds of business we are talking about. But, and this is a big but, when the market changes, and the cult does not, the business heads for the rocks. Traditional change programs almost inevitably fail, but even in these toughest of environments, I believe that ‘social’ tools can create change.

The traditional IT and management paradigm is that we are a collection of individuals using IT tools. That frame misses the most powerful forces that business leaders have at their finger tips. A business is a community, and sometimes multiple communities, that communicate and interact with each other (both intra- and inter-). That interaction is increasingly dominated by technology-mediated communication, and that communication (or collaboration) technology is less neutral than people think. It can be culture forming.

Related Posts

• Dunbar’s Number – Groups, Language and Social Media
• Social Media – Do Conversations Scale?
• Tuttle and The Future of Work
• Authenticity
• The Rather Complex Issue of Identity

Lloyd reminded us that our careers won’t be like our parents, or even like those of our older brothers and sisters, if we have them. This is definitely a theme across all of the industries I am involved in. Workers are changing, work places are changing, and the style of career development is changing. In my parent’s generation, people had at most three or four ‘careers’ in their lifetime. That meant shifting between industries or skill sets was an infrequent occurrence, definitely not the norm. But these days some people have that lifetime of changes within a couple of years of each other.

There isn’t just an increase pace, there is an increased flexibility, and a commitment to learning, that is required. Self-career management is no longer an option, it is a mandatory requirement. In the media industry, cheap distribution of content and social media are turning existing business models upside down. In the tech industry, off-shoring to India and China are ringing the changes. Each sector can recount its own tale of change, as we more to a ‘flat(er) earth’, driven by cheap global communications and increased mobility.

How do you embrace this globalisation at a personal level? The social media world has embraced the change, celebrating our increased connectedness and openness, so there is always insight from the folks at the Tuttle Club. Dan talked about a change from work, to passion. I think some people may struggle to find passions that pay, but I agree that we are seeing an evolution from institutional job design to self-designed careers. Then Rob spoke about moving from business 1.0 networking to the shared creation of ideas, and the emerging opportunities for new and old. Unused desk space in larger businesses can be turned into cash, and incubate a new generation of companies. Unusual skill sets working together can fuel innovation.

However, it is still not clear to me how ideals like open source, creative commons and unconferences will mesh with the ‘traditional’ business and leadership world. I joined a discussion with a group conversation that included David Wilcox, Jemima Gibbons and Anne Marie Mcewan and others (sorry crew, I didn’t capture all of the names – if you would like, please add yourself or others in the comments and I’ll edit you in).

There was some passionate talk about leadership, and how social media surfaces the ‘shadow network’ that exists insides businesses and allows them to operate, and emerging leadership styles, such as quiet leadership.

One thing that is foremost in my mind at the moment is how ‘anti-commercial’ models like open source and business can co-operate with each other, beyond just a marketing-lead engagement. We already know that they can co-exist, witness Wikipedia and hundreds of opensource software products in use, but these things are like oil and water.

We need an emulsion of these different philosophies to enable new innovation – taking these two valuable, immisible liquids and shaking them together until they mix with each other. Maybe that is Enterprise 2.0? Corporate governance, trading and employment laws and business models need to adapt to our increasingly knowledge driven world, just we ourselves must adapt, but the Internet-enabled collaborative world also needs to adapt as well.

When we encounter situations that don’t fit, change needs to happen. Being maladaptive isn’t a sustainable position, and it certainly isn’t a productive one. We need to change the environment, change ourselves, or most likely change both, to create sustainable careers and workplaces.

Related Posts

• Culture or Technology in Business 2.0
• An Award Winning Performance
• Social Media Week London
• The Social Media Business Case?
• 3 Point Social Media Strategy for Business Folk