Friday, 10 July 2009

Enterprise 2.0 / the Kumbaya Zone

 

The Kumbaya Zone  I’ve been following the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston.

One of the issues that seems to have been coming through is – what is Enterprise 2.0 designed to do?

For instance, in ‘Enterprise 2.0: Confronting Social Media's Dirty Little Secret’, Information Week’s Alexander Wolfe suggests:

“Everyone is seeking ways (and tools) to connect people in more collaborative ways. Perhaps that's because many companies have been stripped-mined into flatness, where today's employees have to cut through layers to get stuff done, because those layers just don't exist anymore. Or maybe it's because of the geographically dispersed nature of modern workteams.”

 

And in ‘Enterprise 2.0: A solution in search of a problem’, Victoria Axelrod at 21st Century Organization notes that:

“The emphasis needs to be on the who, not the how which is where E2.0 has focused despite protestations of its proponents.”

 

Michael Krigsman (quoting Jonathan Yarmis) may have expressed it best, discussing the need to avoid the Kumbaya Zone at IT project Failures on ZDNet:

“The Kumbaya Zone is where we all sit around the campfire, singing odes to social media, and how important it is to “engage in the conversation.” If I hear that phrase one more time, I think I’ll go crazy. Instead, we need to apply social media strategies with a sound business strategy in mind. Why should I do this? Which conversations do I want to engage in?What outcomes do I hope to achieve from engaging in those conversations?”

 

I’d agree – although I still think this suggests a overly heavy technology focus.  We need to begin with the business strategy – the social media strategy falls out of that.

I’ve not been a strong supported of Enterprise 2.0 in the way it’s been defined (Andrew McAfee etc), and I’ve suggested ‘Social Business’ and ‘Competitive Society’ as alternatives.

But I do actually like the 2.0 tag – as long as it’s applied to something ‘social’, not just something different, particularly not just slightly different.  I think this suggests a clear qualitative, not just a qualitative change.

And I think there’s still a clear opportunity for Enterprise 2.0 to inform this transformative change.  But for this to happen, we need to put developing social capital (not technology) first.

 

 

Picture credit: The Kumbaya Zone, ZDNet

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Tuesday, 7 July 2009

    Reith Lectures 2009: A New Politics of the Common Good

     

       Sandel’s last Reith lecture (also see my post on his first lecture) has dealt with how the government can mimick the market:

    “It’s the idea that government should try to replicate the outcomes that competitive markets would produce if all goods and resources were properly priced.”

     

    Sandel descrbed how trying to price goods that can’t be priced – accurately or morally – often results in dysfunctional outcomes::

    “Consider environmental policy. If air and water are “free” - that is unpriced - then companies and consumers will produce too much pollution. So government’s job is to set regulations to correct for this market failure - through cap and trade, for example, or a carbon tax.

    To do this, the policymakers have to ask how much pollution is too much. And to answer this question, they have to figure out what value to place on clean air, clean water, and the resulting health benefits. Here’s where “market-mimicking governance” comes into play. In order to make these calculations, regulators often use “cost-benefit analysis”: they place a monetary value on the benefits of clean air and water, compare them with the costs, and set regulations accordingly.”

    It sounds perfectly sensible. What’s wrong with comparing the costs and benefits of government regulation? Nothing - if by comparing costs and benefits you simply mean assessing the advantages and disadvantages of a given policy.

    But cost-benefit analysis aspires to scientific rigour. It tries to assign a monetary value to costs and benefits. It tries to mimic the market. And here’s where it goes wrong. Many of the benefits of public policy involve values that can’t be captured in monetary terms - most notably, the value of human life…

    Monetising all costs and benefits makes for a spurious science that shifts decision-making from democratic politics to technocrats.”

     

    As with Sandel’s first lecture, I’d make the point that these concerns apply within organisations too. There is always going to be a desire to value things like social capital – firstly, because they are so important, and secondly, as a result of the human need to manage and control (for example, as a result of the oft quoted but in my view, erroneous belief that ‘you can only manage what you can measure’).

    But I don’t think this is appropriate. And I think Sandel has nicely expressed why.

     

    Photo credit: AntonyB

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Wednesday, 1 July 2009

    Does blogging support or hinder conference attendance?

     

         I’ve been tracking commentary (via blogs and twitter etc) on three different conferences recently – the Social Recruiting summit at the Googleplex, Enterprise 2.0 in and SHRM annual conference in New Orleans.  All have been easy and interesting to follow, although this  is still a long way from being anything like the experience you can get from physical attendance.

    I can also image that this much social communication must add value to the attendees who are using these tools.  I have to imagine as I’ve not yet attended one where the tools are being used extensively – I usually end up being the sole person tweeting or blogging, which I still find helpful to me, and I hope others do too, but it is obviously a much more solitary experience.

    In fact, if I were to want to attend any of these conferences next year, I would probably do so in order to meet and network with these other bloggers and tweeters, rather than for anything on the formal agenda of these events.

    But am I (and probably you, as a reader of this blog) in a minority here?

    What about the non-social media user attending theses events?  (This probably applies more to the SHRM conference than the other two where most attendees are going to the conference because of their interests in social media.) 

    The good news is that heavy social media reporting is going to encourage these people to start using the tools.  (It’s encouraging that the SHRM conference post on the ‘HR Bloggers’ session, Who Are These People and Why Should I Care?, is one of the most popular, but then again this is based upon a population of people who are already reading a blog).

    The danger is I guess that even though these people are only going to see or know about a small fraction of the conversation going on on-line (blogs, tweets, SHRM Connect etc), this may be enough to make them feel part of the ‘out-crowd’, making them feel less welcome.

    Is the heavy focus on media one reason why attendance at the SHRM conference has dropped 4000 people from 2008?

    And how do we balance our need to connect and build relationships with people using these tools, while not excluding those who don’t?

    What do you think?

     

     

    • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
    • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
    • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
    • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

    .

    Tuesday, 30 June 2009

    Cisco’s Collaboration Framework

     

       Cisco have launched a new guide describing use of their Collaboration Framework, ‘Creating a Collaborative Enterprise’.

    The guide is designed to help other organisations learn from Cisco’s experience, and gain some of the same benefits from enhanced collaboration:

    “The Cisco guide helps employees and customers accelerate business value creation for collaboration and avoid pitfalls through the use of a collaboration framework. This framework helps organizations effectively incorporate collaboration into their operations by integrating the right people, process, and technology components at the right time.”

     

    The importance of collaboration

    Cisco explain that their guide / framework respond to the evolution of web 2.0 / social networking and other technologies including multimedia communications, technologies such as virtual workspaces, web conferencing applications, text messaging, Internet phone services.

    These new technologies are enabling organizations make great changes to more quickly and effectively connect people, information, and knowledge communities.

    The key outcome is collaboration - the act of people working together to reach a common goal.  This is much more than communication. It is the way that all the people in an enterprise function together.

    Collaboration has always been important in business as it supports knowledge management and also responds to our natural needs, as social animals, to interact with each other.

    But the new technologies, new pressures on businesses and demands of Gen Y are making it more important than ever.

    In fact, Cisco believes collaboration is the “next big thing” and is heralding a major transformation in business which provides opportunities for greater agility, exceptional levels of productivity and competitive advantage:

    “Organizations need to make use of new collaboration possibilities or face a significant competitive disadvantage.  Companies that successfully adopt new collaborative processes will be able to move faster, make better decisions, draw from a deeper base of information, and more effectively operate across time and distance barriers. As is always the case in business, either you pull ahead or the competition will.”

    The role of people, process and technology

    Cisco’s framework is built on these three components.  However, although the opportunity is built upon new technology, it is people and process that are the most important parts.

    This is because, unlike past IT advances, collaboration technologies are about increasing access to the latent knowledge stored within employees, partners, customers and even the broader public (which might harbour unknown experts with special insight.  And this human element makes web 2.0 and social networking tools different from
    IT improvements of the past:

    “The tacit knowledge in a person’s mind is much harder to capture and codify. It is complex, rapidly changing, and often a bit messy. New collaborative communications tools, including blogs, virtual workspaces, wikis, desktop video, telepresence conferences, web conferencing, presence communications, and instant messaging, offer new ways to tap such crucial information.”

     

    -   People

    This component of the framework focuses on ways to influence people’s attitudes and collaborative behaviours: “what people believe, how they feel about something, and what they think is proper behavior”.

    New behavioural expectations need to be clearly defined, developed, and incorporated into an organisation’s culture.

    Relevant levers include:

    • Leadership values, expectations and competencies
    • Management practices,
    • Company, management and individual performance measurements
    • Incentives and rewards
    • Developing / communicating role models
    • Employee and workplace, including hiring policies.
    • Collaboration readiness benchmarking and progress tracking.

    -   Processes

    In a collaborative environment, the unit of performance shifts from the individual to the group or team.

    This means that traditional systems of performance will not work effectively (“that is, individual systems produce competition,
    whereas team systems produce collaboration”).

    Management models, processes (including governance, decision making, skills cultivation, funding, and operational logistics, with a strong emphasis on review-and-improve cycles) and HR systems need to change to reward and recognise the right behaviours.

    Relevant levers include models and processes for:

    • Staffing
    • Priority setting and funding
    • Support services
    • Leadership and management development
    • Data sharing
    • Internal change management consulting (collaboration experts)
    • Systems of accountability and management for group performance.

     

    -   Technology

    Including wikis, blogs, virtual workspaces, video etc, ideally provided through a single intranet portal (providing individuals with personalisation options to best support their unique needs).

    Networks ideally should support:

    • Voice over IP (VoIP) to provide fully integrated teleconferencing capabilities with multimedia web applications
    • Video capabilities, especially to facilitate collaboration among remote employees
    • High-fidelity communications, which enhance the effectiveness of many collaboration tools
    • Easy-to-use, dependable tools readily available through the corporate network
    • Integration with internal systems for supporting existing business processes, such as inventory management, sales, and
      manufacturing.

     

    Cisco also notes:

    “Organizations can build efficiency into collaborative tool development by finding replicable models, such as “virtual expert”
    or “virtual teaming” modules that can be repurposed for a wide range of business scenarios.

    These kinds of models focus on the type of interaction rather than the business model or operational function. Cisco estimates
    that up to 80 percent of all collaboration processes can be addressed by replicable tools.”

     

    Cisco’s own experience

    Cisco’s framework has clearly been built on the company’s own experience, and that of its partners in its Collaboration Consortium.

    The company has one primary operations organization for the vast majority of the company, with few divisions or large subsidiaries. Everything must work together as one. The more transparently that happens, the more productively Cisco’s 60,000 employees can work.

    Cisco has therefore spent the past 8 years moving from a command-and-control operation dominated by competing departments to a widely cross-functional company that uses collaborative councils, boards and working groups which facilitate executive decision-making, create cross functional alignment, and guide business initiatives. (see a previous post of mine that also refers to some of this).

    Cisco now has more than 750 company leaders involved in councils, boards, and related working groups. But Cisco’s goal is to broaden
    participation to 2500 or more employees.

    These various teams are supported by Cisco’s executive collaboration process, C-Change, which helps collaboration across virtual, global teams by ensuring everyone speaks the same language and by prescribing steps to establish group norms which offer ‘a common social foundation’:

    “Organizational structures need to reflect collaborative activities. Command-and-control management does not work well with collaboration. Cisco has spent the past 8 years moving from a command-and-control operation dominated by competing departments to a widely cross-functional company that uses collaborative councils, boards, and working groups. These senior leadership teams facilitate executive decision making, create cross-functional alignment, and guide business initiatives.

    In 2006 Ron Ricci, vice president of corporate positioning, formed a team to observe what works in councils and boards. The team
    documented what it saw and called it C-Change. C-Change teaches ‘the people aspect: culture and process, and helps apply
    the technology aspect. The principals of C-Change can lead to effective collaboration for any type of group,’ Ricci says.”

     

    In addition, Cisco used a range of video and voice communication tools (it’s own offerings – Webex, TelePresence etc) to support its transformation.  One example is C-Vision:

    “C-Vision is a video forum like YouTube, but inside the corporate firewall. On C-Vision, employees can easily make and post
    desktop-quality videos for viewing at websites or on blogs. Cisco does not yet have a specific strategy for C-Vision. For now, it just provides another way to communicate besides emails and written blogs. This is okay, though. By making it easy for employees to try video, Cisco is helping employees become more adept at using the technology.”

     

    The framework also describes the importance of change management, and Cisco’s own experience of going through their major change process.  For example, although Cisco’s CEO, John Chambers knew that he had to sponsor the change, he initially resisted suggestions to blog, recognising that “even for fast typists, written blogs can take a lot of time “ (don’t I know it!), but later took to video blogging and now often communicates with his employees this way.

    Guided by the best practices of this framework, Cisco saved US$691 million and increased productivity 4.9 percent in fiscal year 2008.

     

    Changing to become more collaborative

    Cisco points out that collaboration takes time and a sustained effort to mature in any organisation.

    To support this effort, the framework provides “a clear evolutionary path and a portfolio of structured methodologies” based upon three phases: investigation, performance, and transformation, which help organizations move beyond a tactical, fragmented approach to a truly
    strategic approach to collaboration that can be implemented throughout an entire organisation.

    The focus is firstly, on taking advantage of the uses of web 2.0 and social networking technologies that are most likely springing up in an organisation (likely perpetrated by younger, Gen Y employees).

    And secondly, the focus is also on ‘Collaboration Impact Zones’ –intersections of information exchanges and expertise at which web 2.0 and social networking collaboration tools can help most ( a concept which I think is similar to the differentiated workforce in HCM):

    “Collaboration ‘impact zones’ are the building blocks of the Cisco Collaboration Framework.  Collaboration zones are the highest-intensity intersections of interactions, information, and expertise in your organizational ecosystem (employees, partners, customers, etc.).  These are the high-value areas that, if improved through better collaboration, can most improve your organization’s business and management processes.”


    The key activity is the creation of a ‘Collaboration Vision and Strategy’ which carefully aligns new collaboration efforts with business goals. This allows organisations to identify, prioritise, and sequence the initiatives necessary for establishing new business and management processes.

    Some of the questions to ask in developing this vision include:

    • How do you want the organization to change in the next 3 to 5 years?
    • What does the organization need to do to get there?
    • What role can collaboration play in achieving additional levels of process performance?
    • What sequence of activities is needed to build the necessary collaborative capabilities?

     

    In addition,organisations should take the following actions during the investigation phase of their process:

    People:

    • Define collaboration
    • Help ensure that executives lead the way
    • Establish a code of business conduct
    • Create intellectual property and nondisclosure policies
    • Develop collaborative decision-making processes.

    Processes

    • Develop a community of experts.

    Technology

    • Create a technology “sandbox,” for experimentation
    • Consider virtual teaming and collaborative processes.

     

    To develop this strategy, an organisation first needs to use social mapping techniques and tools to find out how it collaborates now.

     

    My thoughts on the framework 

    I like most of what this very comprehensive framework includes.  I certainly agree with the need to see this sort of change more from a people than a technology point of view:

    ”It is no accident that people and processes are listed before technology as framework components.  People and process concepts blend fluidly. They both combine to create behavioral changes that lead to operational improvements in an organization. While technology is the crucial catalyst for enabling improved collaborative activities, the success of such efforts hinges on the behavioral changes that must take place through
    leadership, people, and processes.”

     

    However, I think this shift in focus could still go further.  Collaboration doesn’t have to depend on social networking tools, and I’d have preferred to see even greater focus on the behavioural change than the technology.  See this point from Cisco’s document for example:

    ”Investments in information technology help organizations change the way they can do business. But technology cannot change old habits. Time and time again, Cisco has found that leadership coupled with strategic management is the most effective way to create the organizational changes necessary to take best advantage of advances in technology.”

     

    Actually, it’s not about taking advantage of technology, it’s all about the organisational change!

    So, I also like many of the tools included in the framework, particularly C-Change.  But I think the need for social norms (common vocabularies, behaviours etc) to support collaboration applies to all organisations, whether or not they are using social technologies.

    My other criticisms are about, firstly, the evolutionary change process – I don’t believe organisations need to start with an investigation phase (based again, upon use of social networking technologies – or ‘spontaneous use of web 2.0’), then a performance phase, before seeking to transform:

    “Using these new tools to create a more collaborative enterprise is not an easy task.  Deploying the technology is only one part of the process. Moving from experimental, impromptu use of social networking capabilities to strategic, companywide implementation requires close attention to cultural and procedural changes throughout an organization.”

     

    I think organisations can start work on the transformation phase straight away.  And  given the scale of the opportunity (Cisco’s ‘next big thing’), I’d advise organisations to do just that.  (I don’t mean to imply that organisations can do everything they are going to need to at the same time – but I do believe they should focus on the end vision from the very start – ensuring that all activities blend seamlessly as part of the bigger transformation.)

    Also, I don’t believe focus should be restricted to ‘collaboration impact zones’.  I understand their desire to prioritise, but to get the sorts of benefits Cisco have referred to, I think the whole organisation, and everyone in the organisation needs to change.

     

    Overall though, I’d agree with Oliver Marks at ZDNet that this is one of the best and useful guides to collaboration that organisations can use to help them gain more value from their people and (supported by web 2.0 technology).

     

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Wednesday, 10 June 2009

    Rebuilding trust

     

           There’s a major focus on trust in Harvard Business Review this month.

    Referring to the declining levels of trust found in this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer, HBR’s editor notes:

    “If companies can’t address this problem, an economic turnaround may be delayed indefinitely:  Banks won’t lend money; innovation will slow to a crawl; trade across borders will fall even more rapidly; governments will overregulate the private sector; unemployment numbers will continue to rise; and consumers won’t open their wallets for anything they consider nonessential.  A complex modern economy simply can’t function unless people believe that its institutions are fundamentally sound.”

     

    One of the bodies receiving criticism is the business school, with MBA graduates being seen as ‘greedy, selfish creatures’.  In ‘The Buck Stops and Starts at Business School’, Joel Podolny suggests:

    “Business schools have largely ignored the teaching of values and ethics because those aren't subjects of inquiry for traditional business school academic disciplines. The consequences have been disastrous. For instance, when HBS professor Scott Snook recently surveyed MBA students, he found that a third regarded right and wrong as defined by the norm. That is, if several people were following a course of action, the students felt it was OK for them to do the same. Even when business schools teach ethics courses, as some of them started doing in the wake of the Enron fiasco, they do so in a vacuum. Teaching one ethics course doesn't ensure that a marketing professor will, for instance, discuss privacy-related issues while describing the Net's use as a marketing medium. On the contrary, because of a lack of interest, perhaps, or a fear of leading a discussion in an area outside their expertise, faculty members often stay away from teaching the normative aspects of business.”

     

    Podolny suggests a range of solutions to this problem, but I’ve also been drawn to an article in the New York Times, ‘A Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality’, which discussed a group of graduates from Harvard Business School who would be taking a new oath to remain ethical throughout their careers.

    This idea has panned quite widely, including in this post (and most of the comments) from Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.  But I’ll admit that I’m quite drawn to the idea – it at least attempts to make change at the right sort of level (belief as well as behaviour).

    What else do you think would help develop trust in managers and other business professionals?

     

    Photo credit: Bridge builders by Gyula Drekovits

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Reith lectures 2009: A new citizenship

     

       The latest round of Reith Lectures are being presented by political philosopher Michael Sandel (apparently inspiration for Montgomery Burns in the Simpsons) and deal with the ‘politics of the common good’.

    Sandel suggests that we need to develop a better kind of politics less oriented to the pursuit of individual self-interest and based more on deeper moral and spiritual values, and a more demanding idea of what it means to be a citizen.

    In the first lecture, ‘Markets and Morals’, he deals with the moral limits of markets. There is now widespread recognition that markets have become detached from, and need to be reconnected to, our fundamental values in order to play a role in achieving the public good.

    Sandel argues that the problem isn’t excess greed within markets, as there is no real difference between this and self-interest and markets have always run on self-interest. So rather that try to rein in greed by shoring up values of responsibility and trust, integrity and fair dealing, we simply need to re-think the reach of markets into spheres of life where they don’t belong – where we are dealing with things that money can’t buy and other things that money can buy but shouldn’t.

    This includes things like or profit schools, hospitals and prisons; the outsourcing of war to private military contractors and the replacement of public police forces by private security firms. But these pseudo markets don’t always work.

    So one suggestion by the father of the HCM movement, Gary Becker, to resolve the debate over US immigration is to simply set a price and sell American citizenship. But a market in refugee status changes our view about who refugees are and how they should be treated. “It encourages the participants - the buyers, the sellers and also those whose asylum is being haggled over - to think of refugees as burdens to be unloaded or as revenue sources rather than as human beings in peril.”

    Or take the attempt by some New York City schools to improve academic performance by paying children 50 dollars if they get good scores on standardised tests. The problem is that monetary incentives like this can undermine intrinsic motivations for reading, habituating children to think of reading books as a way of making money, rather than something they can enjoy

    Sandel summarises his argument by explaining: “Markets are not mere mechanisms. They presuppose, and also promote, certain ways of valuing the goods being exchanged. Markets leave their mark on social norms.”

    I think Sandel makes some very sound and well argued points and perhaps the one disagreement I have with him is over the scope of his argument. He proposes that we need to think about limiting the application of markets, eg to health, education, national defence, criminal justice, environmental protection and so on - to guard against our market economies becoming market societies (although he does say that he wants all markets to be answerable to ethical principles and to principles of social justice).

    I think we also need to consider the utility of real markets (eg to employment).

    For example, Sandel’s arguments seem to me to help explain the recent public reaction to bankers’ bonuses as well as previously topical debates about non-doms etc.

    These debates don’t just involve economic questions, they consist of social or political ones as well. Yes, we want an economy where entrepreneurship and enterprise are valued, but we also recognise that too much inequality is not an outcome that we want.

    We’re happy to see people paid high rewards where these reflect real success, and where we can see that these rewards will ‘trickle down’ to the rest of the economy as well.  But when these people complain that they’ll leave the country when a 50% tax rate is introduced, or their non-UK income will become assessable for tax, it shows that they don’t share any ownership for the ‘common good’.

    And I think it is then that the general population responds that it doesn’t want people rewarded in this way.  The economic argument no longer covers the moral compromise.

    So there are “perils in reducing moral considerations to economic ones” within markets as well.

     

     

     

  • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
  • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
  • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Monday, 11 May 2009

    Talking HR 017: HR 2.0 - with book review: Collaboration (show notes)

     

          One of the titles Krishna and I considered using for “Talking HR” when we were setting it up last Summer was “HR 2.0” and in this episode, we talk about what we and other people mean by this term.

    It’s clearly something to do with web 2.0 (which we discussed in episode 016).  But there’s also a potential link with management 2.0 which is explained in Gary Hamel’s recent book.  Referring back to his recent Bucharest presentation, Jon argues that the link is the social nature of the 2.0 tag (social media / more social management) and in fact, the differentiation between HR and HR 2.0 is the latter’s focus on producing social capital.

    We also hear from James Tastard, VP of Corporate HR at Aker Solutions in Houston, Texas, about his views on HR / management / web 2.0.  Thanks enormously for your contribution James!

     

    Krishna also talks about the new hiring network, Worky.  And Jon discusses recent CIPD findings on job satisfaction.

     

    And we review a new book, ‘Collaboration’.

     

    Resources:

     

    Listen to the podcast: you can download the podcast to your hard drive or play it streaming from the web.

     

    Talking HR is hosted by Krishna De and Jon Ingham and you can contact us with your thoughts and feedback about the show at talkinghrpodcast(at)gmail.com.

    Follow Krishna on Twitter @krishnade and connect with her on LinkedIn

    Follow Jon on Twitter @joningham and connect with him on LinkedIn

     

     

    • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
    • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
    • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
    • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

      .

    Friday, 8 May 2009

    Talking HR 016: Web 2.0 and HR - with book review: Reward Systems (show notes)

     

         In this show, we bring together previous discussions about individual social technologies to talk about web 2.0 as a whole.  Jon reviews Graeme Martin’s new report and session at the CIPD’s HRD conference, and previews his own presentation at a HR 2.0 conference in Romania.  And Krishna warns that social media may not always be appropriate.

    Given this show’s book review: Steve Kerr’s Reward Systems, we also consider the application of web 2.0 to reward (not the most obvious area of application).

    Jon also talks about the effect’s of the UK’s budget, and the new Equalities Bill, questioning whether its easier to introduce change when time is good, or more difficult.

    Krishna talks about swine flu and the need for HR to prepare for shocks like this.  She also recommends a new book: The Big Manifesto.

    And we also review another book: Reward Systems.

     

    Resources:

     

    Listen to the podcast: you can download the podcast to your hard drive or play it streaming from the web.


    Talking HR
    is hosted by Krishna De and Jon Ingham and you can contact us with your thoughts and feedback about the show at talkinghrpodcast(at)gmail.com.

    Follow Krishna on Twitter @krishnade and connect with her on LinkedIn

    Follow me on Twitter @joningham and connect with me on LinkedIn

     

     

    • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
    • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
    • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
    • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

      .

    Tuesday, 5 May 2009

    HR 2.0 consulting

     

         In my last post, I described a process for developing an HR 2.0 / social capital strategy.

    I thought, if you don’t mind too much, that I’d give you an outline of the sort of consulting I do within this area as well.

    This includes:

    • Facilitation through the whole strategy development process
    • Generation of potential ideas for your organisational capability
    • Development of 2.0 strategy maps and scorecards
    • Social network analysis
    • Updating HR and management processes
    • Planning and project managing changes to the line manager role (management 2.0)
    • Advising on appropriate social media tools (web 2.0 / social networking)
    • Training on the use of web 2.0 / individual tools
    • Advising and supporting on change management requirements.

     

    I travel anywhere in the world (or use social media so I don’t have to), and you’d love working with me even more than you like reading this blog.

    I’m still learning about this area myself of course, but I think I know as much as I need to in order to help.  And I do seriously believe that work in the HR 2.0 area can result in real, solid improvements in business results.  Particularly in a recession when you’re looking to achieve the same or more (ie planning for the upturn while you’re still managing the down) with less people.  So you need each person to be as effective as possible.  But you need to manage the relationships and conversations (ie social capital!) between your people as well.

     

     

    • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
    • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
    • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
    • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

      .

    Monday, 4 May 2009

    HR 2.0 strategy

     

    Sunghwa Moon asked in his recent comment on this blog about what would be a ‘consulting methodology’ for HR 2.0.  This is what I use, although I’d describe it as a process rather than a methodology, as I’d only ever use it as a guide and would be unlikely to ever follow this exact flow.  And I’d see it as something that an organisation can use itself, rather than needing a consultant to support (albeit I believe that the right consultant would be extremely useful in advising and supporting on this).

     

     

    The process starts with identifying the required organisational capability, ie what sort of social, as well as human and organisational capital, is the business (or public sector organisation) trying to create?  Based upon this required state, and a gap analysis of the current state, a strategy can be developed.  This also needs to be aligned with (informed by, but also informing ie both adding and creating value) the business strategy.  And because web 2.0 is likely to play a significant role in supporting the HR 2.0 strategy, I include the IT strategy here too.

    Because the HR 2.0 strategy is all about people, and people are different, I include a step here to think about the different talent groups or other segmentations that exist and need to be treated differently.

    At this point, a strategy map and scorecard can be developed to support the strategy, outlining the strategy’s objectives and measures, and how these relate across activity, outcome (ie social capital) and business results.  Various measurement tools, for example social network analysis, may be required to support this stage as well.

    Onto implementation.  Here, I identify six main areas of focus:

    • People.  I believe any HR strategy needs to touch on the key people in an organisation, not just on the processes that support them.  And I also advise that HR should have a hands-on role, not just a back-office one.  I think these two points are particularly important under a HR 2.0 approach, and therefore suggest that the strategy identify the key people (perhaps those who are key to social connecting in the organisation, eg brokers, mavens etc) and what actions are going to be taken to provide direct support to these individuals?
    • Organisation.  What design changes in terms of structure, process etc would support the development of social capital in this organisation.  Also, particularly importantly, what OD interventions can be made to directly impact on the way people are connecting with and building relationships with each other?
    • HR and management processes.  What changes need to be made to support a more open, collaborative approach?
    • Web 2.0 and other technology.  How should these processes be best enabled?  What sort of tools would fit best?
    • HR function capability and transformation.  What internal changes within the HR (and learning, communication etc) function need to be made to ensure HR is able to effectively implement and support the new strategy?
    • Role of the manager.  This is often the biggest piece of this sort of project.  How can management itself be redesigned to operate in a completely new and empowering way?

     

    Note that web 2.0 plays only a very small part of this process.  I absolutely agree that this can be a huge enabler to the sort of changes that HR 2.0 will bring, but I believe HR 2.0 is much bigger than this as well.

    Comments?

     

    Previous posts on HR 2.0:

     

     

    • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
    • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
    • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
    • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

      .