Social Business, Power Balance and Trust

A 360 degree attitude on social business and networking gives you wings. Photo credit goes to my friend Esa Aarnio. All rights reserved.

I had the pleasure to be one of the guest speakers at the International Woman’s Day breakfast organised by “The Federation of Finnish Technology Industries“.

As I was speaking on that special day, I chose this topic “Woman, networking and the social technology”.  I started my presentation by making a confession: about five years ago I was pretty close to becoming a software business professional who enjoys a good flow, best practices and nice control, meaning I was stuck in my comfort zone.

I had a great team, processes in place, supporting tools implemented, and lots of ideas. I lived in a lovely illusion of control. Indeed it was working well at the time, but now afterwards it’s easy to say that for a little bit too long I overlooked one thing: huge, disruptive changes that were already in sight.

Luckily I was curious enough and started to follow some of the trends, mostly via research articles and blogosphere: cloud computing, social media and mobility. It soon started my personal transformation process: I realised that I needed urgently to both unlearn and learn.

The topics I briefly covered in my speech were Social Business, Networking 2.0, the power balance between the organisational units, and the triangle of “People, Process, Technology.”  And finally, the role women have in the social business context.

Here’s a short summary of the key topics of my speech.

Networking 2.0

Inspired by my friend Harri Lakkala’s dichotomy Leader 1.0 & 2.0, I composed a simple comparison of Networker 1.0 & 2.0.  Here we go:

Networker 1.0

  • Internally networked, sharing knowledge carefully thinking what can/cannot be shared, choices often led by the process and strict professional roles
  • Externally networked via traditional ways, as e.g. participating in conferences home and abroad
  • The verb to describe interaction is ‘to exchange’ knowledge, meaning “if I give you this piece of information, you’ll give me that information”
  • Heavy carbon footprint (lots of flying and red wine included in the network building)

Networker 2.0

  • Internally and externally networked, via a combination of the traditional, digital and social channels and means
  • Active sharing inside firewall, over the organisation silos. More holistic view on the value creation. Externally embracing serendipity by being active and open in various communities.
  • The verbs to describe interaction is ’to share and give’, sharing knowledge in an altruistic manner, receiving and finding information and knowledge from unexpected directions. Genuine collaboration.
  • Instead of heavy carbon footprint, Networking 2.0 creates a heavy digital footprint which further enhances the possibilities

My message for the audience was this:

For a knowledge worker, it is no longer enough to be a good team player, you have to be a good network player.

Collaboration is the new black and as professionals we need to have both new kinds of skills and more open attitude. “Knowledge alone does no longer give you the power, sharing of knowledge does”, as my friend Teemu Arina says.

Social technology and Innovation

Social technology is an essential enabler for the comprehensive, almost limitless networking and collaboration. Serendipity boosted, open networking is a must for a vivid idea flow and further for innovation. I just cannot believe that the traditional way of having brainstorming sessions with the same people, in the same meeting room, using the same methods, leads to shiny ideas and sparkling innovations.

On the personal level we need better muscles for curiosity, listening, openness, and ‘go over the borders and outside of your comfort zone’ attitude. The edges are fruitful places for the innovation and also for supporting a better common understanding. The “Power of Pull” thinking (by John Hagel, Lang Davison & John Seely Brown) is one of my favorites.

Additionally, to cope with this change, we need higher tolerance for ambiguity. The networked business environment is increasingly complex, sometimes even a bit chaotic. Some of us have a high need to structure information in order to minimize ambiguity, while others can process many ideas and thoughts simultaneously. I believe we need more of the latter. I have earlier blogged about this topic, “Systems Intelligence, Serendipity and Listening for the Better Decisions”.

What does the new kind of networking and social technology has to do with women?

That was the final question I chose cover in my speech. Out of the support functions in organizations, women are usually well represented in the Human Resources (actually I’d like to call it for Human Capital), Corporate Communications and Marketing. Unluckily these three functions are often in competition about who ‘owns’ social media initiatives and projects. And if you add the IT department to this palette, misunderstandings and inefficiencies are easy to create.

One reason for the poor situation is the unequal power balance between departments when it comes to decision-making in the social business initiatives. This must be changed. The HR department is too often a “Careful Out There Department”, meaning they are too insecure and scared to take the lead in the social technology initiatives.  Also way too many times I have seen that the so-called ‘power departments’ as Legal and IT, stop or slow down the social initiatives started by Communications and Marketing.

The reasons are often related to the data security. Of course security is an important issue, but too often that is used as a bad excuse. The real reasons are confusion and lack of knowledge, hesitance to learn what social business is about, narrow silo perspective meaning not seeing the big picture, and strong professional roles that restrict your thinking.

What I wish to see is more healthy approach to risks and control. We need to have a better balance between risk-taking and the possibilities. If you aim at zero risks, you narrow down your possibilities as well.

My wish is that women would embrace the social technology in the sense of opening wider possibilities and developing new skills. Understanding the technology, networking and people skills have a central role in the social business design thinking. If the organizational and social change is led by the technologists alone, the results will be formed accordingly.

We should focus more on possibilities and opportunities, rather than worry about the loss of 100% control.

My message is especially targeted for all the talented HR women. You have the notion ‘human’ in everything you do now, and that is desperately needed in the on-going change. You should take one of the leading positions now: don’t stand by, take the lead.

Time for de-centralised and humanised IT  

New technology, the cloud-enabled new platforms for serendipitous encounters, lead not only to new kind of innovation and leadership, but also to new kind of organisational structures. Away from the silos, forward to co-creation and building of trust-based relationships, both internally and externally.

Dion Hinchcliffe of Dachis Group speaks for decentralized IT support and says:

“It now seems more likely that the transformation to social business is going to significantly rewire the org chart.  […] the urgency and tech-centricity of digital engagement is creating an irresistible need for strong technical and implementation leadership under not just within marketing, but other key business functions as well. Just not in the faraway centralized support group represented by traditional IT.”

Decentralizing the CIO, picture credit: Dion Hinchcliffe, Dachis Group

Quite an interesting vision. Dion Hinchcliffe further explains:

“So, to my mind, this is the coming decentralization of IT that I’ve been predicted will be the inevitable consequence of 1) nearly everything becoming digital, social, mobile, etc. and 2) much savvier workers that can and will feel more comfortable locally enabling new IT that works best for their part of the business.”

I had the pleasure of meeting one of Dion’s colleagues Lee Bryant while he was recently visiting Finland. He gave us an excellent speech about Social Business with many great insights on organisational change. He also described the “one-size fits all, top-down, command & control, no choice” type of corporate IT services, and he said something that stuck in to my mind:

Corporate IT is ripe for re-invention and humanisation.

Humanisation, what a big lovely word.

But here’s a word of comfort for IT professionals. I do know that there are lots of IT people who are awake and understand that the social change must be on the top of the minds of IT leaders.  There has been a discussion about “People, Process, Tools” triangle for a long time, where the people part is getting a lot of attention.

The next discussion topic will be more social IT. Already seeing signs of it. And I am sure more social IT will result in less hated IT as well.

Naturally, we need humanisation of all business units, not only IT, in order to cope with the disruptive technological and social change.

Social Business, Trust and Social Capital

Dachis Group describe Social Business Design as follows:

The intentional creation of dynamic and socially calibrated systems, process, and culture.

They further state that “technology, society, and work are all changing at breakneck speeds, but businesses are not keeping pace. When these emerging trends work together, they call for a new kind of business – one that is distributed, collaborative, agile, and better positioned to succeed.”

Well put. They know what they are speaking about.

I’d like to add a short discussion of my favorite aspect of social business: trust.

I do believe that successful social business must be built on trust. Social Business is about collaboration, engagement, sharing knowledge and experiences, capturing tacit knowledge, creating value, and with all this enhancing creativity, productivity, and innovation. Therefore I often use the notion of trust-based collaboration (with some inspiration from John Hagel).  The fruitful network of relationships can be based on acknowledging, helping, and appreciation of the people you meet and work with which in turn create trust between individuals.

Trust is a powerful fuel for the relationships between employees, leaders, organisations, departments, and of all social interactions. And social technology is a key enabler in this.

A recent Fast Company article “Community Revival: How Technology Is Reconstructing Our Shared Lives” said:

“Modern day social capital is increasingly associated with technology-facilitated trust.”

Such a brilliant crystallisation. Social technology enabled social communities are the true leverage points of the cultural transformation, both inside and outside of the organisation, between the organisations, individuals, and even nations.

Success, growth of social capital and trust can be built on this.

Thank you all of you who attended the Woman’s Day event with me and our lovely hosts, Jukka Viitasaari, Teemu Arina, and Sam Inkinen!

Related reading:

Dion Hinchcliffe: The architecture of Social Business
Are you Systems Intelligent?

About these ads

8 responses to “Social Business, Power Balance and Trust

  • fustbariclation (@fustbariclation)

    Its a really good presentation! I do think we must do more to encourage networking 2.0, and beyond.. I think it is starting to happen.

    • Riitta Raesmaa

      Thank you, very kind of you! I am especially glad that you as a distinguished IT Service Management professional are saying so. I was a bit worried that IT & HR people are not having fun with my ideas. I see lots of similarities between ITIL & Social Media ‘implementations’. Let us keep the discussion going on!

      Thank you once again!

  • Sardar Mohkim Khan (@smohkim)

    Good to read this. I am not sure how much would i deviate from the context of the post, but the transition to the Person 2.0 has proven to be of great advantage to women globally. Especially in region where i live (women restricted to work, go out). The last 2-3 years have seen a massive jump in the category of “work at home moms/individuals”, capitalizing on their talents (cooking, fabric designing, writing, etc).

    With time, this will only get better. However what needs to be done is that women who have already cashed success need to reach out to others to encourage and help them take that “leap of faith”.

    Sorry if i got far, but your piece had me going in this direction.

    best

  • Jslevin

    Like all I read. Smart. Simple. Concise. Relevant. Grounded. Insightful.

    One consideration. You mention HR as being too careful. Agreed. But you theather that attitude to data security issues. While true it’s only part of the picture. Hesitation to adopt, conservatism, low tolerances for risk are not only a function of middle managers as opposed to leaders but also a function of behavioral types. The more deliberate, slow pacing, high procedure and structural types more often seek out HR positions and functions. They map well to their own behavioral settings. Marketers and sales people are at the other end of the behaviorism spectrum functioning in diametrically opposite ways. Both types are true to their behavioral orientations. The trick is greeting them to cross communicate. While there are diagnostic tools for that there has to be compelling reason to use them or each remain locked in two realities. Their own silos of mental certainty and perspective as well as their organizational departments. The best BI tools can not address and correct behavioral limitations. My take. For what it’s worth.

  • Jay Steven Levin (@jslevin)

    Thought my response registered. Trying again.

    Like all I read. Smart. Simple. Concise. Relevant. Insightful.

    Will add only this. Behaviors of caution, conservatism, low tolerance for risk. late adoption by HR professionals are not only due to concerns over data security.

    That’s not (to use your opening image) the birds eye view on the subject.

    Natural and work place adapted behavioral characteristics are linked to individual personality types. Those types gravitate to those positions that map to their own behavioral settings or how we deal with people, problems, pacing and procedures. Not the other way around.

    This explains why more precise, accurate, quality concerned and detail oriented people populate more positions like HR, engineering and QA (quality assurance).

    Its also why we find such fundamentally different types populating areas of marketing, public relations, social media and sales divisions within the same enterprise.

    There are at least 5 fundamental reasons why silos don’t or won’t cross communicate. None have to with function or purpose or task. Those are;

    1. No desire.
    2. No perceived need.
    3. Perspective intolerance.
    4. Language differences.
    5. No tools, direction or know-how.

    There are sophisticated diagnostic assessment tools that can correct this. They reveal how we interact across 4 critical at work dimensions. Problems and Conflict Handling. People and Influence. Pacing. Procedures.

    The tools work. That’s not the problem. Adapting behavior to effect and improve positive business outcomes isn’t difficult. It’s a craft. It just need work to polish. And shine it.

    Its getting people to take both the tools and themselves seriously.

    And providing them a compelling reason why continuing as they are isn’t working. For them. For others. For the business.

    • Riitta Raesmaa

      This is excellent, thank you, Jay! I especially liked this idea: “Natural and work place adapted behavioral characteristics are linked to individual personality types”. Indeed. Level of complexity is high and there is no simple answers. My favorite super power for this is: listening. I try hard to be better and better in listening.

      Thank you again!

  • Silos Were Never Designed For Cross Communication. It’s Why People Gravitate To Them.

    [...] today a smart blog post by Riitta Raesmaa  entitled “Social Business, Power Balance and Trust.” English: Grain Silos at Flagrass Hill. (Photo credit: [...]

  • E L S U A ~ A KM Blog Thinking Outside The Inbox by Luis Suarez » Restoring the Human in Humanity by Simon Sinek

    [...] why is it so tough to generate such trust at work versus our own personal lives. We have seen in the past, and over the course of time, indeed, how critical trust is in not only helping build healthy [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers

%d bloggers like this: