techguerilla talk

Matt Ridings

Influencers and Change Management

Istock_000015806600xsmall

Importance Of Adoption

Most of the conversation about understanding 'influence' these days revolves around the work taking place in the Social Media arena.  I've spent an inordinate amount of time on that particular subject over the last several years.  However, my interest in identifying influencers evolved not out of social media but rather understanding the internal social structures of organizations for the work I'd been doing in change management.  One of the most intractable problems where large scale change management is concerned is 'adoption'.  In Social Business, that may be getting employees to utilize a new collaboration tool, having them leverage a new process or methodology, or simply evolving a new cultural mindset within the organization.  But participation, and creating the proper incentives for doing so, is always the toughest challenge.  It's also one of the most overlooked.  You'd be surprised how many initiatives (CRM anyone?) fail because the focus is on deploying the technology instead of the people who would be using it.  Setting a budget and spending it on a 'deployment' is much simpler than worrying about all that messy 'cultural stuff' so it often becomes an IT exercise.

 

Influence Characteristics

So what does that have to do with 'influence'?  When you're trying to break down communication barriers, or silos, in an organization one of the most effective ways to do so is to seek out internal influencers.  Much like we would search for them in social media, we can seek out those employees whose voice already carries across departments and business units.  Perhaps surprisingly, they can be found at virtually all layers of an organizations hierarchy not just senior management.  While it's too in-depth to go into here, you will find that there are different 'types' of influencers as well.  More accurately, influencers whose influence is derived from different characteristics.  Some garner their influence due to their passion, some through their ability to communicate effectively, some through their widely acknowledged capabilities/genius.  Every organization invariably has a pool of individuals that defy the norms and influence others well beyond their station and expected audience.  It should be noted that the most effective influencers for change management purposes are rarely those forceful individuals that may typically come to mind.  Yes, sometimes you need people who can just 'make it happen' through their force of will and their empowered position, but where lasting change is concerned those being asked to change must see purpose and meaning in that change if they are to truly adopt it for the long term.   I'm fond of saying that the best organizational change is one which you never realize is occurring, in other words it happens so organically that it doesn't feel like it's being directed.

 

Spread Horizontally, Don't Disseminate Vertically

Once the pool of influencers is selected they should be brought into the change management process at an early stage and made formal members of the team.  Their input into deriving the proper incentives for adoption, and assistance in the communication planning should be given the highest level of consideration.  Unlike todays more typical top down planning by a committee made up of the heads of business units alone, you'll find your long term outcomes much more successful (vs. the typical 1/3 success rate of large scale initiatives).  You'll also find that you've created a platform from which some of the strongest talent in the organization is viewed as an example of the type of culture you value.  One of the most valuable artifacts of this approach comes not from the explicit engagement with those influencers, but from the fact that they then organically spread information, passion, belief, and 'purpose' throughout their influence ecosystems via their day-to-day communications.  It's building that underlying perception that is so difficult in any change management initiative, and why internal influencers can be so critical to your success.  Obviously you still have to know methods of properly identifying and filtering these individuals to arrive at the right mix for the team, but I'd wager you're already nodding your head thinking of people who fit the kind if influencer profiles I've described here.  Word-of-mouth is as good a tool as any when it comes to finding these internal influencers, but if you'd like to discuss more formalized approaches feel free to contact me.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

 

Posted by
Views
and 0 Comments

Social Business And Time Horizons

Distorted_clock
Times They Are A Changin'
Time.  That thing that makes us reach for our stress balls and exercise our forearm muscles.  There never seems to be enough of it and you can't recapture it when it's gone.

However, it can also be your best friend.  I was listening back to a talk I was giving on digital influence, specifically in the Q&A, and in one of the answers I mention the importance of 'time horizons' to the questioner.  It's a technique I often use when developing strategies and subsequently the game plans for delivering them, but I realized I had never formally written on the topic.

Time Horizons are really just a tool for gaining perspective.  In my executive workshops I refer to perspective changers as 'longitudes' for time, and 'altitudes' for depth of granularity, but let's just focus on the time portion for now.  Did you ever notice how something that may be really stressful or important is overwhelming initially, but once you finally start taking action on it a sense of calm arrives?  We tend to say that's because we now have a plan, and plans make us comfortable.  While that's partially true, it's also because we have reduced our time horizon to *now*.  We're no longer thinking of what this new stressful intrusion meant to the rest of the things we had intended to do over the next few days.  We've reduced the time horizon to the point that all of those 'other things' are no longer in view.  Conversely, if we expand our time horizon enough that stressful issue of tomorrow no longer seems so important in the scheme of things…because it isn't.  Great.  So what does this have to do with Social Business?  I mean, it certainly sounds more like a self-help mantra at this point right? (it *is* useful in your personal life of course, that's just not the purpose of this post)

If I Could Have One Thing...
Organizations have to evolve to become more aligned with the changing cultural dynamics that have and are occurring outside their walls in this world of social.  They need speed, flexibility, internal empowerment, and the dozens of other attributes mentioned throughout this blog and elsewhere to become a 'Social Business'.  But to get there, they need perspective.  In a relationship driven ecosystem they need to take a hard look at the time horizons that they currently use to drive their business decisions.

If I could wave my magic consulting wand and change just one thing about business today, just one, it would be to change the time horizons in which businesses have become used to operating.  It seems ironic that for a business to become nimble and responsive it has to take a longer term view, but that's exactly what it needs to do.  My choice of time horizons as my 'one thing' isn't an off the cuff decision.  I've spent years thinking on this topic.  I've pounded the intellectual streets with people much smarter than I am to come to this conclusion.

You cannot institute truly meaningful organizational change overnight.  Change like that doesn't come cheaply, and it doesn't come without risk.  Yet the people who make those decisions are accountable to Boards of Directors *now*.  The investors want to see continual upswings every *quarter*.  That CEO was hired for a limited period of time and doesn't trigger his bonus payouts if he lets the company flatline for two years while he spends money making that change happen.  'Change' isn't an asset he or she can write off.  'Change' isn't a product or service that they can sell.  A time horizon of even 5 short years under those circumstances has very little appeal to an executive, regardless of the long term benefit, if they see themselves as either having moved on in that timeframe or fired because the Year Over Year growth wasn't large enough.  The incentive quite frankly, is greater to drive that companies long term future into the ground if it means making large returns in the short term.  Which is exactly what many companies have been doing.  We wait until we are backed into the proverbial corner before tackling big change, by that point the risk of failure is very high because now it's not about evolving for long term survival, it's about surviving long enough to evolve.

A Lower Altitude
There are standouts and exceptions of course, organizations that refuse to do quarterly forecasting for example.  The difference?  The bulk of them are run by founders/owners.  They want to see their long term vision come true.  This is their baby and they make sure the Board of Directors is stuffed with people who believe in that vision.

That's the top line view of why a longer time horizon is critical, but what about the more granular levels?  A lower 'altitude' as it were.  In a relationship driven ecosystem it is about just that, fostering relationships.  That may be with your customers, your partners, or your employees.  All of the stakeholder touch points makeup the core of a Social Business.  So let's look at a function like marketing.  If I have to demonstrate my impact in the existing schema of P&L periods, do I care more about developing long term relationships or running another campaign that will conclude prior to my reporting period so that I have something sexy to show my boss?  If I'm in Sales do I care more about making the sale even if I know the customer didn't need what I'm selling and won't be happy in the long term?   If I'm in Customer Service do I care more about efficiency numbers so hire lower quality personnel and use an escalation system that saves me the most money but frustrates the customer in the process?  After all, I can worry about that upset customer some other time but I have to demonstrate 'progress' (tic) now.

We have all of these pressures, driven by short time horizons, that push us to do things that are not in our long term interests.  And we wonder why businesses grasp onto the potential short term promise of something like Groupon?  You have to have time horizons in business, you have to know if you're heading in the right direction, and you have to measure to do that.  I'm not advocating for the elimination of them, I'm advocating for extending them to reasonable periods that make sense for dealing with the new relationship economy and not the industrialized production/consumption cycle we've been accustomed to.  There's nothing easy about it and I won't pretend there is.  The time horizon of people where business is concerned has changed considerably over the last 25 years.  No longer do we aspire to get a job at a good company and stay there for 40 years and get our gold watch.  No longer do we believe that the company actually cares about reciprocating our loyalty.  So our outlook on the decisions we make changes considerably, "Will I still be here in 10 years? If not, do I care if the company is?".

Are there businesses where this won't make sense?  Sure.  We still want certain cheap goods and services and are willing to put up with any amount of frustration to make sure they don't cost more.  But there are a great deal of businesses out there, that won't be businesses for much longer, if we can't find better time horizons to gauge successes and failures by.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

Posted by
Views
and 7 Comments
Fans (1)

Giving Substance To Online Influence - BlogWorld LA 2011

Here's the presentation audio and slides from the talk that Chuck Hemann and I gave at BlogWorld Los Angeles in November 2011.  Chuck and I split about the first 20 minutes or so with him going first, the rest is Q&A and in my opinion the most valuable part as usual.  There were lots of great questions from Tamsen McMahon, Tom Webster, David Armano, Michael Brito, Indra Gardiner, Dave Fleet, Jay Baer, and more.  They are the ones who really add value here so a hearty thanks to them.

You can also pick up my portion of the slides from SlideShare here: http://www.slideshare.net/mattridings/giving-substance-to-online-influence

 

 

It’s one of over 100 recorded sessions from BlogWorld Los Angeles 2011. You can get all of the videos—plus nearly 100 bonus interviews and other bonus content—by picking up the “Virtual Ticket.”

 

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

Posted by
Views
and 0 Comments

A New Social Business Consultancy And A Thank You

Screen_shot_2011-12-08_at_12

Maybe you've heard the news that Amber Naslund and I are launching a new Social Business consultancy?  If not, you can find an announcement about that here.  We're still in stealth mode and not releasing a lot of details just yet, but it's incredibly exciting times here at command central.

The support since we announced early this week has been amazing, and humbling.  Friends, colleagues, prospective clients, potential employees, curious souls, and competitors have all come out in numbers that frankly we weren't prepared for.  It was a bit overwhelming.   So I just wanted to thank everyone on behalf of my amazing partner and I, your support and interest mean everything to us.  Rest assured we'll be doing everything possible to meet and exceed your expectations as we undertake this venture.

With much gratitude,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
Posted by
Views
and 1 Comment
Fans (1)

To Gain Control, Sometimes You Have To Let It Go

Control

The Illusion Of Control

When we talk about Social Media & Social Business and the corresponding activities, cultural changes, etc. that are necessary to enable them, invariably the conversation turns to 'control'.  Sure, oftentimes the word control isn't used but that's what it always comes back to.

In HR:  "Our employees could go out there and just say *anything* and that could reflect badly on us!"

In PR: "But *we* need to control the message and perception, there are all these customers out there talking about us any way they want!"

In the C-Suite: "But if social is integrated throughout our business, who will manage all of this 'stuff'?  *Someone* has to be in charge!"

In the departments: "Social is the next big thing, I want us to control it for the whole company"

You get the picture.  Everything about the way we do business is typically tied to this notion of control.  Whether it is 'controlling' costs, or 'controlling' people and resources, we constantly reinforce this notion that if someone isn't 'managing' these things explicitly they will spiral into chaos.  While I completely disagree with this perception, much has already been written on it elsewhere and it's not the focus of this post.

The Fallacy Of Control

Sometimes, you have to give up traditional control to move forward.  Much like a modern fighter jet, to achieve more capabilities we had to 'give up' direct control over the mechanical aspects of flying.  We had to move to a 'fly by wire' system where computers are actually doing all of the 'controlling'.  In this model we are providing direction, not control.  This requires trust, it comes with certain risks, but it was the only way we could advance.  The benefits far outweigh the possible negatives. 

The Reality Of Control

The funny thing is that a business *does* have control over all of these things, it simply looks in the wrong places to apply it.  I'd like to posit that your control lies in the products and services that you deliver to your customers, your employees, your partners, and your stakeholders.  That is your means of control.

Treat your employees fairly and with respect and you don't have to worry about being unfairly exposed.  Deliver great products and services and you don't have to worry about all the negative discussions taking place about you.  Run your organization ethically and responsibly and you don't have to 'spin' all of those embarrassing events that made it to the public.  Give people the responsibility to act like an adult and they will rise to that expectation.  Provide empathy and quality to your customers when they need assistance and they will be your biggest advocates.  Develop true partnerships instead of beating up on your 'vendors' to shop the lowest price and those relationships will weather any storm.

You already have control over every aspect of your business that matters.  No amount of transparency, organizational design change, integration of social, or empowerment of employees will ever be able to take that true control from you.  

Sometimes, to be in control you have to give it up.  Keep the focus on staying in control of your destiny.  By focusing on the experience that you deliver across all the points of your organizations ecosystem instead of a focus on controls at the micro level you will always garner greater benefit.  

Do good work.  Build great products.  Design great services.  Foster amazing relationships.  Now, go forth and prosper.

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
Posted by
Views
and 2 Comments

It Will Mature, It Always Does

Over on Google+ Michael Brito posted 

There seems to be a land grab for social business thought leadership; and a lot of arguing about definitions, comparisons to buzzwords like enterprise 2.0, blah.. how about we start talking about solutions instead of trying to boost our egos?

What he is referring to here is the fact that within the Social Business space there is a large amount of debate from those who have identified themselves as being involved in spaces like Enterprise 2.0, SCRM, BPM, etc.  In addition, there is a lot of effort within the purveyors of Social Business itself to creatively define it the way 'they' see it, or more to the point, to create and own the acronyms and buzzwords of tomorrow.  My response to his post is below, after thinking on it I believe it's an important enough point to keep here for posterity.  Please forgive some of the run on sentences:

In some cases it's defensive (I spent all this time pitching myself as E2.0 and now people are encroaching!), in others offensive (I need to be seen as THE purveyor of Social Business!). In all cases it's opportunistic and shortsighted. A rising tide really does lift all boats, but in the area of social there (ironically, given its name) is more focus on trying to 'tear down' others vs. 'lift up' than in any sector I've ever been in....and given how ancient my ass is, that's a lot of sectors :)

We haven't reached a point of (market) maturity yet in which derived segments have been officially carved out. Measurement is one of the first to move that direction, but think about how you don't have clear understandings yet of "SMB Social Media Marketing", "Social Media Technology Integrator", "Social Media Customer Service Outsourcing", etc. much less platform specific titling (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). 

It's a typical evolutionary path in a maturity model. We haven't fallen into a clear segmentation yet, or more accurately, our prospects don't have an understanding that there is a segmentation yet. Much like it was frustrating for those of us doing websites with mainframe supply chain integration in the mid 90's to have to be pitching clients side-by-side with the kid up the street who could make a pretty static HTML page, so it is a frustrating space to sell into today. Social Media as a term is so unbelievably broad, but just like 'The Web' it was manageable enough in the beginning for a single person to feel like they grasped all of the skills necessary to do it, become an expert in it, and market those skills. And frankly, it was. You just learned HTML basically. If you'll remember, no one used to talk about 'marketing' a website in the beginning. That skill set came later. First it was, 'build me a website'. 

Now take the maturity of Social Business nomenclature which is even less, and the complexity that Social Business crosses every touch point in an organization, and the nuance that is the fact that at an implementation level Social Business may not contain any facet of what the general publics understanding of Social Media is....and well, is it really a surprise that everyone wants to define themselves first, and then put a wrapper around that of 'social business' but then feel terrified if they feel the momentum of understanding of what social business is swinging away from how they defined themselves? Particularly if that understanding goes into a realm that they aren't qualified to service?

It's the wild west. But we're building towns, we're farming our lands, and we're pooling our money to start hiring sheriffs for our towns. Eventually, we carve out territory like a state officially and put it under a form of governance. It'll mature, it always does.

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

If you'd like to connect over on Google+ you can find me here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/112900861098428671533/about
Posted by
Views
and 0 Comments

Giving Substance To Online Influence

You can find my slides from the BlogWorld L.A. 2011 talk below.  

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
Posted by
Views
and 1 Comment

BlogWorld LA 2011 - Online Influence With Matt Ridings and Chuck Hemann

Posted by
Views
and 0 Comments

Influence Measures of Tomorrow

10-23-11_8-37-31_am

As I think through the next evolution of Klout and its kin I'm struck by some of the categorization and prioritization difficulties they will face when trying to decide how to weight activity.

I'll spare you most of my ramblings on what that far term vision looks like and instead focus on those shifts nearer to release.  The coming changes (and rest assured they are coming, whether publicized or not) will fundamentally change the 'influence' landscape.  The mistake most people make at the moment is in evaluating what these services *are* versus what they *will be*.

Today I'll focus on just two (related) shifts, but I think they are enough to illuminate my point and move the dialog forward.  Those shifts are Blog and Comment System integration.  Move forward through time a bit with me and envision Klout now integrated into Blog platforms like Wordpress, Posterous, Tumblr, etc.  as well as their comment systems or 3rd party ones like Disqus, Wildfyre, and so on.

One of the complaints about Klout is that it doesn't actually measure those things that matter most like conversions.  For example, "it's great that your link was retweeted 100 times but who actually *clicked* on that link?".  That would obviously be a more important metric to measure and speak to a deeper layer of influence.  There's also a contingent that argues that your ability to generate comments on a blog post is a deeper layer of influence, so being able to measure that as well would be pretty important right?

I'll pause here for a second and say that these shifts are a great leap forward in the usefulness of an influence measure.  But just wait until plugging in a simple piece of influence code into *any* website, commerce or otherwise, is as straightforward and ubiquitous as that of Google Analytics (actually, if I was Google I would be acquiring Klout, but that's another story).  But the focus today is on some of the complications that arise from these shifts.

Today, Klout measures what is easy.  Who are you, what did you say in social media, and did someone respond/react to it in a visible way?  The word 'visible' there is key.  Like it or not, what they measure today makes for a level playing field (and yes, also allows it to be gamed).  But what happens when they start measuring the 'less visible' stuff like clicking links, leaving comments, etc.?  This is where I think they are going to have some difficulties trying to weight values.

For simplicities sake I'll divide influencers into four categories.  Creators, Curators, Amplifiers, and Thought Instigators.  Creators are the bloggers of original content, Curators are those who aggregate original content (or links to it) on their own blogs, Amplifiers push links to Creators/Curators sites but not their own, and Thought Instigators don't post links but have dialogs directly in Social Media about topics.  Now obviously most of us are not defined by a single one of the traits but instead some combination, for now however we'll separate them for ease of discussion.

When you integrate influence measures into blogs and comment systems an interesting dilemma arises.  How do you weight these different categories of activity?  Because the attempt is to measure *influence*, shouldn't the Creator of the original content get much more weight than a Curator?  After all, the Creator influenced the Curator to host or link to their original content.  In effect, each action taken on a Curators tweet, including any comments left on a post that references something created elsewhere, should also be crediting the Creator.  Today that is a non-issue because all Klout cares about is what *you* posted, and whether it was reshared/retweeted, regardless of who actually created the content you may have linked to.  

What about Amplifiers, those people who simply retweet the links of other?  How much credit goes to the person they retweeted vs. the Creator/Curator of that content (assuming it was someone else)?  And finally, what about Thought Instigators?  Those people who could care less about blogging or tweeting links but have influential conversations directly within the social media platforms themselves?  These folks, in the long term, are in the toughest spot where influence measurement is concerned.  Without sophisticated language algorithms that can not only determine contextual relevance of the conversations, but also the 'direction' of influence taking place (who influenced who in the conversation) they are at a disadvantage.  

On the one hand, you could argue this is fair because they aren't creating something of 'permanence' like a blog that can be found after the fact through other means such as a search engine and thus continue to influence people long after that transient conversation of the Thought Instigator took place.  On the other, perhaps this Thought Instigator is really the primary influencer of all of those who *are* blogging.  I guarantee you that a Google engineer having a conversation on Twitter about how Google search indexing works is incredibly influential on all the SEO folks out there, whether she blogged about it or not.  There are ways of emphasizing this in your weighting, but the point is that at some point categorization and weighting become extremely tricky (although doable).  Particularly in this in-between point of evolution between basic measurement of explicit information and the eventual point of ubiquity where oddly enough things will become more complex but easier to accomplish.  I've already rambled enough in this post however so if you'd care to know why that is feel free to approach me in the comments or elsewhere.

Speaking of ubiquity.  What does that look like at a basic level?  In the world of online influence, the simplest way is to imagine Klout is integrated into Google and can find every reference made about you that can be found via search.  It can then weight and categorize you by type appropriately.  If you're a public persona like a politician, movie star, etc. then *volume* for example becomes weighted very differently than if you're a leading edge physicist.  For the category of physics they specialize in perhaps finding 1000 references means you're at the top of your field whereas for a current Hollywood movie star that equivalent number may be 1 Million.  Then there are the 'quality' of the references (who made them and how influential are they considered within your space).   On the commerce end of things, there's no reason those same tracking codes (just like Google Analytics uses) can't integrate Klout into eCommerce platforms thus allowing direct sale conversions to apply to influence.  And down the rabbit hole of algorithms we go.

The long term view of influence measurement is a ripe one indeed, and one that I'm still amazed detractors cannot see.

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
Posted by
Views
and 1 Comment

Social Business And A Culture Of Enablement

Handenabling
Same As It Ever Was

We've known for some time that there are better organizational structures out there. That collaboration and knowledge management systems when executed properly can bring about both efficiencies and innovation (a rare combination).  That the motivators of the new workforce (Millennials specifically) have changed.  That the pace of change has steadily increased and is only getting faster.

People roll their eyes at those proclaiming how businesses need to 'act now or be left behind' because as they rightfully state "these individual factors are nothing new".  And while that may be true enough, what they are missing is that we've arrived at a critical juncture where these factors (and more) are being pushed from a point of 'luxury' to 'necessity'.  A perfect storm is taking place where economic, societal, and technological factors will no longer abide a business which decides to 'wait this one out'.   The scales have tipped to the point that the effort and risk of large scale change no longer outweigh the benefits.  Enter Social Business.

Evolution Ignores No One

We have successfully operated our businesses in a model based upon the hoarding of intellectual property.  A model that says "Find a way to do something better, or know something the other guy doesn't know and then build a fortress around it using either the law (patents, lawsuits, etc.) or secrecy".  We then leverage and monetize that advantage for as long as we can.  Regardless of your point of view, this has been an incredibly successful model for well over a century.  The problem is that, as the pace of change accelerates, the amount of time available to monetize a business based on this model decreases.  The only solution when intellectual property lifetimes decline to the point of commoditization is to a) accelerate your rate of innovation or b) differentiate yourself through other means.  Ideally, both.

Predictive Loss Vs. Dynamic Gain
Today's rapidly changing business environment means businesses must learn to thrive in these conditions.  To be agile, creative, alert, adaptive, and spontaneous.  Highly structured organizations with their top-down hierarchical fiefdoms serve to stifle these attributes.  Yet the notion of decentralized, self-organizing, emergent structures have always scared the pants off of enterprise executives.  And rightfully so.  After all, their responsibility is to maximize investor returns…sort of.  What that really means is "maximize how well you can predict investor returns".  The vast majority of CEO's would prefer to be able to say "we will achieve our forecasted revenue this quarter" even if that revenue was a *loss* than to say "I can't really forecast this quarter very accurately" even if the long term growth outlook would be more positive.  There are some exceptions to these executives, including a few who refuse to do quarterly forecasts at all, but you'll notice they tend to exist in the more progressive (and successful) companies.  

The Journey, Not The Destination

The reality is that none of us should nonchalantly berate those organizations who haven't yet seen the light.  There is risk involved in making these shifts and when you sit at the head of the table of a multi-billion dollar corporation it takes an incredible amount of will and confidence to tackle the cultural changes necessary to bring these shifts about.  Our job as consultants in this space is to demonstrate we understand those risks, to provide clarity on the impetus factors that demand these changes be made, and most of all to produce a clear path forward that arrives at the destination but makes the journey as safe as possible along the way.  The human equivalent of adding a GPS and airbags to the organization.


A Culture Of Enablement
A Social Business is embodied and brought about by items like Collaboration, Culture Development, Knowledge enablement, and Innovation empowerment.

The language we use when describing the transitional aspects of moving from a traditional business to a Social Business  is important.  We need to ensure that the words are representative.  If a traditional business is 'stable', then a Social Business isn't 'unstable' it's 'Dynamic'.  We have to shift from 'economies of scale' to 'economies of scope' and from 'managing risk' to 'fostering resilience'.

The most difficult, and most important, aspect of a Social Business  for an executive to come to grips with is moving from a culture of 'control' to a 'Culture of Enablement'.  At their core most business and management models are structured around control.  Controlling risk, controlling people, controlling outcomes.  In a truly evolved Social Business the mentality has to shift.  Now you enable people.  You enable outcomes (even the unpredictable ones…also known as innovation).  You enable access to risk by demonstrating and educating on the companies shared values.  You don't 'lead' a company to success, you enable it to succeed.  These small mental shifts are difficult at first, but have a massive impact on how you approach your decision making within an organization and the culture that evolves.  With the new batch of people entering the workforce, and their value systems, this becomes more critical than ever.

Are you ready to enable your company to succeed?  Are you ready to be a Social Business?  I think you are.

Cheers,

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

*This post is part of the Wizard Behind The Social Media Curtain series

Posted by
Views
and 3 Comments