The Real Point about Social: Value and the Culture of the Organization

Aside

It’s unfortunate that I wasn’t able to be in Milan last week for the Social Business Forum. Aside from the fact that any reason to be in Italy is a good one, the Forum brought together some of the most illustrious names in the social space together with major corporate players. See the valuable links below.

Reports from the Forum plus my own participation in SOBCon in Chicago a few weeks ago and last week’s Tech Policy Summit in Napa have focused my thinking on the question of “corporate culture.” It’s a term we use lightly though we know its import is huge. Many are the mergers that have failed for lack of matching cultures. Culture is an extraordinarily difficult thing to shift. It is difficult enough even to define. For a terrific book-length exploration, see my friend Naomi Stanford’s Corporate Culture: Getting it Right (published by The Economist). For the moment, a simpler reflection.

Let’s look at the two core aspects of the digital age in which we are working.

1. Change, innovation, Moore’s Law – the marks of products, markets, and the context for both are shifting; in many cases quickly, and in all cases faster than they have ever before. The more digital the effort, the faster the actual or potential change. We know this well. We forget it every day. It is more important, more disruptive, more full of potential value, than almost anyone has realized. Only by looking back will you see.

But the same tech revolution is bringing us answers.

2. The disruption of communications, marketing, sales, all aspects of the company’s interface with the wider world (and B2B as much as B2C, though that is not much grasped) is also the corrective. For the business significance of social is to open the steel barriers that we have erected around the organizational boundary to enable coming and going with that party for whom the entire enterprise exists: the customer. Not the customer as defined by marketing departments and product designers, by focus groups the kind of polling that still leaves most new launches a failure, but the actual customer, the end-user of the fruit of the business effort, that living, breathing, tweeting, Facebooking, always changing, creature in whose hands lies the power of success and disaster.

Social marketing has recognized this, even though it is in its infancy and we keep reading bizarrely unworldly statistics – like only 10% of CIOs are on Twitter, or the average Facebook page is only change twice a month, or 69% of B2B companies have no systematic way of tracking the gold dust which is social feedback (I’ve blogged about each of these; go search if you are interested). Point is, we are ambling along toward a social understanding of marketing and customer relations. We have hardly even noticed that the key to revamping corporate culture – the value holy grail in the context of disruptive change – lies also exactly here. For what social has begun to do is connect corporate culture with the culture of the market. And it is precisely in the alignment of those two that there lies competitive advantage.

http://www.socialbusinessforum.com/

http://www.socialfish.org/2012/06/can-social-business-reshape-the-organization.html

What social business is. And isn’t. | johnstepper.

#Facebook and the #IPO again . . . @Wadhwa ‘s latest salvo

Aside

Vivek Wadhwa has emerged as one of the sharpest critics of conventional wisdom at the meeting-point of innovation, business, and finance. As entrepreneur, biz school prof, and now leader at the NASA-hosted Singularity University, he has plenty of street cred. And he is also a ferocious writer.

His critique of the IPO model is timely, and Facebook offers an example too good not to address. As he points out, they now have $16bn on hand for new tech and acquisitions; on the other hand, they face market pressures to deliver profit and growth that in their innovative space will unquestionably be hard to reconcile with the “social” purpose they have set – and on which, a la Catch-22, hopes of long-term success probably lie.

I’m interested in examples of innovative financing and governance that straddle the IPO/private/acquisition/nonprofit standard options. I think they will emerge at the interface of social, social enterprise, and new technologies. Perhaps in Facebook’s successor.

Don’t get tangled in the IPO yarn – The Washington Post.

#Groupthink – public enemy number 1 as we face the future

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Nigel Cameron

Groupthink hasn’t worked, it’s time to embrace the maverick

Giving credence to the outlier thinkers in our midst might have avoided things like the Wall Street crash. Photo: AP

As the Arab spring continues to unravel into an Arab summer, the most important lesson is that hardly anyone knew it was coming. Much like the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Wall Street could it be that as much as conventional wisdom may be conventional it is not always reliably wise?

I recently hosted a conference in Washington on the future of nanotechnology. All kinds of experts were round the table talking tech and policy and business. Then one of them made a stunning statement. She was there on behalf of a big, mainstream environmentalist group. “I have never,” she stated, “been on such a diverse panel in Washington.”

There was a brief but palpable intake of air around the room. I thanked her for the compliment before adding that I was now more concerned for Washington than I was before.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Whom do we invite round the table when the questions are big and the stakes high? It tends to be those in the centre; the mainstream thinker whose wisdom is regarded as conventional.

When will we ever learn? We are still paying for the lesson we learned from Wall Street in 2008.

Conventional wisdom can be dead wrong, even in the hands of the smartest people because they tend to agree with each other. People with way-out views are kept at arm’s-length.

Whatever the issue, if your views deviate too far from the mean, however articulate you may be, you are unlikely to get invited, funded or promoted.

We have learned a lot this past generation about the value of diversity in age, gender, and ethnicity but we have learned little about the enormous and growing value of diversity of opinion.

Of course, we do disagree about a lot of things. With friends, and with co-workers. But we live in communities of ideas that set boundaries around acceptable diversity of thinking, and make sure we keep out those who challenge our shared assumptions.

We don’t want to rehash old issues we regard as closed. We don’t want to give room to opinions we find deeply objectionable – or threatening. Most of us find it challenging to take forward our thinking when there is someone in the room always, always asking why?

So our natural tendency is to put unconscious faith in Groupthink, the tendency for everyone’s thinking to move in the same direction to the exclusion of any serious questioning.

People in management know all about this as a problem for work groups and other teams. But it is more insidious and far more dangerous on the grand scale.

What brought Wall Street down, and with it threatened the entire global order? The G-word. And on smaller scales: what led Monsanto into huge losses in the late 1990s and ensured that Europe rejected genetically-modified food? What led Detroit to near-oblivion as they insisted on producing 1950s-style autos into the 21st century? What about the power company TEPCO and the nuclear disaster that the entirely predictable tsunami sparked in Japan?

Knowledge is building very fast, disciplines are converging, globalisation is changing the ground-rules of everything. Change powered by Moore’s Law, the digitisation process and the revolution in communication is driving shifts in the technical, economic and social order that most of us strain to grasp. Yet the faster change takes place and the greater its disruptive, innovative power, the harder it will be to make good choices.

So who should be party to the conversation? This is where the outliers come in; people who are articulate and serious, but outside the mainstream assumptions that generally drive conversations. Experts tend to resist the participation of thosewith unorthodox opinions. It needs to become the norm for them to sit round the table in every discussion. All articulate voices round the table; all the time.

This approach is hardly new. The century before last, US poet, essayist and journalist Walt Whitman asked the question his own way. “Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?” In the 21st century, great value lies at the extremities of opinion; and we need to harvest it as we move through change faster than we have ever known before.

First appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, June 9, 2011.