Where It All Started

people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people.

How We Got To This Point

people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people.

The Only Way Out

people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people.

An Historical Perspective

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people! Here is a word-cloud of this complex topic:

The Future Of Organizational Change Management

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people.

The Moral For Organizational Change Practitioners

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people.

Disclaimer

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people.

Happy New Year!

In a recent article published in The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell underscores the cost of being first when it comes to introducing technological innovations. Gladwell’s original article is about the glorification of the genius of Steve Jobs. According to him, the genius of Jobs epitomizes the advantage of being late.

Another Look at the Industrial Revolution

Remember the Industrial Revolution? You know: that period in time that is popular to bash. Unfortunately, as we expose ourselves to the generalizations of history there is some fine research that we tend to overlook. Luckily there is Gladwell; a master in pointing out where we have it backward with our taken-for-granted causalities. As he reframes the genius of Steve Jobs he draws a parallel to the exceptional driving role that England played during the Industrial Revolution.

Gladwell explains that Jobs stole the basic idea of the mouse from PARC, introduced the iPod five years after the first MP3 players appeared, and came out with the iPhone 10 years into the smart phone era. That is because Jobs was not an inventor, but rather a ‘tweaker’. This term is based on the the reasearch of Ralf Meisenzahl and Joel Mokyr of the Northwestern University. They found out that, although England experienced a poorer development in education than other European countries, they did remarkably well in adopting the newest technologies.

Inventors versus Tweakers

Meisenzahl and Mokyr found that there were deep complementaries between two groups of key workers. The first is the relatively small group of people who actually invented things. The second is the somewhat larger group of highly skilled craftsmen who possessed the training and natural dexterity to actually carry out the “instructions”. According to them:

“The second group is critical. They had to implement – with a high degree of accuracy – the new recipes and blueprints that inventors wrote. This involved building the parts on a routine basis with very low degrees of tolerance for error while still being able to fill in the blanks when the instructions were inevitably incomplete. It was this technical competence of the British mechanical elite that was able to implement and tweak the great ideas and turn them into economic realities.”

“What counted most, however, were the characteristics of the top few percentiles of highly skilled mechanics and similar artisans.”

“Those who had the dexterity and competence to tweak, adapt, combine, improve, and debug existing ideas, build them according to specifications, but with the knowledge to add in what the blueprints left out were critical to the story.”

(these quotes were copied from the working paper titled: The Rate and Direction of Invention in the British Industrial Revolution: Incentives and Institutions)

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

Sure as hell, when Gladwell refers to this research there is a lesson in there. In a recent visit to the Creativity World Forum in Belgium last week he revealed three  reasons why he thinks this is important. They are:

1. The pace of innovation is always greater than our capacity to make sense of it. This reminds me of a wonderful quote of Bill Jensen: ‘Change all you want, just know that execution happens at the speed of making sense’.
2. The most valuable part of an innovation cycle is in the last mass-phase of the curve; and not in the head of the curve. This is where the tweakers ‘steal’ the blueprints of the inventors, add their vision of practical implementation and conquer the world with their tweaked version.
3. They who made the most of it were the ones with the least resources. Gladwell reminds us that Jobs was desperate, out of luck and out of money at the time of the biggest breakthroughs of Apple.

To summarize in Jobs’ own words: ‘Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish’. Forget about waiting for the perfect conditions.

Building further on the insights of gamification guru Gabe Zichermann, let’s dive a little deeper into the definition and its components. Last spring I had the opportunity to interview him on the Techguru conference in Brussels. In an amazing 40 seconds he unveils the essence of gamification.

The Definition

In fact, there are different definitions for gamification, depending on who you talk to.

The use of game mechanics/dynamics to drive game-like engagement and actions in non-game environments (e.g. work, education, exercise, etc.)
- Michael Wu

Inventing new work and business practices that engage employees, customers and consumers as effectively as a good game.
- Jane McGonigal

The process of using game thinking and game mechanics to solve problems and engage users.
- Gabe Zichermann

While all of these definitions demonstrate that it is about the use of game mechanics, I prefer to show all three of them because they use a slightly different emphasis. More precisely:

• That it’s about non-game environments (Wu)
• That it’s about engagement (McGonigal)
• That it’s about problem-solving (Zichermann)

Dynamics + Mechanics = A Process

As Zichermann pointed out in the above video it is essential to make a distinction between:

• Game dynamics: how we choose to think about the world, the way we solve problems, and how we interact with other people;
• Game mechanics: the tools we use to play games, such as points, levels, badges, leaderboards, challenges and rewards.

The art of finding the right mechanics to respond to the dynamics of a specific situation and creating a process over time is gamification. The below drawing shows some examples of how some mechanics respond best to some dynamics at hand (drawing based on this presentation of Michael Wu).

Game dynamics and mechanics are proving to be critical for the next generation of social networks. We will be witnessing a similar wave heading towards organizations with a delay of … well … ummmm … depends on how late your organization already is today in unlocking the potential of social media. As a rule of thumb: apply the same delay and the same change-pains caused by being a laggard.

Online collaboration is impregnating our world of work with new dynamics. What we will be experiencing in the workplace is a conflict between authority (i.e.: how our workplace is designed since the Industrial Revolution) and influence (how collaboration really works – despite the omnipresent paradigm of command-and-control).

Have a look at the lower part of the infographic. Social goals, feedback and recognition are the fuel of online collaboration and they are having a retro-active effect in the off-line / analog world. Thanks to the possibilities we are experiencing in the digital world we are now more open for using feedback, goals and recognition more often in the offline world. That is: more often than the mandatory ‘objectives-and-opinions-falling-out-of-the-sky‘ ritual every six months (aka: ‘performance review’ – a rose by any other name would definitely smell better).

We all know how performance reviews are soooooooo counterproductive, and we all know how much better we would be off without them. The digital economy has given us the alternative of collaboration (be it online or offline), and a new balance between control and co-creation is the next logical step – it’s called social validation, embedded into a social architecture.

But then again, we should never underestimate the gravitational power of culture and habits. Last week someone compared it to the enormous amount of energy it takes to propel the Space Shuttle out of the gravitational power of the earth. This goes to show that we may all be aware of the need for balancing control and co-creation, but getting there will require a lot of energy.

(I would like to thank @thebandbe for referring me to this great infographic)

When I started preparing the presentation titled ‘How can social media support you in your Me Inc journey?’ I had the feeling that I needed to make a quick manual for professionals to do their own branding on social networks. Something entertaining with no strings attached. However, as I progressed I realized that the engagement in social media for professionals is not a nice-to-have anymore. The internet has changed our economy, our society and also the way our brains work. I guess the real question is: ‘Can you still afford not to use social media?’

1997: ‘Me Inc’ is Called into Existence

In 1997 Tom Peters coined the term ‘Me Inc’, and this was the theme of the community event I was presenting. According to Peters:

Being CEO of Me Inc. requires you to act selfishly — to grow yourself, to promote yourself, to get the market to reward yourself. Of course, the other side of the selfish coin is that any company you work for ought to applaud every single one of the efforts you make to develop yourself. After all, everything you do to grow Me Inc. is gravy for them: the projects you lead, the networks you develop, the customers you delight, the braggables you create generate credit for the firm. As long as you’re learning, growing, building relationships, and delivering great results, it’s good for you and it’s great for the company.

Regardless of whether you are fertilizing your Me Inc within the boundaries of an employer or whether you are farming your own Me Inc fields, the point is that you are your own HR manager when you travel that path. You are the one who decides how your own ‘human resourcefullness‘ gets spent. Have a look at the below slides to see how I linked this fundamental insight to what is going on today in the new world of work.

2011: Same Insights, Different Sense of Urgency

14 years ago – when Tom Peters started to talk about Me Inc – being your own HR manager was still a weird thing to think or talk about. Today the digital economy has flipped the laws of gravity, certainly when it comes to balancing trust and control. On top of that, online social networking platforms have added a layer of literacy on top of our intelligence.

Now it gets even worse: the platforms of which we thought that they would be restricted to desperate housewives and couch surfing teenagers are going mainstream. To make things worse: with the velocity of a puck on a icehokey field the collaboration pattern of social media will begin to influence the core business processes of our organizations. And that is why I changed the title of this presentation. Think I’ll do that more often.

Why Your Boss is Grumpy

In a new study, researchers at USC, Stanford Graduate School of Business, and the Kellogg School of Management have found that individuals in roles that possess power but lack status have a tendency to engage in activities that demean others. According to the study, “The Destructive Nature of Power Without Status,” the combination of some authority and little perceived status can be a toxic combination.

Have a look at the correlation that was found between hierarchical power and status (image copied directly from the article):

The researchers predicted that when people have a role that gives them power but lacks status then it can lead to demeaning behaviors. In their own words:

“Put simply, it feels bad to be in a low-status position and the power that goes with that role gives them a way to take action on those negative feelings.”

Apparently this is one of the first studies that focuses on the relationship between power and status – two elements that have typically been looked at in isolation. To quote the researchers:

“The idea that power always corrupts may not be entirely true. Just because someone has power or, alternatively, is in a low status role does not mean they will mistreat others. Rather, power and status interact to produce effects that cannot be fully explained by studying only one or the other basis of hierarchy.”

To summarize, this may just be why you boss is so grumpy all day: feeling unimportant and unrespected in a powerful position. A hug may help – who knows?

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

So now you know why your poor boss is so grumpy – high in authority, but low in influence – it’s time to make that grin disappear from your face. The bad news is that things will only get worse with the rise of social media. My prediction is that the gap between influencers (high in status) who are low in rank (low in power) on the one hand, and command-and-control bosses (low in status and high in power) will get bigger. Have a look at the image below:

You may still think that social media are only changing the marketing and sales part of our organizations, but it goes deeper than that. People have acquired a new form of literacy called online collaboration and the relationships and bonding that happens in so-called communities is tribal (based on co-creation), rather than hierarchical (based on compliance). This is what is currently being played out in an organizational context and it defines the tension between the so-called gen X, gen Y and the gen ‘what-have-you’s.

Connecting Some Dots

Reading through these studies and jumping to premature conclusions as I did in the drawing above is an excellent way for me to connect some dots. If – as a reader – you have gotten this far, you may want to check out the three following links. The point is that middle management will be the first who will suffer from this clash. Of all functions in an organization theirs is the most structured, defined and driven by command-and-control.

Organizations who are to make the best of it in the face of this clash between influence and authority should be thinking about a new form of organizing called Social Architecture, and a new form of recognition called Social Validation.

A few months ago I bumped into Wouter Vermeulen, a friend with whom I worked on fund-raising activities in the past for Third World countries. We were college students then and after some talking it seemed that both of us are still working on social responsibility and fundraising activities.

Partnerships of Sustainability

Wouter agreed to do this one-minute-interview, which turned out to be about the future of social responsibility. He believes in partnerships of corporate social responsibility as the next step for a more sustainable world. A lot of companies have been putting a great deal of effort into corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Yet, we are now finding that they are touching a ceiling of ‘how much more sustainable can we get?’

Instead of falling into an unhealthy cycle of corporate anorexia (being more sustainable than sustainable), Vermeulen suggests that we should be looking at the next level of corporate responsibility: partnerships.

The Answer to ‘How’ is ‘Why’

Partnerships for corporate responsibility require a mental change: instead of being the best (or ‘most sustainable’) one should aspire to become the platform for sustainability to reach its next level. It’s a subtle change with far-reaching consequences:

• Being the most sustainable puts you in a competition of sustainability. Even when you are the leader of the pack, the solution will be sub-optimal for the complete landscape of companies;
• On the other hand, being the platform for sustainability puts you in a position of leadership where ‘winning’ no longer is a zero-sum game. There is no such thing as ‘competition’ in that case, and success can only be achieved if partnerships are solid and focussed on a common goal.

The next step is to build platforms for exchanging and sharing know-how between these public and private actors. One can only do so by looking at the entire supply chain and the entire lifespan of a product or a service.

Big Deal?

Upon reviewing this video I was struck with the idea that this may be where the real future of ‘social’ is heading. Unfortunately the noise and the speed of all the developments of social media and social networks are not giving us any time to pause, breathe and reflect on the real question: ‘Why?’ and ‘Where is this al leading to in the long run?’

The so-called ‘social media revolution’ and the impact on companies has led me to write about Social Architecture, i.e.: a new balance between hierarchy and communities. Wouter’s point on partnerships underscores that social architecture is only a temporary form and not an end in itself.

In the long run, social architectures will facilitate a kind of organizational ‘osmosis‘ that is necessary to get to the next level: partnerships of sustainability. Therefore I firmly believe that the future is to those who invest in platforms of sustainability.

I hope someday you’ll join us. And the world will live as one. (John Lennon)

I have reason to believe that Google is getting a little fat around the edges. The king of search, the emperor of email, the god of maps seems to have lost its beginner’s attitude: the conviction that it is better to be fast than perfect. Things will get clearer if you put on the 3D glasses of the Hype Cycle on top of the bell-shaped diffusion of innovations curve.

The Hype Cycle

The hype cycle is an interesting graph that shows how a certain technology matures and gathers market share. It was coined by Gartner in 1995 and has gained popularity ever since in order to position new technological hypes and to predict when they will mature.

As you can see in the below graph, the hype cycle typically counts five stages:

It gets more interesting when we add some 3D effect to this cycle by adding the bell-shaped innovation graph and see how they connect.

The Diffusion of Innovations

in a 1962 book called The Diffusion of Innovations, Everett Rogers stated that adopters of any new innovation or idea could be categorized on a classic bell-shaped curve as described here:

• Innovators (2.5 %) Venturesome, educated, multiple information sources, greater propensity to take risk;
• Early Adopters (13.5%) Social leaders, popular, educated;
• Early Majority (34%) Deliberate, many informal social contacts;
• Late Majority (34%) Skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status;
• Laggards (16%) Neighbors and friends are main information sources, fear of debt.

Rogers found out that this diffusion – and these proportions form a reliable pattern. Building further on Rogers’ observations, Geoffrey Moore’s key insight is that the groups adopt innovations for different reasons. According to Moore, early adopters are technology enthusiasts looking for a radical shift, while the early majority wants a productivity improvement. Both groups are divided by a chasm.

Moore’s observations tell us where the real challenge lies: crossing the chasm; i.e.: winning the hearts and minds of the 85% who want solutions and convenience. The problem in crossing the chasm is that the visionaries aren’t good references for the pragmatists. They provide tales of heroics. Pragmatists want references from other pragmatists.

Putting it All Together

The below graph shows how the Hype Cycle and the diffusion of innovation fit together: pragmatists tap into the possibilities of a product that seems to work. This is where Facebook was last year when it got ‘mainstream’.  The hype got onto the slope of enlightenment pretty fast.

However, since the beginning of this year we have seen that even conservative people started opening a Facebook account. Facebook has gotten beyond the Tipping Point and has reached the so-called plateau of productivity. But there is one thing that happens when a technology has reached this plateau. The ovule is impregnated. The platform is claimed and granted. The winner is ‘entitled’. The race is over.

In the below graph I have made a checklist to show what this means in the market of social networks. As game designer Seth Priebatsch already told us more than a year ago, this race WAS already over because last decade was the decade of the social fabric, where “the framework in which we connect with other people” was built. This means it’s ‘game over’ for any other competitor trying to claim the platform. Conservatives are being converted. The concrete is getting dry. So why on earth would Google want to enter that market? A better product? Sorry, that’s no longer working.

Now, have a look at the lower part of the above graph because this is where Google should have been: the so-called gamification of its maps. There we can see that Foursquare has taken some leadership. Fourquare has a game-like feel so you unlock badges and earn points each time you check in somewhere. Very addictive. You can even become the ‘mayor’ of somewhere when you check in enough times. You can also make recommendations about the places you are, like recommending a dish in a restaurant. Your tip will be visible to others as they check in this place.

Nevertheless, they had to start from zero: no crowdsourced maps that existed already, no address books and contacts lists. Just one simple thing: a beginner’s mindset and the first-mover advantage. Facebook Places was a competitor in this check-in gaming segment (this very sentence is outdated as I am writing this – see below).

But where is Google in this segment? They are already too late. Chances are that Foursquare will be reaching the conservatives population for this technology, and once they do that it’s ‘game over’ for all the others: the platform is claimed. And granted. That’s how the digital economy of ‘being a platform’ seems to work: claim the conservatives before your competitor does.

Time-to-market Matters

If there is one lesson for a giant such as Google to remember from this failure (although this is still a speculation) than it is that time-to-market is more important than having a superior product. Truth be told: Google+ is a product that possesses way more potential than Facebook. It is better organized, better integrated with your contacts and I wouldn’t be surprised that it’d be more stable.

The problem is that they were too late to enter the market. The below graph shows what happened to Google+: the main competitor for the social framework had already entered the Red Zone. When this happens, the conservatives make sure that the chasm becomes un-bridgable for any other competitor. Forget about becoming a platform once your competitor reached the conservatives before you!

The Moral

What we can learn from the battle for the social framework is that it is better to be fast (Facebook) than to be the best (Google+). Are you entering a new market? Where are your competitors? In the Green Zone? Then you’d better get up and fight that battle!

On the other hand, if your competitors are in the Grey or Red Zone, think it over. By the way, Facebook seems to be smarter in quitting the wrong stuff, because as I am writing this very article, they have appeared to have given up the Facebook Places. Could this be a first sign of Foursquare reaching the Red Zone?

Leadership is overrated. Period. The first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader.

(thanks to the Stokke for pointing me to this video)