It happens time and time again.  It is the evolution we all see, but rarely acknowledge.

A person, or a group of people work hard and fail.  They don’t stop, but rather they try something new and they iterate.  They take what worked and capitalize on it and drop that which didn’t work.  And in time they are able to make some progress.  There are struggles which they plow through until one day they have created something new – a company, a concept, a persona, or an organization.  They are crowned as the “Next Big Thing” (which, just by the very nature of the phrase, foreshadows their eventual mediocrity by assuming that they will be replaced by a subsequent “Next Big Thing”).  They build themselves up and become a light which many others emulate.

But too often that is where they stop.  Take a company for example.  They build up a cutting edge workplace, create an incredible suite of products and services driven by revolutionary thinking, techniques and processes.  They are the envy of everyone.  But what they have built is to sustain what they have.  Sure, their plans are to grow, and often they do, but their organization starts to take a life of it’s own.  Rather than sustaining the cause for which it was built, the sustaining efforts slowly drift toward  the organization itself – to keep it alive.  As this happens, new processes, policies and management focus less and less on what made them successful in the first place, and more and more on what will keep the status quo.  In essence, that which has made them who they are – their ability to take risks and to trust others – diminishes.  A moment in time is attempted to be captured and sustained and guards are created to keep the organization alive.  By doing this, they deplete their main life blood and slowly – ever so slowly and imperceptibly – they start to shrivel.  Until, at some point, they are now the organization that is getting in the way of innovation and the one which others are jumping over as a “has been.”

Andrew McAfee wrote a post on why the Millenials won’t change the workforce.  Luis Suarez wrote a rebuttal saying why they will.  These are two of my favorite people to read and listen to.  Most of the time they agree – yet when they disagree, it is time to take a hard look as to why.

My examination of the situation leans me toward Andy’s explanation.  It was spawned by my own experience and study of the situation.  About 10 years ago I worked for a company that was up and coming.  Yet in a particular part of this company an organization was, in my estimation, mediocre at best.  In fact, at some times they were down right destructive.   In talking with another person in the company, we came up with the slogan, “This is MY company and I’m not going to let you mess it up!”  We wanted to show others that this is their company – they need to take responsibility and not just be an employee – and that if it was going to change, it was up to them.  So we typed up a few of these sayings and posted them in strategic places.

The signs went viral.  Others did the same and it was spread to other parts of the company in other geographic locations.  Did it help?  No.  But it sure made us feel better for a time.  Why didn’t it help?  Because the culture was already established.  A few people rarely can have a profound impact on established cultures.  There are definitely exceptions, but they are few and far between.

At that point, what are the choices?  A) Borg with them or B) try something new in a new direction.

And that happens all the time.  And this is why Millenials won’t have as much of an impact on established organizations as we would expect.  It is because the cultures, policies and processes which they join are so well established and many of the employees have willingly assimilated to them that it is almost impossible to break.

So, what do they do?  They build their own empire.  And THAT, my friends, is the gateway to change.  Instead of joining currently established cultures, they create their own and do things (sometimes) radically different.  Soon, established organizations take note of their fringe behavior and dismiss it as a fad.  Then, noticing the popularity they are interested.  Then they study it out. Then they try to integrate it into their cultures, but they often fail because their cultures are not flexible enough. If the attempt does fail, they dismiss it again and again proclaim it as a fad.  If it works (or if they fail but give it a try again) they try to duplicate it – but usually only with moderate success.  Few companies are flexible enough to effectively embrace anything not already rooted or aligned with their current cultures – even if it would be a benefit.

Now, back to those new empires.  What are they built on?  Think of a graph where an established business keeps, for the most part, a status quo – a straight horizontal line.  Customer (and employee) needs change and is another line below it, but constantly fluctuating.  If this established company cannot match the needs, a delta is created.  These new empires are the ones taking advantage of these deltas.

Wait!  Why didn’t those established companies with the resources and means match customer and employee needs?  It is because they have become so inflexible, rigid and they fear failure so much that is renders their organization incapable of being agile enough.  For all intents and purposes, THEY are the ones who are in the best position to take advantages of innovation.  Yet they have crippled themselves and left themselves wide open to powerful competition which marginalizes their effectiveness.

Blockbuster was in the wrong business.  They were in the business of renting videos when they should have been in the business of delivering entertainment to homes.  Because of this gap, Netflix and Redbox continues to bury them.

Do you want to start a new business or idea?  Find who is incapable of moving – regardless of their resources – and move where they cannot.  Who has focused so much on sustaining themselves that they have lost the vision of sustaining their intended mission?

Duh.  You would think that after all that I have read, all that I have practiced, all the classes and conference sessions and keynotes I have given, that I would have understood this point.  Yet I did not – at least fully.

There was something missing and it has been bothering me, but I never have let it stop me. (That is how I work.  I ‘feel’ what is right, even though I may not understand it fully and I go forward knowing that in the doing I will figure it out.)

Today, I get it – finally.  I have been giving a “Social Media/Networking 101″ class as an educational and evangelical tool.  In it, I explain the difference between Web 1.0, a Content Management System (CMS), Web 2.0, Social Media and Social Networking.  In my grid, the major difference between Web 1.0, Social Media and Social Networking, I point out, is the focus:  the first focuses on content, the second the people and the third, networking.

I then explain that focusing on content limits us.  It is the PEOPLE that hold the knowledge.  We can only do a Google search and find information that is already there.  But what if it is real time and the information is not there yet?  Or if the information we need is in a file folder on the desk, or on the local drive of a co-worker, or on a sticky note?  My point?  Link the people together (network) and they will share the knowledge.

Yet someone always has the concern: There is too much information out there already.  Why do we need to add more to it when we don’t use what we already have.  It is there that I talk about networking again.  Yet my answer, honestly, has never even satisfied myself.

Then this morning I read a post by Luis Suarez (a man to whom I owe much) and he NAILED it for me – again.  Luis pulled out a quote by David Weinberger:

“But the real problem with the information being provided to us in our businesses is that, for all the facts and ideas, we still have no idea what we’re talking about. We don’t understand what’s going on in our business, our market, and our world.

In fact, it’d be right to say that we already *know* way too much. KM isn’t about helping us to know more. It’s about helping us to understand. Knowledge without understanding is like, well, information.”

So, how do we understand things? From the first accidental wiener roast on a prehistoric savannah, we’ve understood things by telling stories. It’s through stories that we understand how the world works.”

Why Social Networking? To tell stories.  To make sense of the information we share.  To put it in context.  THAT is the value of Social Networking.  So many people dismiss the need to network in this way, yet again we see how critical it really is!

He also adds in this video, which only has 228 views.  It is so simply explained that it should have been viewed 100x more.

In this story, the first two scenarios, the person learned valuable information.  In the last scenario, he learned what to do with the valuable information, which is more valuable than all the preceding information put together!

It is almost a no-brainer – something I should have put together a long time ago and should have been able to explain.  I have danced around this explanation for a long time, but never quite nailing it.  Yet, as every human being on this small little planet, I am still learning.  And now that thing that has bothered me, because it was incomplete, bothers me no more.

Now I feel like I can present a rock solid argument if anyone tries to minimize the value of social networking in their organization.

Image via Wikipedia

Inspired by Luis Suarez and his “Giving up on email” quest, and the fact that I feel the need to more fully walk the talk, I am doing my part to eliminate the Outlook electrons.

Emails for this practise will only be counted from internal sources – I won’t be counting junk mail, vendor mail or outside non-work email that comes through my normal email (not that I would have any )  But if they come from another employee I will count them.  Those that I send will be counted as well.

Here is the break down (I always want to start beat boxing when I say “break down” for some reason).

I have never analyzed my emails before, but am happy to see that I receive less than I create.  You will notice that last week is not counted.  That is because I was experimenting to see if this would really work.  And I think it will!  Time will tell, but I am optimistic.

The first thing I did this morning was create a blog post and let everyone know what I am doing, and why.  One thing I have added in is that if someone want’s to get my attention with a particular discussion or wiki document, they should add my username to the tags.  My RSS feeds now pick up anything tagged with my username.

Below is a snippet of my post:

PROS:

• I don’t need to keep getting bombarded with emails every time someone replies. I can, if I want, see the culmination after a few people have chimed in. This cuts down on my viewing time and gives me back time I need.
• My days (and the tasks I do during the day) are not driven by my email. Rather, I spend longer times on one task and finish it, rather than being interrupted by many different tasks.
• I might be asking the wrong person a question and the right person (or someone who knows the answer) might see the information and give us the correct answer.
• I go to one place for all the information on the subject, not 10 different emails.
• Discussions / documents focus on one topic. Emails can branch out into other topics not related to the original. With all the emails, one can get lost and not quite find the information they are looking for later on.
• I can go back and actually find the conversation I had with someone else and remember why we decided what we did or the details of it rather than losing the email and guessing.
• If I ask a question, there is a good chance others have, or will have, the same question but now they will find the answer.
• If it is an announcement of some type, this elicits discussion – which is a big pro.
• Often what I do concerns projects. It is good to be able to go back and see what happened, when, what issues were worked through, what questions were asked, etc., for the next time.

CONS:

• I have never done this before. So it will be a change of how I do work. Assuming all goes well, this will turn into a pro.
• Those discussions will be out there. One may argue that it may ‘clog’ up GTSX (the name of our internal environment) with extra information that is not needed. But, again, if I have a question, someone, sometime will have the same question. So, again, it turns into a pro.

Now – why?  We can learn and share information more easily this way.  Natually, much of my offline communication has already gone this way.  In fact, I was commenting to my wife last night that I spend more time on my iPhone than I do our home computer.  A refreshing change!

Here is a SlideShare presentation on eliminating email.