emergencemarketing.com

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Join us on March 11th for a webinar with three leading voices in small business – including Anita Campbell from Small Business Trends, John Jantsch from Duct Tape Marketing, and John Field from Career Renegade for a Webinar.

Topic: No Time, No Budget, Fewer People? 5 Big Ideas for getting all that work done.

Hosting: The AppGap blog, an editorially independent thought leadership blog sponsored by Intuit.

Venue and registration: You can register here (https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/585901512).

With tens of thousands of layoffs announced every week, the “workplace survivors” left behind are faced with doing more work with fewer resources.   What new thinking, strategies and tools can help teams work smarter, pre-empt personal burn out and help their companies weather the storm?  In this webinar you’ll learn about 5 ideas you can put to work today from 3 leading voices in small business , marketing , and career strategies.

In this webinar you will learn:

1. How to automate what you hate — tasks and processes that are time sucks you never noticed or didn’t know you could offload to new tools
2. How going virtual can help — prudent outsourcing can make more sense than ever
3. Why getting “social” at work is good for business — seek technology applications with social media features and that connect you with communities that can provide speedy answers, serve as “free” extensions of your team, connect you to customers faster
4. Why and how to reframe how you think about your job — advice for doing more of what matters and less of what doesn’t
5. How to get your head in the cloud — move more work to the web and save more time and money

Attendees will also have the opportunity to win one of 10 copies of the panelists’ books, signed by the authors.

We hope you can join us.

In reading the book The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Heidt I came across an important element that makes ultrasocial societies work – reciprocity.

Heidt defines ultrasociality as: living in large cooperative societies in which hundreds of thousand of individuals reap the benefits of an extensive division of labor. Only four instances of ultrasociality are in existence – among hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps), termites, naked mole rats, and humans. In all species but humans the force that makes that possible is the genetics of kin altruism. In an ants nest or a bee nest, everybody is brother and sister, and since you have as much genes in common with your siblings as you have with your children, the evolutionary drive to leave surviving copies of your genes makes those ultrasocial communities work – shared genes equals shared interest.

In societies that are not structured like bee or ant colonies, the shared set of genes that you have with others drops off rather dramatically – while you share 50% of the genes with your children and siblings, you only share 1/8 the genes with your cousins, and 1/32 with second cousins. In a strictly Darwinian calculation, you would only spend as much energy to save 4 of your cousins as you would for 1 child or brother. That is why kin altruism explains only how groups of a few dozen, or perhaps a hundred, animals can work together. The rest would be competitors in the Darwinian sense.

So what happened to human societies? How did we get fictitious families, like the Mafia, where there is no real kinship, even though they talk about the Godfather and being part of the “family”, to work as ultrasocial societies? It’s the old fashioned “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” phenomenon – which is in fact a mindless and automatic reciprocity reflex. if someone receives a favor, that person will be driven to repay that favor – not because it the proper thing to do – but because it is a built-in ethological reflex. It’s tit-for-tat, hardwired in our brains, that opens the possibility of forming cooperative relationships with strangers. Now mind you that tit-for-tat can only explain the existence of social groups up to a few hundreds. What allows larger social groups is its co-existence with vengeance, gratitude and gossip as tools that reduce the payoff to cheaters by the cost of making enemies.

Those very primitive hardwired human behaviors confirm a lot about what makes online communities work as well – the importance of reputation, the importance of self-organized posses to police communities, the importance of helping one another as a currency, and the failure of communities where reciprocity is not an integral component of the community.

At last week’s Web 2.0 workshop and also with some clients recently I started noticing how people mix up communities and work teams – a distinction which I think is worth making.

Work teams work on projects which have a beginning and end, they usually have well-defined roles in those project, and they get paid for doing that work – it’s their job. To use Dan Ariely’s metaphore, they are evaluating what they do and how much they contribute in their market framework.

Communities are mostly self-organized around a shared passion or around the need for people to help others and be helped. There are few pre-defined roles, and people usually do not get paid to participate – it’s not their job. In the most successful communities, people evaluate their contributions in their social framework.

So why is that important? Because they require radically different motivators in order to work.

Take an innovation initiative within a company. There may be a core set of people in marketing and product development whose job it is to innovate. If at some point you want to externalize that innovation process to include communities with all your employees, customers and prospects, you will need to understand that the motivations of those communities are very different from those of your core innovation team. It’s not their job to innovate and they are likely to be very busy as it is. You could of course pay them to give you ideas, but considering the incentives usually used in communities that is more likely to result in poor ideas than good ones. In order for this to work you need to appeal to a higher social motive – like helping out.

Now if you can instill a higher level of passion in your regular work teams, they too will start performing at a much higher level…

In reading Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, authored by multiple authors (more detailed comments from the book coming soon – definitely a good and recommended read), I came across this interesting set of studies that look at the impact of the “conspiracy of silence” that reigns in many organizations.

One study focused on hospitals, and looked at how the conspiracy of silence held in place powerful norms that kept people from speaking up when colleagues violated hygiene, safety or any other protocol – leading to unnecessary deaths. Take those numbers – 84% of doctors have seen co-workers taking shortcuts that could be dangerous to patients, yet fewer than 10% of physicians, nurses and other clinical staff directly confront their colleagues about their concerns. The main drivers leading to this type of culture in hospitals are the risks of lawsuit and infamy. You can find more on that study at www.silencekills.com.

Another study looked at other industries and found that the same code of silence sustains unhealthy behavior across the board. The vast majority of product launches, reorganizations, mergers and improvement initiatives fail or dissapoint because of it. In fact, the researchers found that 91% of all large scale corporate projects collapse because people fail to speak up and be heard. They argue that a deadly form of corporate silence lies at the root of all failed projects. Project problems are in fact people problems. For more information about that project and to download the findings of the study, go to www.silencefails.com.

Most of us have been in organizations where it is politically unacceptable to speak openly about what is going wrong – only to see projects fail because of weak sponsorship, unreasonable constraints, unmotivated team members, or plain old politics. It is sort of ironic that while not speaking up will eventually kill the organization in which you work and thus your current job prospect – it is job preservation that drives this behavior.

What most organizations do not realize is that this is not based on individual behavior, but rather on social behavior. Fixing this problem will not happen by focusing on changing individual behavior first, but instead by changing the social norms that drive the social behavior – and that is not a trivial task.

I had the pleasure to meet JP Rangaswami in person last week, who I had invited to speak as a keynote speaker at the FASTForward ‘08 conference. He spoke of the three main forces that are causing a powershift towards the individuals within the enterprise.

The first one is that of youth versus expertise. In this day and age, expertise is no longer connected to age, and while that is causing a fair amount of friction between the geeks and the geezers, it is an inevitable force that is driving change.

The second one is the democratization of participation. No longer is participation elitist, no longer do you need to ask for permission – the amateur hour has arrived.

The last one is that FAST is the new GOOD. Releasing alpha software, having perennial betas is the new way of doing business.

While there is major resistance to all those forces, combined they will cause a massive transformation within the enterprise. Combined with the powershift which already took place between companies and their customers, they could very well alter the way we think of firms forever.

The latest issue of McKinsey Quarterly has an article on the “The next revolution in interactions” (here – requires subscription). In it they describe the changing nature of the worker and explore what it will take to improve productivity in the future – both from an organizational point of view as well as from a technology deployment standpoint.

They separate the workforce into three categories:

• transformational workers (miners, farmers, manufacturing workers) – who either extract raw materials or transform them. They made up a majority of the workers at the turn of the last century. By the turn of the 21st century they only made up 15% of the workforce in the US
• transactional workers – those are the people whose jobs involve routine transactional interactions. They include not just clerical and accounting jobs, but also IT specialists, auditors, biochemists, etc. Their jobs are very much rules-based and in many cases have been automated or outsourced. At the turn of century they still made up about 44% of the workforce.
• tacit workers – those are workers whose jobs involve complex interactions – those involving ambiguity and requiring high levels of judgment. They are not rules-based and cannot easily be automated or outsourced. At the turn of the century they made up 41% of the jobs, but had been growing 2.5 times faster than the transactional jobs and 3 times faster than employment in in the entire national economy.

So put another way, 70% of all the jobs created between 1998 and 2004 were tacit jobs that require judgment and experience! And their pay is 55-75% higher than that of transactional and transformational workers. And as mentioned before, the main reason the balance has been tipping is that all other jobs can easily be automated or outsourced.

Of course, those companies that can make this tacit workforce more productive will gain a key competitive advantage – one, which according to the article, will potentially be long term one, as the solutions to make this happen will be difficult to duplicate and best practices will be hard to transfer from one company to the next.

The article continues by saying that the first change that companies need to do to increase tacit worker productivity is to rethink their organizational structures:

“There is no road map to show them how to do so. Over time, innovations and experiments to raise the productivity of tacit employees (for instance, by helping them collaborate more effectively inside and outside their companies) and innovations involving loosely coupled teams will suggest new organizational structures.”

Does that finally mean the end of hierarchical pyramids and the emergence of new models of governance and management? I sure hope so…

Technology is the other place where companies will have to look to improve productivity of the tacit worker. Here again, the authors of the article rightfully warn that:

“First, the way companies deploy technology to improve the performance of the tacit workforce is very different from the way they have used it to streamline transactions or improve manufacturing. Machines can’t recognize uncodified patterns, solve novel problems, or sense emotional responses and react appropriately; that is, they can’t substitute for tacit labor as they did for transactional labor. Instead machines will have to make tacit employees better at their jobs by complementing and extending their tacit capabilities and activities.”

They identify three areas where technology can be deployed – those technologies that eliminate or reduce the low value transactional interactions which the tacit workers perform, those technologies that help them make better decisions, and those technologies that will extend the reach of their tacit interactions, both inside and outside the company (loosely coupled collaborative tools).

Very interesting times we live in… And to me, it’s fascinating to see how all this loss of jobs to automation and outsourcing is actually resulting in new jobs that pay 55-75% more and in new long term corporate competitive advantages that have not been seen in decades!

If only the government could realize the importance of schooling and education in this country, I would feel good about the future.

[Technorati Tags: work worker interactions]