Social Networking, Engagement, and Change; Are They All Related?

The last few weeks have been very interesting. I continue to marvel at the stories I hear about communications, information, engagement, management practices and a host of related issues.
As you all know I think engagement is the most compelling productivity and profitability strategy since the industrial revolution. I just got what I believe to be some validation from an article I read on BNET summarizing and interview with Daniel Pink.

In the interview Pink talked about why "right brain" thinkers who are skilled at communications, empathy and related skills will "rule the world" and that how "left brain" thinkers especially in English speaking countries could find themselves "commoditized".
His thinking is that many of the highly linear "systematized" left brain skills like accounting, engineering, mathematics, and related activities are relatively easy to transfer cross culturally especially if the "language" barrier is not a factor. He went on to point out that in the very near future the largest population of highly educated, linear thinkers may be in India, not the U.S. or other "English speaking" countries.

He argues that the skill sets that are and will be in high demand are those with creating alignment with ideas, seeing the big picture and being able to articulate in a powerful way to others, and the skills of empathy and engagement. He points out in his research that this may be why many business leaders educational backgrounds are in liberal arts rather than "technical" disciplines.

As you know I strongly believe that the most critical factor in successful organizations is relationships, so you can see why Pink's thinking resonates with me.

I have had the opportunity of late to talk with two different executive groups about what I perceive as the critical link between engagement and social networks. As I mentioned in a previous blog - Tell Me a Story; I see social networking in some ways as returning to our old oral traditions, passing along information person to person.

In some ways just as the Industrial Revolution damaged the social contract and concept of personal competency it largely shifted control over the flow of information to "management". Mainstream media contributed to that phenomena, to quote my friend John Mayer again " when they control the information...". Social networking has returned control in some ways to the individual.

In the "new" engagement model discussed by Rhoads and Whitlark, BlessingWhite, and others they describe the highest level of engagement as being pride of association. You have moved past a transactional relationship with your employees, customers, and other stakeholders to sharing a set of ideals. Is it just me or can others see why using social media appropriately and effectively contributes to this?

As a corollary I continue to be dumbfounded by organizations that do dumb things and some how assume that their actions aren't going to show up on a blog site, and in a big damn hurry! Do we think that our customers, employees, and future employees live on Mars where they can't access that information?

I hear stories about organizations that are perceived as using the recession to practice some pretty Draconian human resource practices; Do they really think this isn't going to show up on Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc? Do they really not believe that when the economy recovers that those memories will evaporate? That is the corporate equivalent of the kid not believing his naked beer bong pictures on MySpace affected his interview possibilities!

It is interesting to see what social media is doing in a fundamentalist country like Iran. Do we really believe the Ayatollah is just trying to play well with others?

So I guess my perspective is that indeed there is a relationship between these phenomena. They all come down to the need to build and sustain trust based relationships.

We have already discussed the link between engagement and productivity, sustainability, and profitability. We have seen the power of social media to distribute information (sometimes even accurately) in almost blinding speed. We have also heard that one of the single biggest reason change initiatives and strategies fail is because they aren't properly communicated.

Sounds to me like Pink is right, math and science aren't the answer this time. It's going back to systemic big picture thinking, creating a bridge for people, and trust. Daunting, but not un-doable.

The Ides of April

Maybe it is a desperate desire for Spring to really arrive or watching the roller coaster of the market, but I sense a need and an opportunity for change.

Once again I have had an opportunity to do some reading and a lot of thinking. A while back I had the opportunity to participate in a survey/study on what makes Human Resources an effective business partner. I just got the results and they weren't terribly surprising to me. The authors wisely pointed out that many of the suggestions regarding HR as a function related to other "staff" functions as well. The big three certainly do:

• Your function needs to exist in the context of the larger organization. Great HR systems, accounting systems, etc do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be integrated into the business. For those of you in an agency or not for profit the business is achieving the organizational mission. The fact that the objective is not a return to shareholders doesn't give us an excuse not to perform effectively and efficiently.
• You need to be value added. It is easy to hide behind compliance or other rules and regulations to explain to our customers why they can't do what they believe they need and want to do. If it was always easy they wouldn't need us. I like to think that when I was involved as an internal HR practitioner I saw myself as a consultant. My job was to provide technical expertise and facilitation to my "clients". When I say facilitation that's what I mean as well. Human resources is a function not a department. We should be sure that management and leadership of our organization both possesses and demonstrates core competency in things like setting expectations, giving feedback, and even administering compensation. Those are tools we should be providing to them, not doing for them.
• Own your space. By this I mean that you need to see yourself as an organizational peer and make sure you have the credibility to pull it off. That means that as well as competency in your discipline you need to be competent about your business. You don't get a seat at the table by either waiting to be invited or by not being able to contribute as a thought partner when you are invited to play.

I also had an opportunity to read a blog post by Stanley Bing on BNET. Like Jeffrey Pfeffer, Bing takes the "mba's" to task. He points out that much of our graduate business education is based on theoretical statistical models and systems; many of which he believes and I agree got us where we are today. We love systems and technology in the U.S. and they are valuable tools if they are used to empower people. Too often they are not, they are vehicles to reduce headcount or costs.

It was interesting, I was having a discussion with my son the other day about our current economic situation with a focus on Detroit. He informed me that a big part of the issue was the lack of personal accountability for the work performed by individuals and protected by the unions. I remember being his age and believing that as well; until I had an opportunity to work in a collective bargaining environment that fully embraced the philosophy of capitalism and Frederick W. Taylor. For those of you that don't remember, Taylor was the "father" of scientific management, the concept that managers manage and workers do what they are told. Add to that the Calvinist concept of pre-destination and you have a kind of industrial elitism that still exists in many industries and organizations.

I am not an apologist for the UAW, but our history of not so benevolent autocracy contribute significantly to the history of labor relations in America.

I think it is telling that we still call the skills surrounding understanding behavior and people "soft" skills while managing machines, systems, and numbers are "hard" skills.

You have heard me and others talk about the return on investment from creating truly engaged organizations. It would seem many of the skills required to do this are "soft" skills.

For those of you that are in the HR profession or other related areas that would be interested in the results of my colleagues study, drop me an email and I would be glad to forward you the summary.

As always your comments and thoughts appreciated.