Comments (12)

By Dan Pontefract, 09/15/2009 10:50 PM

I knew things were starting to go a little 2.0 crazy when our 3^rd child (and second daughter) was being referred to as Claire 2.0 by family, friends, etc.

Her actual name is Cate. (the oldest is Claire)

So how are we to make sense of this 2.0 landscape when everything seems to be coined 2.0 these days?

First of all, we should thank our lucky stars for Marcia Conner. She has recently written about this and does far better than I ever could to succinctly decipher the history, rationale and inanity of such a moniker.

That being stated, and for purposes of furthering my argument (and many others: see Hamel, Malone, Tapscott, etc.) that organizations need to flatten and become community connected in heterarchical structure, I’d like to take a stab at defining some key examples and implications for HR and the Org using (ironically) the 2.0 flavour of the month terminology.

As described in this post “HR in a 2.0 World: Leading vs. Following”, the 2.0 components that will help an organization evolve into this future world, and permit HR to lead versus follow include:

• Web 2.0
  • Definition:
    • collaborative technologies that facilitate sharing of expertise, ideas, etc.
  • HR & Org Implication:�
    • Web 2.0 train has left the station; failure to get on will be disastrous if culture is to actually evolve and HR/Leaders want to understand their employees
• Enterprise 2.0
  • Definition (via Andrew McAfee):
    • the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers
  • HR & Org Implication:
    • Enterprise 2.0 is the use of Web 2.0 concepts in an organization; thus, failure to drive its introduction may result in redundant platforms/processes & confused employees
• Learning 2.0
  • Definition:
    • the shift from a predominantly formal instructor-led/eLearning model to one that encompasses formal, informal and social learning methodologies
  • HR & Org Implication:
    • organizational culture can evolve via a strong learning ecosystem; to continue with antiquated ‘spray and pray’ formal only training models is akin to GM’s 2011 automobile lineup being full of SUV’s
• Work 2.0
  • Definition:
    • the shift from a 9-5 workday to a flexible workweek inclusive of work location (ie. home, shared workspace, coffee shops, etc.)
  • HR & Org Implication:
    • the performance of an individual should be measured not on when they are in the office or present in their cubicle; rather, on the end result and its merits for the organization itself (whenever the deliverables are accomplished)
• Culture 2.0
  • Definition:
    • the shift from a white ivory tower hierarchical / manage by fear structure to one that is wirearchical, heterarchical, flat, connected and community-driven
  • HR & Org Implication:
    • employees are seeking to belong, to be heard, and to be a part of something; the ‘just a number’ culture has died and failure to recognize this will result in difficult retention and attraction outcomes
• People 2.0
  • Definition:
    • employees (people) will seek out an employer that provides an experience, a second family, a place to feel valued; the new ‘employee’ will not be institutionalized
  • HR & Org Implication:
    • attracting this type of talent will go far beyond advertisements in a newspaper; retaining the talent will be even harder if other aforementioned 2.0 concepts are not upheld

Comments (1)

By Dan Pontefract, 06/24/2009 5:48 PM

There are organizations in this world that ‘get it’, there are those that are figuring it out, and there are those that just can’t see the light.

I’m referring to the tsunami of change concerning the way in which people expect to operate, not just inside the corporate walls, but as good ole human beings.

You may argue that Gary Hamel and Thomas Malone were (or are) ahead of their time. In each of their revolutionary (and obviously evolutionary) books (The Future of Management and The Future of Work), the underlying principle is that in order to drive results, innovation, productivity and efficient use of time, the organization needs to become flat.

Malone states ““As managers, we need to shift our thinking from command and control to coordinate and cultivate — the best way to gain power is sometimes to give it away.”

Hamel opines “… management and organizational innovation often lags far behind technological innovation. Right now, your company has 21st-century, Internet-enabled business processes, mid-20th-century management processes, all built atop 19th-century management principles. Without a transformation in our management DNA, the power of the Web to transform the work of management will go unexploited.”

But in reality, it’s not just about the organizational structure. I believe, in order to achieve a Work 2.0 mantra in the workplace, we need to combine our thinking around structure, systems and culture.

Structure refers to the aforementioned ‘flat-based hierarchy”, or heterarchy. (perhaps wirearchy as Jon Husband coined)

Systems are the actual technologies AND processes that allow the structure to happen. If the systems and processes are in fact segregated, decoupled or found in silos themselves, one will never achieve the Work 2.0 vision.

Culture is a little tricky, as one might argue this is in fact the Work 2.0 vision itself, but in reality, an organization has to help formally shape the culture, in an unconscious way. Culture gets a bad reputation in many circles, but think of it as an organizational philosophy. (ie. it’s encouraged to ask questions, it’s ok to have differing opinions, share everything you know, etc.) I do like Michael Idinopulos’ opinion on culture not being a starting point. The culture (or philosophy) is part of the overall Work 2.0 mix.

By combining the structure (ie. management flattening aspects) with the systems and culture, I think you’d see organizations a lot healthier, and ready for future challenges, particularly as Gen X and Millenials take on more responsibilities within the org.