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 (7)

By Dan Pontefract, 09/13/2009 10:25 AM

Dave Ulrich is right when he says “HR holds the key to an organization’s future success”, but alas, I believe that this prophecy will only ring true if HR itself becomes ambassadors of a 2.0 world.

Recently I delivered a presentation to roughly 100 leaders in and amongst the HR ranks.

3 key points I raised included:

• The “2.0 Train” has already left the station; HR better be in the engine car and not the caboose/brake van
• HR cannot be followers in the 2.0 world; they must be pioneers AND shepherds of the vision
• 2.0 for HR is not solely about technology … it can be defined as follows:

Each of these six “2.0” components have a very specific purpose and thus outcome, but it’s the HR function itself that needs to ensure they are all tightly aligned so that we can actually achieve an Organization 2.0 vision.

NOTE: I will describe my own personal thoughts for each of these six “2.0″ components shortly – stay tuned.

In a way, Don Tapscott and Tammy Erickson over at nGenera might refer to this as Collaborative Enterprise Management. Maybe it’s aligned to Jon Ingham and the Human Capital Management strategies he suggests.

Either way and whatever theorem or concept you seem to fancy, the HR function has to get out in front of the 2.0 wave and lead it throughout the org. Quite possibly, it will find itself becoming redundant if it doesn’t.

Comments (1)

By Dan Pontefract, 08/30/2009 4:56 PM

If you haven’t heard of Marshall McLuhan, well you’re simply missing out on one of Canada’s most innovative minds.

Derrick de Kerckhove, Director of the McLuhan Program of Culture and Technology at the University of Toronto since 1983 wrote McLuhan for Managers in 2003. Shamefully, I didn’t know about the book until this year, courtesy of Jon Husband.

In the book, Derrick (and co-author Mark Federman) introduce the Laws of Media through a tetrad:

• Extend (what does the artefact enhance or intensify or make possible or accelerate)
• Obsolesce (what is pushed aside by the new organ)
• Retrieve (what older, previously obsolesced ground is brought back and inheres in the new form)
• Reverse (what is the reversal potential of the new form)

Harold Jarche has written about the tetrads and applied it to commons-based peer production. I’m sure there are others out there as well.

As I unplugged for almost 4 weeks during the summer, I began mentally noodling what the tetrads may look like in terms of a Learning 2.0 philosophy. I define Learning 2.0 in a corporate learning setting as follows:

• Philosophy – shifting from training is an event, to learning is continuous, connected & collaborative. (simply put – moving from solely formal classroom and eLearning, to formal, informal and social learning concepts)
• Alignment – being less fixated on a centralized training function, and more on a federated (hub and spoke if you will) talent and collaboration holistic entity

Thoughts?