The Holy Trinity: Leadership Framework, Learning 2.0 & Enterprise 2.0

I find myself in the center of an intellectual tempest.

The traditional ‘learning’ folks are trying to sort out how to revolutionize the industry by augmenting their formal learning strategies to incorporate social media, social learning, social networking and the like. It’s a good thing to witness, but slow as molasses in some circles.

The Human Resources and Organizational Development folks are mulling over their competencies, values, leadership development programs, amongst other elements trying to embed flatter, more connected ways of working. Also good to see, but at times I see these folks in other companies plodding along without involvement of the Learning side of the house, or the technology outfits.

The technology groups (be it IT, Systems Analysts, ERP groups, etc.) are busy trying to synchronize existing investments with new instances of 2.0 collaboration technologies and platforms. They often do so without synchronizing their efforts with the Learning function(s) or the HR/OD groups.

And finally, corporate communications, marketing and even perhaps splinter social media teams are all either contemplating or incorporating social media, social networking and/or social learning concepts into their workflows.

Do you notice something here?

As I’ve written about previously, I believe that an organization needs not only an internal 2.0 Adoption Council, they need a cross-functional team (the Enterprise 2.0 Org Structure) to help ensure all the various pieces of a 2.0 world seamlessly come together, mitigating any confusion for the employee, partner, or customer.

But to get this going, I believe we need to introduce, recognize and accept the New Holy Culture Trinity for the Organization. That is, an updated leadership framework, coupled with the integration of Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 concepts will help drive or augment a 2.0 connected ‘culture of collaboration’.

Together, united, in unison.

Actions:

  • Update your existing “Leadership Framework”
    • Every organization has their mission statement, their values, their competencies, their leadership programs — each of these could potentially be ‘updated’ to incorporate a flatter, more connected way of operating as individuals, in teams, and as an organization. (think Tom Malone -–Future of Work)
  • Implement “Learning 2.0”
    • Whether you have an internal corporate university, a decentralized learning structure, or a completely outsourced model, your model should be adapted to be formal, informal and social. Whether it’s old school or not, the ‘learning department’ plays a significant role for the organization, and if adapting to a 2.0 culture, it needs to grow up. (a little more info about Learning 2.0 here)
  • Enlist “Enterprise 2.0″ Technologies
    • Not in isolation, but as part of the puzzle, Enterprise 2.0 technologies such as wikis, blogs, video system, rankings, ratings, comments, discussion forums, profiles, networks, micro-blogs, content sharing, site sharing, etc. can all become an integral part of the new culture, if mapped in accordance with the updated leadership framework and Learning 2.0 concepts.

I’ve written about Learnerprise in the past (the combination of Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0) so think of the Holy Culture Trinity as a more thoughtful way of ensuring organizational success, keeping all three concepts in mind.

UPDATE: looks as though Ross Dawson is thinking similarly with “What Enterprise 2.0 means for the CIO and IT department“.



'The Holy Trinity: Leadership Framework, Learning 2.0 & Enterprise 2.0' have 16 comments

  1. 05/08/2010 @ 5:35 PM Jon Husband

    Do you notice something here?

    Still overly silo’d, seems to me. Have the job descriptions / role profiles for the senior people in the departments you mention been revised / updated to consider that work happens, increasingly, in networks ?

    Reply

  2. 05/09/2010 @ 7:37 AM Dan Pontefract

    That’s a good point Jon. That arc needs to be addressed as well. Simultaneously with the leadership framework seems the most sensical path to take, although I suspect it will occur after there is ‘proof in the pudding’.

    Reply

  3. 05/09/2010 @ 12:04 PM Harold Jarche

    Why are IT, HR & learning separate functions? They are all in support of the main business. Transaction costs are changing in the networked workplace and that warrants a rethink of the entire management structure, as Malone, Hamel and others have already noted. The big issue will be getting the various tribes to not only work together but become a new tribe.

    Reply

  4. 05/09/2010 @ 12:32 PM Dan Pontefract

    Would make sense to me Harold if there was a new tribe (call it the COO’s office if you have to) that encompassed IT, Finance, HR and Learning. Shared Services on steroids.

    Reply

  5. 05/09/2010 @ 6:42 PM Thomas Stone

    Great post, and good comments so far too. Following up on Harold’s comment… definitely could be tough to get all the evolutions/revolutions one is seeking *at the same time* you blow up the org charts. That is a lot to ask for all at once. My take — though I’m very open to being convinced otherwise — is that the org changes are a later phase, they rationally follow and will in some cases quite naturally “fall out of” successfully implenting learning 2.0, enterprise 2.0, updating the leadership framework. Many people won’t “get” the need for, or agree to, the org changes until *after* these big changes take place. And org changes is an area where *irrational* barriers can easily arise, so best to make the changes there obvious and natural.

    On the flip-side, it could be easier to implement these things with the ultimate org/dept. changes made first. But I just am thinking that is a lot of change to ask for all at once.

    Thoughts?

    Reply

  6. 05/09/2010 @ 8:24 PM Dan Pontefract

    Although org chart and job description changes could be made up front or in parallel with the ‘holy trinity’, my sense is that it runs contrary to the very principle of a ‘culture of collaboration’ philosophy and that we would probably tick off too many people in the process.

    As you state Thomas, “quite naturally fall out of” fits quite nicely in my opinion.

    Reply

  7. 05/10/2010 @ 12:48 PM Harold Jarche

    The org chart is the technology that needs to change. The org chart became the norm with the adoption of the theories espoused in Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Networks don’t need org charts.

    Reply

  8. 05/10/2010 @ 1:02 PM Jon Husband

    I agree with Harold’s last comment.

    For early thinking on this issue, see “What If .. the Org Chart Had Links and Tags Instead of Reporting Relationships”.

    Mind you, it was just speculative .. written a couple of years ago.

    Reply

  9. 05/10/2010 @ 9:03 PM Dan Pontefract

    Networks don’t need org charts, but org charts need networks. :-)

    Reply

  10. 05/10/2010 @ 9:07 PM Jon Husband

    Well said, Dan.

    Reply

  11. 05/23/2010 @ 4:44 PM Benedict Jennings

    Great post, and good comments so far too. Following up on Harold’s comment… definitely could be tough to get all the evolutions/revolutions one is seeking *at the same time* you blow up the org charts. That is a lot to ask for all at once. My take — though I’m very open to being convinced otherwise — is that the org changes are a later phase, they rationally follow and will in some cases quite naturally “fall out of” successfully implenting learning 2.0, enterprise 2.0, updating the leadership framework. Many people won’t “get” the need for, or agree to, the org changes until *after* these big changes take place. And org changes is an area where *irrational* barriers can easily arise, so best to make the changes there obvious and natural.
    +1

    Reply

  12. 06/04/2010 @ 11:36 AM Amy

    Great post, and good comments so far too. Following up on Harold’s comment… definitely could be tough to get all the evolutions/revolutions one is seeking *at the same time* you blow up the org charts. That is a lot to ask for all at once. My take — though I’m very open to being convinced otherwise — is that the org changes are a later phase, they rationally follow and will in some cases quite naturally “fall out of” successfully implenting learning 2.0, enterprise 2.0, updating the leadership framework. Many people won’t “get” the need for, or agree to, the org changes until *after* these big changes take place. And org changes is an area where *irrational* barriers can easily arise, so best to make the changes there obvious and natural.

    On the flip-side, it could be easier to implement these things with the ultimate org/dept. changes made first. But I just am thinking that is a lot of change to ask for all at once.

    Thoughts?

    Reply

  13. 06/07/2010 @ 12:56 PM Jonathan

    This isn’t an all or nothing conversation. Top down mandates rarely are accepted by the masses — this is why I don’t believe in “big bang” performanc management (http://alignment.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/bigbangperfman). On the other hand, real change requires a bit of a revolution with evangelical Paul Revere — otherwise you’re subject to the monkey story (http://alignment.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/change-management).

    I would be advocate of finding your connectors that defy traditional org structure and using them to define new job descriptions, new relationships, etc. Reward collaborative results rather than individual accomplishment. Said simply: explain to people where you want to go but not how to get there. They’ll help you find the way. And do it for part of the org, not the whole thing.

    Reply

  14. 06/07/2010 @ 10:58 PM Dan Pontefract

    @Benedict – I’m with ya – big bang is just not going to work – I think if the Leadership Framework is updated/enlisted, and the Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 concepts are applied, then other OD aspects (like job descriptions, org structure, etc.) might naturally fall from there

    @Amy – it might be easier in some orgs to fix the structure first, however, I believe your first inclination is the most sensical path to chart

    @Jonathan – love your last paragraph – it works if there are several supportive leaders that ‘allow’ this to happen amongst several team members/teams across the org … but does it work effectively if there is only a singular leader (in a department for example) thinking this way? PS. we met a few times in Vancouver via BOBJ/SAP, hope to reconnect again some day

    Reply

  15. 06/09/2010 @ 2:32 PM Jonathan

    Dan, Thanks for the nice words. Revolutions (cultural, political, or organizational) usually begin with a single individual but they don’t anywhere unless they get to critical mass. Can the Connectors be more influencial than the non-supportive leaders? I like to think so. I might have to re-read Tipping Point to get some ideas.

    Lmk if you’re down in Palo Alto and we can grab coffee.

    Reply

  16. 01/23/2013 @ 1:30 PM Musings on the Collaborative Enterprise - TalentCulture.com

    [...] Pontefract recently wrote in a blog post, The Holy Trinity: Leadership Framework, Learning 2.0 & Enterprise 2.0, about some rather interesting intersections for collaboration in the enterprise. He observes that [...]

    Reply


Want to leave a comment? I'd love to hear from you. Cheers, dp.

dpfooter

Dan Pontefract | dp at danpontefract dot com