Too Dot Oh: Making Sense of the Terrible 2’s

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