Aspirational culture and enterprise social software

I was recently talking with the CEO of a leading social media firm about the importance of attending to cultural considerations when designing an effective E2.0 strategy.  And I particularly liked his term, “aspirational values” in describing why many of his prospective clients want to buy his software solution.  This term referred to the desired culture change his prospects seek from using such technology – specifically how it can enable new ways of working and being, ultimately leading to better organizational performance.  The “aspirational,” however, acknowledges a gap between the current state and preferred future state.

The thing is, this CEO knows well that buying his enterprise social software on its own doesn’t magically get his clients what they’re after.  While it’s indisputable that they’ll get some immediate pay-off such as the potential (certainly not a given) for employees, customers and strategic partners to interact in different ways, the point here is that getting the most out of E2.0 requires deep inner work – on behalf of leadership and the organization-at-large.

You see, this technology won’t take hold if the espoused values aren’t the values in-use in an organization.  That’s culture change guru Edgar Schein’s words, not mine.  And, I contend that if we were to conduct a gap analysis on this in most organizations,  you could drive a Mack truck through that gap.  Because, frankly, a lot of companies just don’t walk their talk.  They say one thing about who they are and the values that define their decisions, but in practice, there’s incongruence all over the place.

And if leaders have a credibility problem with their stakeholders, this stuff just won’t fly.  Simply buying a social media solution in and of itself doesn’t cause the problem to go away.  Actually, to the contrary, it’ll only exacerbate it if the leadership practices don’t change, and they’re just perpetuating the same old culture but now touting a new software solution.

So it got me thinking…The same truism applies to organizations as it does to individuals:  In order to produce lasting change, there’s got to be a deep commitment and readiness from within to want to improve the status quo.  This is usually instigated by intolerable discomfort or self-awareness, or both.  What must follow is a cognitive-behavioral action plan with incremental steps to move, gradually (but not too gradually…pushing people past their levels of comfort and gaining momentum are key), in the direction of achieving clearly-defined goals.  That’s why assessing leadership readiness, and subsequently an overall organization’s cultural readiness, should be the first step in any E2.0 change management approach.  If leaders don’t have the clarity, burning desire, or stomach to drive the change that E2.0 adoptions will test, they should reassess whether they want to embark on this journey altogether.  And until that happens, these will remain aspirational (and elusive) – rather than living and breathing – values.

A quick footnote: A word to the wise regarding effective change management for E2.0 adoptions.  Start small.  Identify who and where your highest likelihood for early wins exist, and begin there.  That requires a lot of due-diligence – hence the up-front readiness assessment described above.  For some finer details about this, see my post If you (just) build it, they won’t come.

The Organization as Conversation

I coach a lot of software engineers, helping them become more effective managers.  Great as they are technically, many of ‘em struggle with motivating their staff, building social capital among their peers (esp. those beyond their sphere of influence), and operating from their own set of assumptions (many of which have not been validated).  And, these issues are getting in the way of their individual and team effectiveness.

So, one of the techniques we’ve employed with great results was to frame up an organization as a conversation, or more accurately – the collective conversations that occur inside and outside the walls of the company.  If my clients accept this notion of organization as conversation, they can then pay closer attention to the words they use to talk about the strategy, values, and team mission, as well as the deployment of these carefully-constructed messages.

And, as they’ve done this, what has happened is that it has sharpened these managers’ sensitivity to perceptions – what’s being said, by whom, and how it’s being said, as well as – perhaps most importantly – what’s NOT being said.  This is a biggie, especially with the ‘operating from their own set of assumptions’ piece discussed above.  As they start to socialize these assumptions throughout the organization, they get immediate insight into what is fact vs. fabrication.

Sounds so simple, but it’s amazing what ascertaining these tidbits of information can do.  And, this is blatantly obvious, but these insights are only arrived at through ongoing conversations.  And these conversations will only occur if (1) the intention is there, (2) it becomes an ongoing practice is an ingrained leadership discipline, and (3) the leaders establish the proper enabling conditions – a climate of safety and openness – for their team members to be compelled to have this honest dialogue.  Taken together, you have a pretty in-touch leader.

It’s worth acknowledging that this approach is heavily influenced by the work of linguist George Lakoff and organizational theorist Gareth Morgan’s book Imaginization.  Essentially, these guys are talking about the impact that words and metaphor have on our individual and collective mental models, and how human beings acribe meaning (leading to action) through the use of words, metaphor, and story.  As such, the more that managers can use powerful language to align people under a common purpose and appeal to individual’s hearts and minds, the higher likelihood of spurring commitment and desired behaviors.

I have many, many more thoughts on this topic and will be sharing them in subsequent posts over the next few weeks…but before I do, let us have a conversation.  I’d love to hear YOUR initial ideas on how reframing organizations as conversations causes a shift for you, or not, regarding how you can be more effective as a manager or consultant with the organizations you work with.  To prime the pump, you can think of applying this org as conversation metaphor to leadership, strategy execution, employee engagement/commitment, corporate communications, community building, organization design, or whatever else comes up for you.

Let me know what you think…and stay tuned for more on this in the weeks ahead.