Join Me at a Free Webinar on Keeping a Team Connected in a Distributed Workplace

June 16, 2009 at 10:45 am · Filed under Communities, Culture, Distributed Work, Management, Tips for Tough Times, Webinar, Work Design, social networks

Please join me and my partner in crime Charlie Grantham, along with Eric Bensley of Citrix Online, and James Hilliard of BNet next Wednesday, June 24, for a free one-hour webinar called “Keeping Your Team Connected in a Distributed Workplace.”

The webinar is sponsored by  Citrix Online We’re very grateful for their continuing support of our research and ideas.

Again, the webinar will be on June 24, at 11 AM Pacific/2 PM Eastern. Register here.

We hope you’ll join us. We’re going to be talking mostly about the leadership and interpersonal principles for keeping members of a distributed team connected with each other, their tasks, and the company.

It’s all about the attitude: Boomers and Gen Y on technology

May 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm · Filed under Culture

LexisNexis did an interesting survey among white collar workers, asking them about how they view various technologies and how they think these impact their job performance. It’s nice to note that using computers, Internet browsers, email and calendar programs is almost universal among the respondents. Most of them also agree that new technologies and software applications have made it easier to get up-to-the-minute information (95%), perform research (94%), improve productivity (90%), and manage information (87%).

In other areas, however, attitudes towards technology diverge based on age. The younger workers from Gen Y tend to be more liberal than Baby Boomers on Internet usage during work hours. Around 62% of Gen Y admitted to accessing social networking sites from work whereas only 14% of Boomers did so. As for browsing Internet bulletin boards and forums, it’s 47% for Gen Y versus 27% for Boomers. Lastly, 44% of Gen Y confess to going to mutimedia sharing websites like Youtube against just 24% of Boomers.

In terms of office etiquette, opinions again demonstrate a wide generation gap. LexisNexis warns that these differences in values could “contribute to in-office tensions and even harm teamwork and productivity.” Perhaps it’s not surprising that over two-thirds (68%) of Boomers decry the proliferation of PDAs and mobile phones as a contributor to the decline in workplace manners, while only less than half (46%) of Gen Y workers agree with this assessment. The same number of Boomers cry foul when other people use a laptop or PDA during in-person meetings, whereas a fewer number of Gen Ys (49%) are similarly offended.

It seems that the key here is the perception of productivity. A mere 17% of Boomers say that using laptops or PDAs during in-person meetings is efficient, versus 35% for Gen Y. Blogging about work-related issues is tolerable for just 28% of Boomers, in contrast to 41% of Gen Y who are fine with it. Almost half of Gen Y workers (47%) see nothing wrong with befriending a client on a social networking site, but only 24% of Boomers feel the same way. When it comes to befriending their colleagues on these sites, 76% of Gen Y are all for it while only 38% of Boomers think that it’s appropriate.

Where do you stand on these issues? Where do you draw the line in terms of using technology in the workplace?

Big Ideas for Social Influence Marketing

May 25, 2009 at 11:22 pm · Filed under Change Management, Collaboration, Collective intelligence, Culture, Management, Web 2.0, social media, social networks, social tools

At the Razorfish 9th Annual Client Summit, I presented five big ideas for social influence marketing. These were ideas that I felt would matter in the next two years. The audience for the presentation was 600 senior marketers but the ideas I emphasized have relevance to all decision makers within an organization. Here’s the presentation with the five ideas. Let me know what you think.

Twitter-holics speak their minds, bare their souls

May 20, 2009 at 6:50 am · Filed under Communities, Culture, social media

On Mashable, MarketingProfs Editor-in-Chief Ann Handley wrote a guest post about the engaging results of a Twitter survey that she conducted. It was done to find out how “highly involved Twitter users” viewed activities that revolve around the tool, as well as their motivations behind using it. Because of how it was done, the survey cannot be said to be representative of the Twitter population as a whole, so let’s take it with a grain of salt.

A word on methodology: I solicited survey responses from people who follow me (@marketingprofs) on Twitter, where I have about 28,000 followers, and then I asked those followers to retweet the survey link. As far as I could tell, about 116 people retweeted the link to their own network of followers; the sizes of their networks varied greatly.

We didn’t specify that we were looking for any certain profile of user, but the information that came back from the 432 revealed that the majority were fairly involved with Twitter — at least, that’s our interpretation of someone who spends 2 3/4 hours a day interacting there. Maybe those motivated to respond to the survey are more involved with Twitter than those who didn’t. (That’s one possible was to look at it.)

The bottom line is that this is a snapshot, an insight into the minds of users.

Social media, with a stress on first word, means interaction - a lot of give and take. There seems to be a notion that to be a good Twitter netizen, you have to live by its version of the Golden Rule: “Follow others who follow you”. When the respondents were asked whether they agree or not with this statement, though, only 34% of them agreed, with 41.7% disagreeing, and 24.2% who didn’t take a side. The gap is even wider when they were asked whether those they follow should, in fact, follow them back. Only a total of 27.3% agreed while 41.9% thought it wasn’t necessary.

Some people use their large Twitter following for bragging rights, but what do fellow users really think about these bloated figures? Asked whether they would equate having a bigger number of followers to being more intelligent, an overwhelming 81.7% disagreed while a mere 5.6% nodded their heads. The same question, with respect replacing intelligence, resulted in a virtual split, with 45% unconvinced and 39.9% thinking it was a fair assumption.

Going back to being social and Twitter’s use as a communications tool, are users feeling unloved when their tweets get no response? A good 24% admit to feeling some form of disappointment, but a total of 52.7% say it’s not that big of a deal. Good on their EQ.

Finally, in terms of motivations for using Twitter, their reasons are varied. Most say they like it because they learn new things from others, closely followed by using the tool as an up-to-date information source. Many said they simply wanted to be connected with a lot of people, while others use it for lead generation, and lastly, because they fancy having some people follow them and read what they have to say.

It would be interesting if a similar study can be made with a more scientific approach, better sample size, and fairer distribution in the near future. For Twitter-holics out there, do you feel that these results match your own perceptions? Why or why not?

A clash of web design philosophies

May 13, 2009 at 8:41 am · Filed under AppGap Tips, Culture

Young, dynamic, successful and fun - this is what a lot of people think of when you say “Google”, and its reputation has made it one of the most sought-after companies for jobhunters. Some go there almost expecting to find the Holy Grail, but more than a few come away disappointed. Douglas Bowman’s case is particularly interesting, as it gives us an idea of Google’s culture and philosophy from a design perspective. In his blog, Bowman details his experiences in the company and explains why he resigned.

“When I joined Google as its first visual designer, the company was already seven years old. Seven years is a long time to run a company without a classically trained designer. Google had plenty of designers on staff then, but most of them had backgrounds in CS or HCI. And none of them were in high-up, respected leadership positions. Without a person at (or near) the helm who thoroughly understands the principles and elements of Design, a company eventually runs out of reasons for design decisions. With every new design decision, critics cry foul. Without conviction, doubt creeps in. Instincts fail. “Is this the right move?” When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions.

Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case. I can’t operate in an environment like that. I’ve grown tired of debating such minuscule design decisions. There are more exciting design problems in this world to tackle.

I can’t fault Google for this reliance on data. And I can’t exactly point to financial failure or a shrinking number of users to prove it has done anything wrong. Billions of shareholder dollars are at stake. The company has millions of users around the world to please. That’s no easy task. Google has momentum, and its leadership found a path that works very well. When I joined, I thought there was potential to help the company change course in its design direction. But I learned that Google had set its course long before I arrived. Google was a massive aircraft carrier, and I was just a small dinghy trying to push it a few degrees North.”

This just illustrates the point that there’s more to finding a job than good compensation, the nature of work, or whether you get along well with your collegues. Your philosophy and the company’s must be in tune, or you will end up feeling unfulfilled in your profession. The problem is that it usually won’t be evident until you’ve been inside for a while. In this case, Bowman wanted to lead users into new bold design directions. On the other hand, Google prefers that users take the lead, through continuous testing and data analysis to find what clicks. It’s been working fine for them, so I understand why they’d want to hold on to their processes.

Of course, it’s not a bullet-proof strategy. Humans (i.e., the analysts) are still needed to interpret the data, who inevitably introduce their own biases, for good or ill. Placing a premium on data only minimizes subjectivity, it doesn’t eliminate it. That said, everything that’s measurable can be improved, making this approach enticing. I honestly think that if there was a way to reliably measure their users’ emotional response, Google would seriously consider it.

In the end, it comes down to inertia. Google has grown so big that it’s become incredibly difficult to even nudge it - there’s too much at stake. Not that it’s impossible, but it’s probably not the best venue for radical creative experimentation. Daring designers best go somewhere else, and this is what Doug Bowman realized. He has now transferred to the current social media darling, Twitter. Here’s hoping that his new post as head designer there will prove to be fulfilling. I’m also curious about what his impact will be on the popular startup.

Google is a champion of web applications, a segment that The App Gap is keen on. What can you say about their minimalist aesthetics? Do you agree with their design methods?

For a greener office, engage your employees

May 11, 2009 at 7:40 am · Filed under Culture, Management, greenIT

Companies around the world are scrambling to save money to survive the recession, but a lot of them are missing out on a key area. According to Hugh Jones, Solutions Director at Carbon Trust, “Many companies think of energy as a fixed overhead but saving energy is actually one of the easiest ways to reduce costs. Simply by switching machines off after use, or turning the heating down in warm weather, organisations can make real savings on their energy bill.”

Carbon Trust did a survey among UK employees and found that a substantial majority (87%) think that they should do their own part in cutting costs, while 78% are ready and willing to do so by being more energy efficient. What made them so eager to help? About half of them point to the bad economy as their main motivator.

Managements could have capitalized on this prevailing sentiment, and yet many have been failing to do so. Over half (55%) of employees said they were never given them any advice on being more energy efficient around the workplace (which they would have followed gladly). Among those who were given advice, 42% said it had made them more energy efficient. Beware, though. If you’re going to implement an energy initiative, there’s a sense of fairness that employers need to uphold. Two-thirds (67%) of those surveyed felt that while they’d like to help personally, it’s important that their colleagues do their part as well.

In the US, wasted energy in offices present a huge problem. The 2009 PC Energy Report found that almost half of US employees who use computers do not turn them off after work. This translates to $2.8 billion wasted annually for 108 million idle PCs, not to mention the millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Imagine the savings if this was properly addressed.

Social architecture

April 9, 2009 at 8:08 am · Filed under Collaboration, Communities, Culture, Enterprise 2.0, Intranets, Web 2.0, Work Design, social media, social networks

I’ve been working lately on two projects with companies building social networking platforms with a purpose. While some aspects are clearly around technology, features, and the like, there are also the subtle aspects that go into understanding how these sites will be used. In a meeting with one of the clients, we talked about this difficult area of how to ensure that the use of the site aligns with its purpose: will people interact on the topics that we want them to, will the site discourage irrelevant content or social tourists from joining?

The word “social architecture” came into my head (or all of our heads simultaneously, it’s always hard to tell, isn’t it, when an idea emerges from the collective consciousness in a conversation?).

Like a good web 2.0 doo-bie, I tweeted that I was interested in using the term but needed to understand it more. My friend and colleague, Andrew Gent, tweeted back a definition, but then went on to do much more: he researched it, thought about, and has written a wonderful blog post, Social Architecture, that offers the definition that he tweeted back to me:

Social architecture is the conscious design of an environment that encourages certain social behavior leading towards some goal or set of goals.

Andrew’s blog details the current use of the term with respect to social media as well as its history in the field of architecture. When I began my own superficial search, the thread I followed was biased toward the design of the interaction of various social media (Sam Huleatt: “To me, social architecture is best thought of as a cross between three elements: interface design, social media functionality and user engagement strategy.”) which didn’t reflect what I needed. Andrew has, I think, hit on the more sociological and social engineering (without the negative connotations of that term) disciplines needed to shape a user’s experience.

While Andrew’s context is the corporate intranet, where it is possibly simpler to design intent and purpose into the environment, my work is currently leading me to social networks in the world, a case where an individual company wants to draw people into a network to expand its field of vision and expertise.  No answers yet, but Andrew’s exposition is a terrific start and I thank him very much.