Is Duncan Watt's just another Gladwell...

So I am halfway through Watts' book "Everything is Obvious: Once you know the the answer" and pretty much thinking.. Maybe Watts' should take his own advice...

Watts' rightly points out that Gladwell takes things a bit far with his ideas on nodes and social change, but Watts' commits the same errors himself. While I can agree that online social networking is real... there is clear evidence that online social networking is different from face-to-face social networking.. And pretty much the bulk of Watt's conclusions are based only on his research using online research (so far). While his points are valid when he is describing how humans operate in online communities (itunes purchasing), it really doesn't translate to face-to-face organizational cultures. Watt's assumptions that these environments are the same, and because his sample size is so large.. ignores fundamentals of research design and practice, but it also ignores research done by real OD scientists. It appears he commits the same sins he claims Gladwell does.. and over emphasize his points.. It is obvious to Watt's that Gladwell is wrong... cause he knows the answer.. I would argue they are both partially right and wrong.

That said, I am going to keep reading Watts.. he makes several good points.. and online networking is reshaping our traditional networks.. so it is still good read.. just not as accurate as I would have hoped.

Those of you who have sat though one of my presentation on Social Networking where I also discuss the Art of Persuasion.. might remember me using Jimmy V's great ESPY talk to demonstrate the art of the motivating others toward a goal. Well.. It is Jimmy V week! Here is a nice reflection page on Jimmy V! And if the thought of saving lives through more cancer research moves you, make a donation!

CISCO Star Trek Show

I believe that we will see many new things in social networking in the next few years. Much of what we are doing now is the tip of the iceberg... Here is just one example of what I mean by tip of the iceberg. Innovation usually takes 20 years to mature and become viable, so take a look at the following CISCO presentation and then think of what this means:

CISCO's Chambers demonstrates the art of Telepresense

Imagine.. 20 years from know this may be the most common way of communicating. What is the implication of being able to project your telepresense to millions of homes or businesses or call someone halfway around the world for a nice evening chat. I am sure you can think of lots of ways this could be used. Will we end up with American Idol on Steroids? Will this technology enable leaders to network greater than ever before and communicate to their followers in more frequent and richer ways. Imagine what this one piece of technology might mean to the darkest side of humanity.. could it allow the leaders of countries like Israel and Palatine to work together for peace knowing that they can interact daily without security concerns. So here is the question for you.. If you were a leader today and hand this technology, what is the one way you would seek to use it for the highest return on your time in the telepresence chamber? Here is mine:

I would use it to enhance what are boring teleconferences we have. This technology would add richness to the conversations and also encourage everyone to be mentally present. Now it is your turn:

Gotta run.. I am scheduled for a holodeck session in 5.

Trust, Web 2.0 and Influence, Social Networks Part II

I continue to think that trust development is critical question to maximizing Web 2.0 technologies. Check out James Randerson's article in the Guardian Unlimited. Back in September of this year, he reported on research by Will Reader at Sheffield Hallam University. If Reader is correct, and there needs to be much more research performed on how can we build trust through online networking sites. If we can not develop solutions to the trust issue, sites like Facebook and twitter may be end up be much less significant in influencing behavior among network members. Exploring how trust can be built among these social networks may prove to be the six million dollar question.

Along the same vain, I am increasing interested in the complexity of social networking from the view of anthropology. Especially from the view of Dr. Karen Stephenson who has defined seven separate knowledge networks that flow through an organization. I have take the liberty of renaming some of her titles, but her list is a pretty good definition of the people networks we should be aware of in any change management effort:

• The Work Network
• The Innovation Network
• Expert Knowledge Network
• The Change Agent Network
• Social Network
• Career Coach Network
• Decision Maker Network

Dr. Stephenson's work is interesting from the standpoint that she has identified the host of knowledge sharing networks that can be found within any given organization. By exploring the complexity of these networks and the interrelationships between members of this networks, leaders have the potential of a new age change model. More on that later.. One final point, Dr. Stephenson's work defines high trust networks which are maintained the old fashion way... It would be interesting to discover if the net lends itself to enabling one these networks in a more effective way than others.. think innovation...

Web 2.0 = Social Networks, NOT

I should begin this post by warning you that I am being a bit of a devils advocate.. but I am beginning to believe that Web 2.0 is a lot of hype on the social networking scene. Now, before you attack me, let me clarify that there is a difference (in my view) between networks of people communicating and socializing.. and real social networks that yield power. What's the difference.. it comes down to one thing.. TRUST. Trust has become the leadership mantra of the age. Covey talks Trust, Lenconni talks trust, even the social networking gurus are now talking trust.

Let me explain by describing functioning social networks. Here are three examples:

The Creative Network: Withing each organization, there is a group of individuals, who when alone discuss what I call "career ending ideas." They ask the questions that nobody asked in the board room meeting, like.. "What if we eliminated John's product line and reorganized?" These type of discussions occur when the two or more people in the room trust each other and know that they have to protect those involved in the discussion. These type of discussions also create a sort of social network that can eventually result in organizational change.... sort of an innovators club.

The Knowledge network: Also within every organization is a group of experienced individuals who have become quite accomplished. They tend to be the experts on how to do things.. and we have developed a trust in their knowledge and abilities. Their level of knowledge and skill.. (demonstrated through the many times we have relied on them) results in this group have abnormally high influence. We know them, and as a group, they tend to make up a network of individuals who bless new ways we want to work. And while everyone can act or claim to be an expert, we trust this select group because they have demonstrated skill at very high levels.

The Learning Network: Within these same organizations, there are networks of individuals that are created around learning. If I am a new manager, it is not too long before I begin relying on another more senior manager for advice and counsel. This chain of coaches and coachees creates a rich network built on trust. As any good coach will tell you, they can not help anyone who does not trust them. Most of the best coaching I have done has been when I helped someone face a fear or a failure, something that required a tremendous amount of trust in me as a coach. It also requires a great deal of trust to tell someone a fear or weakness you are facing. Real learning networks are build on a foundation of TRUST, not access.

So what is the point: When I look at who I might go to for advice on how to do my job, who I might trust because of their competence, or who I like to hang out and brainstorm answers to the questions we are not allowed to ask... It is not someone I met on Facebook, or who I first met through twitter, or who reads this blog. Truth is, we don't know each that well and I am still pondering how I could build a community of trust using these tools. No, the person I see having influence over my thoughts is soLet me be very clear.. the thesis of this post is simple:

It appears that WEB 2.0 does not build true social networks, it enhances those that we create through the richness of face to face contact.

Sure there are individuals who I have met using Web 2.0 tools, but the level richness and trust in these relationships is low. Only through time together and experiences where trust is built will I develop a true social network.. that takes time.. not something I can do using IM.

The leadership implication is that effective use of Web 2.0 will best be done in a blended manner, where it is coupled with other methods of working together. It also suggests that if you formed a virtual group using one of these tools, you need to find a way to have a trust building experiences.

So, here is my question today and I really hope I can get some feedback: Think of a stranger you have met online... in what way would you develop a high level of trust using WEB 2.0?

Social Networking is the "rage" right now. Some of this might be attributed to the Internet and sites like My Space and Second Life. You could also suggest that Gladwell's book on social power, "The Tipping Point" has added to the emphasis on building strong social networks. So, you might find it interesting that this is really nothing new. In fact, Dale Carnegie's first course has lots on social networking.. and it was so successful in 1916, that he began training official "Dale Carnegie Course Instructors." Here are six lessons from Carnegie on building a stronger relationship with others that fit right into today's discussions and how they coorelate with today's blogs:

• Become Genuinely Interested in Other People
• Read other people blogs, explore their bios, learn about them.
  
• Be a Good Listerner
• Seek to understand (this is critical on the more controversial subjects)
  
• Encourage others to talk about themselves
• Encourage comments on your blog, ask question when commenting
  
• Let the other person do a great deal of the talking
• Keep your blog posts short and to the point
  
• Talk in terms of the other person's interest
• Seek to apply your thoughts to the life experiences of others
  
• Give honest and sincere appreciation
• Let bloggers know when you appreciate their posts and comments.
  

Social networking is really nothing new... but it is exciting to see how today's techonology may allow individuals to do this in new and different ways. Can you expand any of these principles.. apply them to other Web 2.0 tools.. Second life, my space..

Social System Quote of the Week

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

Web 3.0: How long till in comes together!

This post is mostly opinion.. there is a bit of data, but it is mainly my view on the social networking buzz. It may be a little non-typical, and may challenge you some if you believe Twitter and delicious are promise land. Regardless, I should say up front that I love these technologies.. all of Web 2.0.. just call me high maintenance...

Kevin Gamble ponders the adoption of Web 2.0 and reflects back on previous innovations of the Internet in his recent post "Pew: The other 41%." I found the following to be insightful from his post...

"Back in 1993 you could show someone Mosaic and they could immediately understand that the world as they had experienced it was fixing to change big-time. That almost never happens with Web 2.0 tools. Most of the time you get a response like John Dorner received last week, "I was trying to explain Twitter to my wife - she looks at me like I've lost my mind." I've noticed that same reaction more than once over the last few years.

Adoption of these new tools takes longer. I know I used del.iciou.us for months before I finally started using it religiously. I also know, that my use of it increased dramatically once my closest group of colleagues all started to use it. It wasn't until we had workgroup adoption that its true power kicked-in to play."

While I agree totally with Kevin's belief that these tools take longer and require workgroup adoption, I could argue the same was true of FTP Servers.. You need a critical mass of documents, valued knowledge so to speak. You needed a grasp of a set of commands and patience to face your typos. In fact, when we were using FTP, boy could not say enough great things about it.. it was going to change the world.. and we could not figure out why everyone was whining so much about learning a couple of commands.. Then came . Mosaic! Seemless.. smooth.. and it danced.. it made things where anyone could do it....

Del.iciou.us, Digg, Twiter, Analytics, etc.. getting it all setup and encouraging a community (non-technology) to join you can be overwhelming. I continue to play with these technologies for two purposes.. leadership and organizational development uses. I see the potential, but I believe there is strong evidence that we are not close to moving these technologies past the IT world...

Consider the following:

• The Top 4 blogs on Technorati (based on links) are all technology blogs. (when is the last time the front page of your newspaper carried a technology article?)
  
• Out of the top 10, 6 are technology oriented, 3 are political, and one is anomymous photo/card sharing site. Not one of these sites is what I would call a non-technology knowledge source. Oh they are interesting, but they are not mainstream learning communities (except for IT).
  
• Disciplinary non-tech groups are not dominating Web 2.0. For example, the highest rated marketing blog (Seth's Blog by sethgodin) is way down on the Technorati list.
• Tom Peters' blog is rated a lowly 1512 by Technorati.. and Tom.. well lets just say he makes a fine living on keynotes.. so why isn't his blog more popular. Web 2.0 popularity is not uniformly connected to what the non tech world measures as success.
  
• If you dig down, you can find good blogs in lots of disciplinary communities, but I would estimate that they are a long way from what Kevin would call workgroup adoption.

So if our ultimate goal is workgroup adoption and effectiveness, the question remains.. do we increasd performance through training or through technology advancement. Right now, I have high hopes for technology advancement... I see movement toward intergration with firefox that gives me hope, but I still think much more advancement is needed. Truthfully, calling it Web 2.0 doesn't make it the next generation of web technology, but to be a conformist.. I will just say I am begging for Web 3.0... I need the "Mosaic" for social networking... a tool that does for social networking what Mosaic did for information access.... Makes it seemless, makes it so smooth, that asking someone to join you on Twitter is a one click.. and that will take intergration.. at a level we have not seen so far..