MBTI and ROI and E2.0

I saw a presentation yesterday on Change Management and the impact of people's Meyers-Briggs (MBTI) classifications on accepting change and was struck by one slide that attempted to explain the differences in outlook between the 'Sensing' and 'Intuiting' dimensions.Flickr - trussmonkey

The slide indicated that 'Sensing' folks prefer to trust and rely on 'real' or verifiable data.  'Intuiters' on the other hand prefer to focus on connections and meaning, and trust and rely on insights and explanatory patterns.

It seems to me that most of the so-called Enterprise 2.0 technologies like social networks, blogs, wikis, etc.  rely on the 'Intuiting' benefits. Things like seeing value in connections, trying to interpret the patterns, and focusing on connections seem to me to be foundation of E2.0 evangelism.

But the folks that control the budget, allocate resources, and otherwise tend to demand 'real' numbers and detailed ROI calculations for these projects are typically squarely on the 'Sensing' side of things.  They rely on verifiable data, fact and figures, and proof of value.

I wonder if this contrast and conflict between the 'Sensers' that control all the $$ and resources and the 'Intuiters' that are usually the most passionate advocates for E2.0 is behind the difficulty that many would-be implementers of E2.0 solutions have in 'selling' these tools in the enterprise.

So what do the MBTI theorists offer to help 'Intuiters' deal with 'Sensers'?

1. Present the pitch or arguments for E2.0 in precise, step by step manner - this FASTForward blog post has links to several success stories that you can use a a resource for your plans. Another great resource is the 'Groundswell' book by Bernoff and Li.

2. Be as detailed and descriptive as possible as to the 'real' benefits that will accrue to the organization - this blueprint has some suggestions

3. Present the proposed implementation plan, the milestones, resources needed, and overall implementation approach. A great article on this is here.

4. Clearly state the metrics that help define success, why these metrics were chosen, and how you will measure and report them - some examples from the Social Organization blog - here

Remember, the 'Sensers' want the practical details, they want the hard data. 

If you walk into that room as an 'Intuiter' and try to sell an abstract 'collaboration nirvana', you probably have already lost your argument.

What other ways have you seen E2.0 projects get pitched to skeptical management?

Will Employees Use Internal Social Networks?

Easier collaboration, better communication, 'community' building, these are just a few of the anticipated benefits from the deployment of Internal or Corporate Social Networks. 

Lately it seems like every vendor, consultant, and tech publication around is advocating the introduction of some kind of internal social networking capability into the enterprise, either as a stand-alone application, see examples here, and here, or from vendors that are including 'social' capability in existing HR products and processes, examples here and here.

But frequently in these recommendations and 'sales pitches' hard data is lacking to address some of the key questions that HR and business leaders will naturally have about these projects.  Key questions like:

Will my employees actually use the social network?

Will social networking be seen as just a 'Gen Y' thing?

Will the use of the social network improve productivity?

These are just some of the important questions to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of an internal social network for your organization.

In an attempt to shed some more 'real world' data on these key questions, enterprise social networking vendor Socialcast released a report of findings from a pilot enterprise project for NASA, the United States official space agency.

The purpose of the social networking pilot (dubbed NASAsphere), was to determine if NASA knowledge workers would use and apply online social networking in the NASA environment. By purposely inviting a pilot group of users from a wide range of NASA locations and disciplines, NASA was also interested in examining what if any improvements in inter-departmental collaboration would be realized. The pilot would be a two-phase project, with each phase lasting 30 days, (honestly a very short time to make conclusions on the success or failure of a internal social networking pilot).

The key findings (based on surveys of the participants and analysis of the information created on the network) from the 47 page report on the pilot program:

• Almost 90% of the invited participants activated their accounts and participated in the launch of the pilot, a total of 78 NASA staff
• As the pilot moved through to Phase II, the user community grew to 295
• Users were from all Generation groups, and comments from participants indicated that age was not a factor in someone's willingness or unwillingness to participate in the social network
• About 82% of the participants said the platform made open communication easier
• But, only 28% of participants cited improved work productivity in the form of 'saved' time
  • This finding was tempered by numerous comments that indicated the initial narrow user base of the network was a limiting factor for many participants, it can be concluded that as participation across NASA increases, more users would report productivity gains.

The report is extremely detailed and worth a read if you are interested in testing internal social networking in your organization.  In particular interest to HR and HR leaders is the following recommendation from the NASA project team:

The human resource organization in private industry is increasing their role in coordinating,
supporting, and managing tools that enable the workforce to share and transfer knowledge. It is suggested that NASA’s Human Capital organization take the lead on implementing and utilizing NASAsphere as an enabling tool for the NASA workforce, notably taking on the human element.

This is an excellent 'real-world' case study that concludes that the HR organization is in the best position to lead these kinds of internal collaboration and community deployments. 

Hopefully, we will see more and more of these projects and more opportunities for HR to lead.