Ambition and Curiosity

There is (yet another) interesting discussion happening on Bill Kutik's HR Technology Conference LinkedIn group about the social media and social networking in the workplace, and the relative pros and cons of the opposite sides of the argument.  As is the case in Bill's group, the discussion is intelligent, balanced, and reasonable - unlike what you might find in other forums attempting to discuss these issues.

I haven't weighed in on the discussion on LinkedIn, (sorry, Bill), because I am a selfish blogger and needed some content, and I had a kind of different take on the topic, one that veers slightly away from the practicalities of the debate, and drifts more into the philosophical. I think while the debate about blocking these sites tends to center around data security, productivity, message control, etc.; the real issues (even if companies don't want to admit them), are much more about the ideas or concepts of ambition and curiosity. 

Ambition in the sense of aspiration, of becoming something bigger, greater, and more meaningful in whatever measures that are relevant to the organization.  Curious in the framework of inspiring interest, discovery, or of seeking and (hopefully) finding new meanings, connections, and ideas.  

It seems, at least on the surface, that organizations that have moved to actively block or restrict access to social networks and internet based productivity services using the practical and typical concerns about security and the like are quite possibly betraying a lack of ambition and curiosity. Sure, no organization or leader would admit to this, no one would flat-out state, 'Our firm has limited goals for future growth and innovation, and we are not terribly interested about what is happening with out competitors, customers, partners, and community.'

Of course no leader would admit that, since even if it were true, the admission would send share prices plummeting, drive smart and talented employees for the exits (or at least to LinkedIn to update their profiles), and drive a stake in employee enthusiasm and morale.  Sure, the connection between open, unrestricted, and organizationally supported access and engagement on social networks to improved business outcomes is, for now, still spotty, sporadic and tangential. It is still difficult for social media proponents and aficionados to clearly articulate their arguments when faced with the security and 'not important to the tasks at hand' talking points.

But what the reluctant or skeptical are more easily convinced of, is that the threats to their empires and their livelihoods are likely to come from new competitors. Ones that are smaller, more nimble, more adaptable; and by necessity are forces to avail themselves of all possible resources, full access and exploitation of social network connections certainly chief among them.

Small, aggressive, and dangerous start-ups don't worry about 'time-wasting', and they are willing to accept whatever security risks may arise from the social web - happy to trade off some level of risk for the vast benefit they see and can derive from these networks.

Now that we are into 'beating a dead horse' territory, I will close with this - the organizations that are taking over today, and will dominate tomorrow, have a wide, broad, and expansive view of the world. And they realize the world does not solely consist of their own employees, and the relationships they share with each other.

Great ideas are everywhere, if your eyes and ears are open to find them.

The Unfamiliar and Scary

Submitted for your consideration, three pieces of news from the last week or so:

Maryland Department of Corrections subjects job applicant to a social media strip search by making him turn over his Facebook login and password.Flickr - soonerpa

New Jersey Police Chief offers tips and advice to parents on how to hack into their kids' social media accounts, to snoop and spy, sort of the 21st century equivalent of reading their diaries, (man, that is an old fashioned reference, does any kid keep a diary anymore?).

Spanish nun who had served for over 35 years expelled from her order due to 'Too much Facebook.'

While the three stories all have social networking in common, specifically Facebook (aside, are we getting close to Facebook becoming the generic term for 'social networking', like 'Kleenex' now essentially means any facial tissue?), this post really isn't about Facebook at all.

To focus too much on how organizations, be they public or private, approach and adapt to Facebook, Twitter, and whatever comes next is, I think, to take too narrow a view of what is important and common about the above three situations. 

It is sadly for leaders and institutions of limited courage and vision a short and straight path from the unfamiliar to the scary.  What they don't understand, what they can't reference in a policy or by past experience, what in their narrow world view seems at all out of the ordinary can quickly evoke feelings of discomfort, angst, anger, and in the cases we see above, result in seemingly irrational reactions. 

Yesterday I posted about trust, or at least a form of trust.  I more or less said that external measures of influence can only be guides at best, and that ultimately the value and influence one exerts upon you is a highly variable, highly personal evaluation. And I think we all can kind of agree on that, at least in theory.  'Trusting' an algorithm to give you sound advice that is to be used as a meaningful measure inside organizations does seem like too much of a stretch.  We love our machines, but we are not quite ready to trust them. Even you Watson.

But in the cases above, trust between people is lacking, and in the kinds of relationships we would normally expect trust to be assumed, a given, and only to be withdrawn in the case of some kind of egregious action.  A long time employee attempting to obtain a better role in the organization, a public safety official (who we ought to be able to trust), advising parents to spy on their kids (who the parents ought to be able to trust), to finally, of all things, a nun who somehow ran afoul of her order by discovering a new way to spread the good word.

I don't want to be too hard on institutions and their leaders, often challenged by a flood of new tools, technologies, and issues that they simply can't process quickly enough to adequately address in their customary manner.  It has to be difficult for the Mother Superior of the 'Facebook nun' to know just what exactly she should do.  

But in these cases the leaders, the decision makers might be absolved from nuanced understanding of this new world, they are not absolved from retreating immediately to a position of fear and mistrust.

The unfamiliar might indeed be scary, but people are still people, and by placing your trust in those that you know you have earned that trust, the unfamiliar becomes less scary, and more exciting. 

Trust, but Verify

Recently an organization called Klout, the creator of the well-known measure of online influence, the eponymous 'Klout Score', released an extension for Google’s Chrome browser that lets you see the Klout score of all the people you follow on Twitter when you go to the Twitter.com website, (example of the Klout score, the number that follows the small orange 'K' icon, on a Twitter timeline below)

Now it certainly can and should be argued that the Klout Score may not truly be an accurate measure of online 'influence', and in fact it could also be argued the attempting to measure online influence is not even practical or even possible. How the Klout Score is calculated is not really well-understood by most, and in the grand tradition of other newer or arcane statistical measurements like football quarterback rating and barometric pressure it helps to attach well known performers to the scale in order to help contextualize the numbers.

Last year Tom Brady had the highest NFL quarterback ranking at 111, and Justin Bieber (among others) has a perfect Klout Score of 100. While we may not understand the raw scores of Brady's 111 and Bieber's 100, most football fans noted and can appreciate the great season Brady just completed, and in the online and offline world's, Bieber's ubiquity needs little explanation. The numbers themselves don't really matter, only how they allow us to slot and evaluate others in comparison.  If you are interested in this sort of thing, the full NFL QB ratings for the 2010 season can be found here.

Once I installed the Klout Score extension for Chrome, and went over to Twitter.com, it almost immediately changed the experience and also the perceptions I have of Twitter users I am following.  As the Tweets flew by I found myself constantly thinking, 'He is only a 50?' and 'Wow, how did she get to be a 72?'. I know Bieber is an 100, but I confess I really don't grasp the Klout Score all that well, but I can (for the most part), compare a pair of two-digit numbers and tell which one is higher, and therefore theoretically more 'influential'.

But 'influence', or lack thereof, is a highly personal thing.  A relatively higher Klout Score for one person I am following compared to another might say something about statistical measurements like replies and retweets, but it says nothing about a person's importance, value, and influence to me. As I looked at more of the Klout scores of the people I follow, I actually started to get a little ticked off when I saw a relatively lower score against someone I follow closely and whose updates I find highly valuable, and higher scores attributed to some users that quite honestly aren't all that interesting or influential to me.

These kinds of online influence scores while potentially an important initial step for people and organizations to better understand reach, connections, and possible value are still marred by the inability to apply the kinds of personizable filters and tags that could make them even more powerful. 

And sometime in the near future, as more organizations adopt internal social networking tools, be they microblogs or fully deployed social platforms, the ability to measure, assess, and compare influence and reputation of employees will likely become more and more important.  But before that can happen, at least in a fair and equitable manner, the methods to calculate these influence scores will have to evolve beyond the current mathematical and universal, and move more towards the situational and personal.

I think I am going to de-install the Klout extension for Chrome, I am pretty confident in my own ability to assess the influence of the people I follow. It's not that I don't trust the Klout score, but since I need to evaluate and verify them anyway, why have them (at least at this point), cloud up my judgement. 

And no, it is not (completely) because Bieber has almost double my Klout Score.

Modern Alchemy

Tonight night on the HR Happy Hour show we will be joined by MIT Professor Sherry Turkle, author of the recent book 'Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other'.

 'Alone Together' is almost two separate, but linked works. Yesterday I looked at the first section of the book, 'The Robotic Moment: In Solitude, New Intimacies', which explores the world of 'social robots'; today the focus turns to the second half of the work; Networked: In Intimacy, New Solitudes', which focuses on the always on, always connected world of social networks and virtual worlds.

Whether it is Facebook, text messaging, or instant messaging - these days it seems for many of us, the notion of being 'alone' has changed.  Particularly with the advent of the smartphone, devices with computing power and capability that rival the desktops and laptops of just a few years ago, as many of us move around the world we carry our networks with us.

Tens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of friends, fans, followers, always within reach, just a few taps away. It is sort of comforting I suppose to think that with the rise of social networks and smartphones that for many of us we no longer have to truly be alone, or as Professor Turkle suggests, we are now 'alone together'.

But this connectivity comes with a cost.  For adolescents and teens, the smartphone serves not only as a constant tie to parents and friends, but a kind of tether as well.  In 'Alone Together' we hear tales from numerous teenagers that have grown weary with the constant demands that the connected life imposes - text messages that have to be answered immediately, calls from parents that have to be taken, and Facebook profiles that have to be carefully developed, maintained, and nurtured.

Charlie Brown from Peanuts was able to assess his relative popularity and standing in the school based on the number of Valentines that he received in the mail box. Today teens are judged by the interaction on their Facebook walls. If a few days go by without anyone leaving a message on their walls, many teens begin a conscious strategy of posting on other's walls, relying on the norms of reciprocity to generate posts back to their profiles. If there was one main point in Professor Turkle's studies of teens that resounded with me, it was this almost obsessive concern with Facebook.  

But while the book spends significant time discussing the impact of the connected life on children, there are certainly lessons for adults as well.  Young and mid-career professionals are depicted as having to be 'always on', the BlackBerry constantly within reach, a never-ending series of beeps and blinking red lights to be attended to, to be in a way nurtured.  Parents are seen as dividing their time and attention between family events like ball games and dinners and their smartphones.  The book describes this being in two places, the real and the network, as a kind of 'Modern Alchemy', as if through technology we have discovered a way to create time.

Ironically some of the same teens that lament the power and stress that comes from the connected life tell Professor Turkle that their parents are too often not 'fully there' for them, with the BlackBerry and iPhone too enticing to fully leave behind, if only for a short while.

As always, there is more to the story than the simplistic - 'Just put away the darn BlackBerry for five minutes' argument.  These networks, the enabling technologies that make the networks constantly available, and the demands that we feel that they impose (either real or imagined), continue to change the way children grow up, the way we relate to each other, and the expectations of the modern workplace.

What does it mean? What can or should be done?

Tune in to the HR Happy Hour show tonight!

Hamburgers as Performance Art

I mentioned to Patrick that I needed some ideas for topics to write about on the blog and he said I should post about 'burgers'.The Rocket Double

What about burgers, I asked.  What's the angle? Now, Patrick does not completely get the point of view I try to write from, but he is savvy enough of a blogger himself to know the topic needs some kind of angle, or theme to make any sense. 

He said to write about burgers that you get in 50's style diners, like Johnny Rockets.  Parick has been fascinated with the chain since we watched an episode of Undercover Boss that featured the hamburger chain's President and CEO, John Fuller.  The episode was pretty much straight out the 'Boss' pattern - the executive is out of touch with the day-to-day front-line workers, doesn't really understand how tough their jobs are, and how important they are to the company's success, and after the requisite humiliation he receives attempting to perform some of the basic jobs, emerges a more humble, thoughful, and enlightened leader.  Toss a couple of free vacations and tuition reimbursements on a few of the staffers and everyone goes home happy.

But this post is supposed to be about burgers, not leadership, or reality shows that unfold more like formulaic sitcoms.  

One of the interesting scenes in the Johnny Rockets episode is when the CEO has to learn the little song and dance routine that the staff perfrorm from time to time in the restatuants, as a means of entertaining and (sort of) connecting with the customers. We learn from the show and from dining at a Johnny Rockets restaurant, that the staff try hard to create a memorable and lively experience for the customers, one that moves beyond the simple menu of diner burgers, sandwiches, shakes, and fries. 

But clearly, the customer is to be served good, if basic food, welcomed and treated well by the staff, and even entertained a bit by music, singing, and dancing by the white shirted, bow-tied workers.

Contrast the experience at a Johnny Rockets with that at the Manhattan restaurant 4food. 

4food is a burger place unlike any other, the expansive menu of burgers, toppings, cheeses, buns, and condiments are offered with the expectation and anticipation that the customers will not only develop their own custom creations, that using a vast array of social media avenues, they will share these creations and by sharing, promote themselves and 4food.

Large screens display tweets and Foursquare check-ins, customer's creations are voted up and down in a kind of crowdsourced burger tote board, and iPads litter the restaurant to make the creation, ordering, and tweeting accessible and easy.

There are over a million possible combinations of burger ingredients, making the process for creation complex, the online burger generator reminds one of similar web-based tools for automotive sites, that enable one to build and customize their new vehicle.

But it seems clear from the overly complex menu, from the emphasis on customer participation in the burger creation process, and from the seemingly relentless barrage and display of tweets and check-ins; that the experience is designed and intended to be malleable, and to rely on the creativity and enthusiasm of the audience to be meaningful. 

We want to believe this model -  this open, flexible, and participatory model is the future, and is somehow 'better' than the old traditions.  We point to events like the uprisings in Egypt as more proof that when given the opportunity citizens, customers, or students can often if not usually outperform the traditional autocrats or hierarchies.  And no doubt for many circumstances, especially ones more important than the trivialities of ordering lunch, this will continue to be so.

But for the simpler things, the ones that consume most of our day-to-day lives, I wonder if the Johnny Rockets model still is the better way.

Sometimes you just want a decent hamburger, cooked the way you like, served by a friendly waiter or waitress. You want the 'performance' to come to you, rather than feel compelled to create at least a part of it yourself.

You want the star to be the burger, not the slightly annoying dude next to you worried about who is about to oust him as the mayor of the salad bar.