Recent un-related news events caused me to start pondering one of my favorite topics: human nature. Or more specifically, the assumptions we make about human nature.
Human nature is, of course, a subject of debate. From original sin to the blank slate to the noble savage to more modern notions, there’s certainly no dearth of ideas around what is human nature.
And yet, the whole “enterprise 2.0″ movement seems to gloss right over it. Let me explain…
When the e2.0 pundits speak about the benefits and glories, they move through the listing of what it all can do (productivity, increased efficiency, etc) and then eventually you get down to the inevitable question: “great, what do I buy to make it happen?”
Answer: “wellllllll, it’s not really that simple. You, see the real benefits of e2.0 come from *culture*. You need to worry about the *culture* as much as the technology.”
Questioner: “okay, how do I worry about the culture?”
Answer: “yea – uhm – it’s really all about the *people*.”
And therein lies the rub.
If it’s not about tools it’s about culture, and if culture is all about the people, then at the end of the day e2.0 has to make certain assumptions about the *nature* of those people. I would argue that the current set of assumptions include that people will want to share, that people enjoy working together, that people think helping other people out is a good idea, that knowledge shouldn’t be hoarded, and that you can best succeed by subjugating at least a portion of your interest to the collective good.
(btw: I’m not arguing that I agree or disagree with these things – I’m arguing that e2.0 *assumes* these things.)
However, there are rather large swaths of human history (like, you know, most of it) that would tell us that the above assumptions don’t hold true (at least some of the time).
What if you work in a corporation, and the dirty little truth of the matter is that you have to guard some knowledge closely, watch your back against attack from other employees, and just generally scratch, claw and fight to make your way up the ladder. Worse – what if you enjoy that, and it’s what you want to do with your life? Doubly worse – what if your company is incredibly successful with this culture?
The easy defense from the e2.0 side of the house will be: “yes, but over time in a connected and networked world, the companies that will be hyper-competitive will be those that enjoy the synchronicity of emergent communities based around non-hierarchical sharing structures which empower and enable employees to be managers of customer satisfaction.”
okay – what?
So, it’s all about the people, right?
Look, I believe in the “productivity surge” and larger movement that’s changing the nature of corporations. And I think it really does mean a cultural and person-driven change. But I also think that most of the planning being done around “collaboration” is making some pretty naive assumptions about human nature. Not that we can even qualify what “human nature” means, but SURELY as technologists we can identify the problems in the system (”getting buy-in” for example) and begin discussing solutions that are a little more robust than throwing around loaded terms like “culture” and “people.”
Or we could waste the next couple of years getting hot and bothered over “emergent non-hierarchical sharing systems which empower and enable” only to find ourselves with little more than wikis, databases, and open work spaces at the end of it all.
thoughts? 
As always, you should join us.
(Cross-posted @ the Defrag Blog)
Very good perspective, often lost in the hype.
Yes, typically planning on collaboration has to include ‘initiating’,'driving’ or ‘sustaining’ the change in culture. Translating this into ‘hard speak’ (better digested by engineers like me) involves delving into organizational change management. In this realm, we have concrete methods and management techniques to implement the changes to these “loaded terms” as you call it.
This article is 100% right on the money. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done a demo for a potential client and realized less than 10 minutes in – this will never work for them. They don’t have the drive to use this (or probably any) tool to support an influence their culture.
When I ran a large organization a few years ago, we had a great enterprise app that we built in-house and used for managing work, but that wasn’t our secret weapon. The secret was what we called our “Guiding Principles” – things like “reach left and reach right,” “no surprises,” etc. In combination with the tools we had, this was a very powerful combination. In fact, we didn’t miss a single project date in 16 quarters.
But, too many businesses look at “Enterprise 2.0″ applications as something that will automagically make them more collaborative, more responsive, and more innovative. Bullshit. Any app from any vendor is only as good as the culture that drives how the app will be used. The best app in the world in a culture that doesn’t promote the assumed attributes you mentioned will be a dismal failure. Even with the “platinum support” package…
I work for a large internet company that has unfortunately only ended up with “little more than wikis, databases, and open work spaces at the end of it all” while constantly pushing everything exactly as you’ve listed above. It really does come down to the people in charge. I see people in groups where managers are more hands off and the culture is generally more loose, but I personally experience micromanagement from a classically old-school “boss”. Ironically, this is new to me as I am in my early thirties and did not experience this in any prior jobs at other similar companies. So yes- it really is about the people inside too. Unfortunately some managers see collaboration and sharing principles (when applied inside the corporation) as giving too much voice to the peons; they would much prefer to be the authoritarian who then gets the credit from higher on up the ladder. On the other hand, my experience is that these same types also champion their people a bit more (at least if you’re on their good side)- so while the flat hierarchies feel great day to day, there seems to be more of an every-person-for-themselves vibe when it comes to attempts to shape a career path within an organization.