Ideology

CRM takes different forms relative to where and to whom it is applied. Inside an enterprise, the idea of employee as customer can be new or down right counter-culture. I’ve heard voices from any number of organizations speak to a culture that is less centered on establishing relationships when it comes to employees. In 2.0 we’re taking new approaches to our work through evolving collaborative means. These means stand to offer scaling support to the organization-employee relationship. Enterprises have long established help processes, which serve mass efficiency over individuals. We have intentionally deflected connection with employees in an attempt to scale services across IT, HR, Finance, etc. If you reside inside of a large organization, think about what you might have experienced the last time you called your help desk. Did someone take your issue on and make it their own? Did it feel like you were calling the phone company?

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andresrueda/3259487071

Help is one of those thankless, dirty jobs that only the steeliest have the stomach for in its current configuration. I see it as a ripe opportunity to leverage 2.0 as a means to a measurable improvement for all involved. The benefit of change here does not end in happy employees alone. Increased productivity, reduced down time during issues, and reduced load on traditional help systems are possible if a plan is designed with humans in mind. If you are actively pursuing or supporting 2.0 in your organization be sure to consider how help impacts adoption. Few things turn off a user faster than the frustration of not knowing how to do something combined with an inability to get an answer quickly.

Am I help desk bashing? Nope. I’m intimately aware of the supporting processes of help systems, their brittle complexities and fragility. They rely on fantastic communication flows, complex integrated systems and teams that don’t often actually integrate. They strain against scale and usually those who suffer most are the employee customers and front line help support (not necessarily in that order).  So, what are the options? How can you build trust, efficiency and success across a jaded help culture?

Consider the cliché:  There’s no tier three support for YouTube. No help desk for Foursquare. Yet we use them. A lot. I observed a friend get cross when, after more than a dozen check-ins with no competitors, he was still not the mayor of a particular site on Foursquare. When he vented to his community on Twitter, he quickly got the answer to the problem. Of course you aren’t the mayor. You haven’t added an avatar picture. Duh. The clear response is second nature in online social circles outside the firewall. Not as much inside the firewall.  As 2.0 makes its way inside this is changing. But 2.0 tools and community won’t be the only way to get support.

Scale alone makes community as a sole help support mechanism impossible for even the largest companies, but it is a vital element of a living help system. We need to plan our evolution to include community and reliable help information to grow beyond our dependence on a singular service desk. There needs to be a connection to the social intranet with a plan to support goals for real change. This dictates that architects and operators of current help systems look closely at employee opinion. That self-critical analysis, the hardest cultural change for many, needs to become norm. The sheer existence of social systems on the inside will make this easier to initiate, and initially harder for those delivering support. If you work at a large organization, consider the last time you heard someone praise the help desk. Negative messages on the intranet can be tough to take, but you can’t change what you can’t see.

So, how can an organization build a bridge to better help? What about the existing investment in help systems? We’re not going to throw out what’s been deemed a working solution (though I tend to think working is a kind description). Simply adding a wiki to a help system isn’t enough. There’s a broader story to tell.

I see a way forward in a concept I call the Help Stack, a framework for integrating social elements into existing help and community management systems. Where traditional help meets social, community, and SME help inside the firewall.

I’ve talked generally about the Help Stack in presentations in the past. I’ve spoken to the idea of layering these elements to build that bridge. Over the next few posts I’ll be fleshing out specifics around each element of the Help Stack. I’ll be talking about potential challenges, the tools that support it, and roles needed to get the job done. So stick around. More on this soon.

I finally got to catch Sameer Patel’s talk from the E20 Summit in Milan (only mostly jealous). I thought he did a fantastic job of wrapping up the story of organizational social competency (he usually does). It’s that story I wish I could simply plug into the C-Suites of the world… “I know kung fu” style. Were it only that easy.

Listening to Sameer’s talk I had a moment of alignment. I’ve been telling the competency story to a different audience from a different perspective for a while now. I’ve been teaching employees and community managers how to answer very real questions about true operational change on the inside. About how tools should work to support the needs of the users before the needs of those supporting/delivering them, and how leaders and teams can truly work in open spaces. These are evolving organizational social competencies. The how-to story is becoming clearer.

As social competencies evolve, transparency shows us that not everyone has command of a set that works for them.  We’re all still trying to figure out how much of ourselves we give to the open spaces and in what context, especially considering the shifting nature of our relationships with services and the privacy controls they offer (cough: Facebook). The need to mature the organizational competency is no different.

Sameer spoke of honestly looking at processes and operations, each little detail, to discover which  elements should be embraced and which should evolve. I completely agree that this investigation is vital to making sense of all things social. It’s how we must evolve as self aware organizations. A pragmatic assessment is vital  yet can be so easily overlooked or paid lip service to. A willingness to lift up the rocks and see what’s crawling around beneath is needed if there is any hope of sustained success. I see a focus on competencies as a major step in bringing understanding to the uninitiated and the resistant. A way to peel away the misnomers and assumptions that have bubbled up with each negative Facebook story or joke about blogging hipsters. There are many layers of detail that could, and should be added based on individual organizations and cultures. I’m beginning with a 50k ft view to keep things clear.  Internal to an organization I see it broken out by role and focus:

• Organizational Competencies, or the identified proficiencies the organization agrees to demonstrate to employees, customers, community and market
• CXO Competencies, or the identified proficiencies executive leaders agree to demonstrate to employees, customers, community and market
• Employee Competencies, or the identified proficiencies employees agree to demonstrate to colleagues, leaders, customers, community and market

Identified competencies are usually reflective of the business model or mission, and include a basic set of core values; the prescriptive description of a company culture (not to be confused with the actual network of cultures that exist in large orgs). In many environments those values are used as the baseline measure for employee review. They usually include subjective elements such as collaboration, communication, or respect. Employees may be lucky enough to get a few specific examples of what these elements really mean as they plan career path within an organization. The thing is, these measures in their current states almost perfectly support a transition to an open social space. Social basically already exists there. It’s correlation and clarity that seem to be missing in the haze of social buzz.

The confusion seems similar to that of the behavioral norms of participation. “How do I get people to contribute?”, “What if someone posts bad/non-compliant information?”, “What should my answer look like if a junior employee challenges me?”, “ What if I/they/we do something wrong?”
My first answer to any of these questions is usually: How would you handle it in the hallway? We have the answers we need to sort it out. We simply have to unearth the rocks, draw lines, and make sense of it in a way that honors culture while educating and stewarding forward motion. We have to intervene when the reaction becomes emotional and help our orgs build specific competency sets we can use to identify a way forward in education, in tool evolution, and in our innovative use of the medium.

So if we have all of this information in front of us what does it look like? Here’s a starter stab at it.

Social use competencies from the tool perspective

Linking – are links proliferated? are conversations linked to relevant documents and resources?
Leveraging the connections the tools afford – are connections (friending/colleaguing(?), linking conversations to documents, participating and contributing to communities, etc.

Tagging – are contributions tagged? will the contributor add tags to content that “does not belong to” them?
Ranking/feedback – does contributor offer input regarding the content or tools?
Generally, understanding how contribution and use impact discovery.

Using the best tools for the job – does contributor understand the different strengths of social tools? (we know the difference between a phone call and an email, why would understanding the difference between a discussion forum and a blog be different if the org has provided the education?)

Protecting content that actually needs protection – does the contributor understand and abide by the security needs of the organization as their education and orientation offered? Do contributors understand basic copyright, attribution, technology export, worker union, or other applicable compliance laws?

Finding information using the tools available – does a data gatherer spam email groups with questions before searching or crowd sourcing an answer through a social mechanism, or by leveraging search for answers?

Social interaction competencies from the behavioral perspective

Participant or Lurker – are valuable contributions being made (value can be defined in spectrum: as simple as a complete profile to proficient tagger or bookmarker, or prolific documenter) Lurkers do have and get value from social systems, however due to volume differences from www to org, you really should educate and encourage as few lurkers as possible. You cannot force, but you can educate to get the best contribution possible.

Communication – are responses made in a way that leaves space for conversation, is the contributor welcoming of other opinions, do they know well enough to not be a troll, or how to ask for information needed, do they know when to shut up and stop talking about themselves? Are they able to respect colleagues online as they would in the hallways? Can they demonstrate respect in their use of the medium? ( btw, any of these items should have been taught with the telephone, meeting room, water cooler, parking lot… I think you get my drift.. in short, if it’s being measured as an interaction skill now, online application should be used as example.. think of how many represent themselves with a very different voice online.)

If an organization is willing to define a set of measurable values, social should be a clearly represented and therefore easily measured. The measure can offer insights into the social make up and maturity of the culture.

Let’s go a little deeper and revisit competencies from a role perspective.

From the organization layer, it’s time to understand what’s really working and what’s really not. Sameer’s point about the work we’ve done to deflect our customers through automation, and generally supporting the org vs. the customers, and perhaps employees, struck a chord with me. Not because I’m toiling in a quarry somewhere…  I know corporate dwellers across many organizations who feel that they don’t have a trusted relationship with their employer (I am not one of them). I don’t think I’m unearthing any new concepts there. Shouldn’t trust be something we aspire to, or better yet, expect to participate in? Mutual respect and a general sense that we have each other’s best interests in mind, even if we do reside within a large org? I get that the idea is a big one. I also try to shoot for the right thing regardless if it’s the norm or not. A large organization willing to take an honest look inside is a special one. This work won’t be easy and it won’t be for every organization.

At the CXO layer a specific set of operational social competencies should be clarified. The prevailing notion that social proficiency = leader blogging is damaging at best. Non-participating CXO’s are missing out on volumes of vital business and organizational intelligence, as well as meaningful affinity with a workforce embroiled in their own work/life perspective shift (millennials, remote work, the rise of a worker-as-entrepreneur culture). The basic lack of operational knowledge is an expensive operating cost that too many organizations gladly assume.  Some clarity around the notion that growth doesn’t = more demand on an executive’s (or employee’s) time is needed. The reality is that growth demands greater efficiency, proficiency and social competency. It will be required to lead amidst evolution. Isn’t that what leaders have been doing since the dawn of time? In my view, participation at the CXO level should at least include some base level of engagement in the social channels. Involvement in conversation beyond organized appearances creates opportunity for employees and customers to build trust, align to/comprehend where the business is going, and allows leaders the vital feedback they need to avoid simply believing their own press releases. It takes guts to be an enterprise leader. We get that. It takes real bravery to be a leader in the open. We’ve got work to do there.

The Employee layer requires a solid set of social competencies to deliver on the promise of E20. Increased efficiency, emergence, trust, discovery, engagement…  Education and reasonable accountability for actions that can place the organization at risk are the ying to the yang of more open spaces and trust. It’s a two way street. Employees  also have to understand how to represent themselves in public social spaces as they would in a meeting with a client or a new colleague. Stories such as “nice wand” (my personal fav) have crossed many an executive desk and create an emotional reaction fast. If you want to carry a wand you’d better understand how limited profile works.  Employees also carry the added responsibility of self advocacy. This can be demonstrated in their choice to engage with leaders, the organization and colleagues in the open spaces. Think about what we used to call networking as engagement. It’s a whole new story.

Remember, this is a 50k ft view. Every organization will have their own cultural norms, policies to abide by and conclusions to arrive at. The idea here is that it will require some honest organizational analysis to get to the right spot, and that right spot will move over time.

If you were tasked to create a competency model that included social business tomorrow morning, what would you include? What resistance might you meet? How would you sell it?

Eager to hear your ideas.

The Enterprise 2.0 Conferences. Probably my favorite professional events. My gaggle of imaginary friends (read: colleagues scattered across the globe) turn into real live human beings vs. quippy avatars. We make ourselves clear; we bond, change and fortify opinions about one another, our theories and our products. We gather new connections and information. We do the schmooze and make alliances. We influence one another in an effort to improve our businesses, the organizations we support, or the world itself. Of course some just come because they’ve been told to, or better yet, because it’s fun. It’s all spectrum.

For many of us connection and exchange are the meat of a conference experience. I think  UBM TechWeb, Steve Wylie and the Advisory Board get this. They’ve demonstrated their understanding in the evolution of the conference over the few short years of its existence. #e2conf has matured in step with the industry it serves. It has bragging rights to being the best at focusing on the conversations I need to inform my work, and to evolve as a delivering practitioner.

Image courtesy of Alex Dunne

Conferences, not unlike our E20 efforts, struggle to balance the expectations of attendees with those of the sponsors. I have no qualms with sponsor keynotes when they are balanced with bigger picture messages from the likes of JP (and hopefully soon, Euan … plugging away Steve, can’t help it).
I understand that sponsors value speaking as a way to improve impact and reach… not to mention the percentage of attendees that wouldn’t walk an expo floor if paid to. I get that the logos I see represent vendors who’ve helped pay the bills and will vie for a chunk of my attention in return. That’s sort of how it works. Should there be more influencers, big thinkers, and actionable information in keynotes? Sure. Will this event evolve into a unconference totally driven by attendee need? Probably not. I’m OK with that.

I in no way mean to imply naivete or poo poo the call for more authenticity in our experience. If you know anything about me, you know that I expect a lot from my vendors. I don’t suffer pitch well, but I love a good conversation about how you’ll change the world. We should find creative ways to introduce balance.

What I’m driving at is that our whole notion of keynotes will evolve with time as we allow it to. I loved the DJ experience JP brought. The hecklers on Twitter who were yanked out of their comfort zone were equally entertaining, and I was impressed that JP was totally present in each of those activities in real time. No hackneyed script. Just channeling some honest ideas about humans and what we’re apt to struggle with in a way we may not have considered. That my friends is what those of us in the trenches, selling change to folks at desks, feel like we’re doing much of the time… but that’s another post.

The way we communicate in groups continues to evolve (live or through the ether). The flow of feedback will help usher that evolution along to the schedule of mind-blowing call-to-action keynotes we all crave. Vendors will evolve their messages as customers become more savvy (they’ve been doing it all along actually) and it won’t ever be enough for the audience. It’s the tension that moves us forward.

With all this in mind I offer a question. Knowing that vendor sponsors will be on the bill, what would you like to hear them say? How would you like to hear them say it? If you could sit down one of this year’s keynotes and offer actionable feedback, what would it sound like?

Beyond my role as therapist/negotiator I’m also a janitor. I clean up bruised perceptions and broken hearts. Those who’ve been persuaded by a well intended social media guru touting the value of ‘personal branding’ within the org, yet have failed to yield the fame and fortune implied. They’re hurt, jaded, and no longer believe the hype. That’s where I come in.

Inside an organization, and outside of marketing, personal branding doesn’t carry much clout. In many cases, it can build walls that separate task-focused users from meaningful adoption of the social business experience. So how can a practitioner woo these wary souls back for another round? Pragmatism.

Step 1) Listen to the story. Know the hype, know & acknowledge the failure, be ready to tie your request for participation to real live work. Be clear with yourself. If you are asking someone to perform an extra task with no tangible (x times better than email) outcome, you’ve lost.

Step 2) Have a pocket full of ideas. Prepare yourself with a matrix of business goals and potential solutions. Invest time in an organizational soul searching session with yourself. Consider real scenarios, use real requests, real fears. Build an adaptable pool of solution sets that allow you to quickly respond with strategy, ideas, and answers. If the issue is so unique that it doesn’t fit into your pool, offer a strategy session with your client. Respect their challenges and offer appropriate attention. A simple investment of time can go a long, long way.

Step 3) Be human. I’ve said this before (probably in each post at least once). You must be accessible, accountable, and a part of your client’s team. You cannot come from on high or be the guru with all of the answers. If you are there for yourself it shows. If you are in this for your own visibility it shows. Incessantly talking about your blog, your Twitter activity, or other social media endeavors tells a story about you and raises a signal that the client’s goal may not be what you are after.

Step 4) Stand by your man (or woman). Be there when they are off the ground. Stay there until they are flying high. Offer yourself as an active participant in their social sphere as much as the scenario allows. In many E20 spaces this could be a community, a team workspace, a commenter on a blog or a forum.. you get it. Be there to cheer them on. Know when to remove the training wheels, step away and applaud their success.

Step 5) Never forget to applaud their success. Not only should you be there, you should raise winning efforts as success stories. Often. The beauty of an organizational win is that you can connect winners to new users easily. Let the winners help you share the good word. As winners they’ll be happy to stand out and support you as champion.

Much of what I tout here is authenticity and accountability. I’ve found these two attributes to be the lynch pin tactics of successful adoption efforts. The 2.0 world is maturing to a point where we no longer believe the snake oil hype. I think you’ll find that your clients (internal to your orgs or otherwise) know that story instinctively.

Thanks for reading. Tell me what you think .

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixmilliondollardan/3074916976/

Much of the work your on-the-ground practitioners do is teaching, listening, and finding ways to match goals to strategy at team, project, or individual levels. We spend a lot of time moving from group to group trying to gauge readiness and understand how (and if) what we’re offering fits. After what feels like thousands of coaching hours, matching tools to goals isn’t all that tough anymore. I’ve created matrices, how-to documents and strategy maps to try and speed that part of the process. It’s worked pretty well. You cannot go wrong with a good clear visualization. The part you cannot map however is the rate at which your people will embrace the information you’re delivering in a meaningful way. What you’re asking them to do is change their ideas about how to get work done. You’re asking them to un-learn a muscle memory. To open up a little bit, put down the idea that your Enterprise solution is Facebook, purely social, or a waste of time can be a big effort. It’s 101 for most of us. It’s advanced theory for more than you can imagine. Consider the luck you’d have presenting the dangers of smoking to a room full of life-long smokers. Sure, they know it’s not working, but it’s a habit. Worse yet, they think it’s working just fine thanks. Yeah, it’s like that.

I’ve been lucky to have sat in very close proximity to an industry recognized learning and development department as part of my maturation in the Enterprise world. Whether the training was focused on leadership development, conflict resolution or Excel, I’ve always come away with something I could actually apply to my professional or personal life. I’ve paid close attention to their openness and their ability to evolve approach over the years. I’ve nicked a few ideas and folded them into my coaching tactics.

The very first lesson I picked up has taken me the furthest. It’s simple, but proves to be challenging for a great number of folks who’ve been steeped in densely siloed enterprises for any period of time. It goes something like this. If you want to connect with someone in a way that helps you deliver a meaningful message you must be an accessible, accountable human. What does that mean?

Think about the best classes or workshops you’ve attended. The ones where you we’re stoked to get started on something immediately after. What was the facilitator doing that created that energy? For me it’s that they were simply willing to exchange energy with me. They were open enough to tap into what I needed, and agile enough to respond so quickly that I never saw it happen. I’ve never experienced that kind of energy in an environment where competition rules, where it’s clear that someone is ‘running this meeting’, or when the culture of the room demands that everyone present their knowledge through acronyms and titles. How can you emulate this years-honed talent of openness to speed your time to adoption?

In my observation you as the facilitator need to walk into the discussion expecting to learn something. You aren’t there to pitch, to show off your fancy slide deck, or to spew a bunch of jargon that only the E20-Echosphere can comprehend. You’ve also got to balance that openness with the ability to quickly ID and curb any notion that you’re there to support status quo, or movement back to a dysfunctional system because it’s comfort or familiarity.

So you can’t be the slick social media guru/huckster, the hard-nosed Drill Sergeant, or the corporate concierge. You get to be a perfectly balanced combination of the three as you teach. You absolutely will not be popular with everyone, and you will likely have a number of failures along the way.  You’ll be a supportive, informed, open and fallible human being. Speak plainly. Listen more than you talk. Be the change you’re looking for. (Thanks Mr. G.)
If you are building your E20 plan and considering how you’ll write that this magical practitioner rec let me offer a few considerations. First, the general primer. At the E20 conf in San Francisco Andrew McAfee made some insightful (if not a little depressing) observations about the type of person it takes to do the work we’re wrapped up in. (http://www.e2conf.com/e2tv/ – nav to Internal Evangelist of the Year Award video – login required). In addition to McAfee’s general wrap up, here’s my crack at sources and traits to look for. Well, beyond “nut job” that is…

Sources:

• Teachers/Trainers/Facilitators
• Skilled Change Managers
• Tech Support – Technical coaches
• Facilitators/Moderators
• HR Reps/Counselors
• Marketing and Communications (who may have already embraced, and succeed with, social media)

Traits:

• The know-it-all: That gal or guy who knows everyone/everything about the organization
• The stealth-geek or Not-a-total-coder: Technical enough to understand and participate in the tools offered (that’s not to say that all coders aren’t suitable, just avoid those who cannot balance their tech and people skills)
• Affable, easy going, gregarious even: Charisma never hurts when you are asking someone to do something they might not be comfortable with right off the bat. Someone who can instill (and earn) trust quickly.
• Strong communicator: Someone who can talk with equal comfort and affability from the shipping dept to the board room. Respect: Someone who gets the complexity of culture, and knows to never talk down to “junior” staff, or say something stupid to the CEO.
• Conflict Resolver: Someone who’s not afraid to be beat up a little if it means getting to the goal and can help smooth feathers fast.
• Human… had I mentioned that?

When it’s just you and a resistor in a room, all the charts and lingo aren’t there to support you. You’ve got to make humanity a component of your identified plan, and you’ve got to do it in a way that honors your corporate culture. It’s a tough one, but its’ doable. It’s also incredibly rewarding when the change starts to show.

Thanks for reading. Let me know what you think.

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/elpablo/41268639/

Email. My Nemesis and savior. I can’t stand it. While I’d like very much to move entirely to a more fluid and logical comms/capture scenario, my world dictates otherwise. Yep, this is coming from an E2.0 professional with full access and use of wikis, forums, blogs, bookmarking, yadda, yadda… Many of our cultures are still very much cemented in email, and we continue to evolve.

In my role I’m required to be a member of some 472 email lists (not counting personal subscriptions). 99% of the of the deluge is content I can ignore. I am a master of filters, rules and auto-responses. I am also regularly surprised by how oblivious otherwise smart and thoughtful people can be around email. Perhaps it’s the perceived singularity of the channel. Or maybe they just don’t read their email before they hit send? Don’t even get me started on reply all…

I became sensitive/empathetic to email etiquette as my interaction with the fore mentioned lists increased. If I had to send a dreaded ‘all members’ email I’d get immediate feedback in the form of 200-300 out of office emails. Before you learn to set up a filter, seeing 200-300 emails hit your inbox all at once can be kind of shocking. I knew there were many more eyes who’d see what I’d sent. I remember the first few times I’d been asked to send an ‘official’ broadcast to a large group. My mouse would hover over the send button while I read the content for the fifth or sixth time, with my body in a tight ‘C’ shape as I peered at the monitor. It felt like my reputation was on the line. In fact, it sort of was. The funny thing is, I’ve only partially taken these rules with me to Twitter. If you have the misfortune of following me you’ve likely borne witness to some entertaining blunders (Just for you, free of charge.). Based on what I’ve seen from others, I’m not alone. Moreover, it doesn’t really matter. Even with the knowledge that I mix business and pleasure on Twitter, the room has a different vibe despite the fact that the numbers are well higher than 200-300.

It still strikes me as odd to get a business email from a colleague where all caps are used for emphasis, multiple exclamation points to underscore urgency (always looks like a unfortunately timed spasm to me) or they simply haven’t bothered with a salutation of any kind (which usually comes across as “me want!”). Don’t get me wrong. I’m the queen of the overused emoticon, a huge fan of slang, and probably one of the worst writers you’ll meet. I took my writing tips more from Gertrude Stein than from the Chicago Manual of Style. Just do a punctuation check. I dare you.

Most of us walk into our inbox with the acceptance that email is one of the worst communications tools around. I really do get that, but with more and more of our relationships happening in a text only space, should we perhaps think about our written body language? Are we becoming numb to the messages we send that we do not intend? Are they damaging in a business space or are we evolving/devolving to a place where it just doesn’t matter? Should we always partition our personal and professional voices? As our personal and professional worlds merge, will we simply let it go?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/idogcow/391609724/

Scanning my reader this morning I came upon a clip of Bill Gates on The Daily Show talking about his foundation work. Jon Stewart made some comments about change that struck me as very familiar.

“Why is it so difficult to get change in our educational system? That seems to be one of the most intractable systems. Either because of the boards that are there or the unions. What is it about our educational system that makes it so difficult to reform?”

“Don’t public things like school and health care need to have the power to fail? Need to fire the wrong person? It’s never going to be perfect. Aren’t peoples expectations of what it’s supposed to be so precious that you never get change in a positive direction?”

I see parallels in this discussion. Replace “school and health care” with organizational change. Still seems to fit.
Is there any power in the knowledge that we are all learning to balance fear against our ability to innovate?

See video here

As a member of the 2.0 Adoption Council I have access to a vast amounts of information and inspiration. I am surrounded by a wide variety of colleagues, all of whom are also deploying collaborative technologies and ideas across their organizations. It’s like the hallways of the best conferences but we have it everyday. The extra added benefit is the support we get from Susan Scrupski, a.k.a. “the human Rolodex” (A. McAfee). I might take that a bit further and offer that what’s in that noggin is much more sophisticated than a Rolodex… more like a quad core with 5 TB of storage. Amidst a million other benefits that Susan brings our way is her connection to many of our industry luminaries. We’ve had the opportunity to chat with Andy McAfee, Dion Hinchcliffe, Gil Yehuda and others about what we’re doing within our organizations. Who gets to do that every other Thursday? Honestly.

For today’s chat we were lucky enough to connect with Euan Semple, whom I have great respect for. Euan comes from the ‘one of us’ category, being someone who’s experienced first hand the challenges we face in bringing change to our organizations. Euan just did it first. I found it heartening to hear anecdotes that sounded very familiar. The talk developed a theme quickly. We wanted to know more about dealing with resistance, changing minds, and pushing through. At one point Euan likened some engagements to interventions (not going to mention that I’d already been working on a post with that title *thanks Euan*) and he couldn’t be more accurate. What we’re doing is tough work that requires some degree of authentic emotional intelligence. Knowing when to yield and when to push is often something you can’t teach. You either have it or you learn it the hard way.

It’s easy to get lost in detail of the work and of our cultures as we take this on. The density of detail we’re navigating can be very overwhelming. Getting a big picture from someone who’s more than a decade in can bring your perspective to a different place. Not to mention from someone who understands the efficiency of humanity over tradition (my synopsis, not his). We’re lucky as members to have these opportunities. Luckier still that there are folks out there with the knowledge and the ability to communicate it plainly.

Big thanks to Susan, to Euan, and to the members that joined in today. If you are working E2.0 and you aren’t familiar with Euan (OK, where have you been?) check out his blog. If you are doing this work yourself come join us. The benefits are outstanding.

Michelle McCormick at Inspiration Resource (one of my favorite design blogs) shared this yesterday. It screamed E2.0 to me. Enjoy.

So, the mantra is “Listen to the users. They’ll tell you what you need to know”.

Are you listening?
What are you hearing?
Are you hearing?

One of the toughest and most culturally revealing aspects of deploying E2.0 is discovering where the egalitarian line will be drawn, and make no mistake, it will be drawn. Let’s face it, deployment of an E2.0 solution won’t turn an organization into a democracy. The decision to begin a project of the E2.0 ilk doesn’t come solely from the passion of ideology or the desire for a more effective and respectful working world. Organizations are taking this path because there is a hope that the bottom line will improve.

In a large organizational world user advocacy comes with challenges. For example, in many large corporate environs, few will ever challenge a CIO with “hey wait, the users said they didn’t want that”. In others you may be able to openly advocate and might over ridden anyway. If you’ve done your work (and the planets align) you can sell your point.

Regardless of culture, it’s important as a practitioner to build a case for advocacy. Being careful to speak the language of your audience is a foot in the door. The ability to deliver hard numbers and analysis will greatly improve your chances of selling user perspective. Here are a few ideas on hearing, capturing, analyzing feedback, and delivering it to potentially closed ears.

• Listen with a spreadsheet as well as your gut. Capture and measure every bit of feedback your users have to offer.
• Ask for more. If you only hear “I don’t like this” ask  “what would you expect to see, and how would it support your work”.
• Take it offline. Talk, in person, to a variety of users. Arrange focus groups, community town halls or social meet ups where you can engage and get more.
• Use a matrix to capture the variety of messages users can deliver with one comment.
• Understand the demographics. Not just geography and position, but their location in the adoption cycle as well.
• Use your collected site stats, help reporting, and user feedback to draw the full spectrum of user experience.
• When a trend reveals itself watch closely. Use your data to hone in on why.
• Raise your trends with clear analysis and a succinct message. Have the data ready to back it up, but don’t throw it all out at once. A tough message and hard numbers can be jarring if ears aren’t ready.
• Don’t stop if you don’t get the answer you hoped for. Keep measuring, analyzing and messaging consistently. Adoption works both ways. E2.0 is just as new to the teams supporting it as it is to your users.

Let me know what’s worked for you. What do you do with what you hear?

Thanks for reading.

Image credit: The Museum of Retro Tech