Stimulating the desire to share

So I've been taking notes for a few weeks on why it is some people are really attracted to share some things, others are attracted to share very little. What is it that stimulates one person clicko n the "share" button on You-Tube or any other social networking site? What prompts someone to forward a useful article? SO the notes I've been taking are around my own behaviour and desire to share. I am wondering how much of this is generalisable to other people and contexts.

1. Relationship building: sometimes I share something because I am aware it is part of continuing a relationship with someone. This can range form the more formal paper I've read that I hope someone else will also find useful, though to something more random like a video clip on You-tube that I thought someone in the family might find amusing. My sharing isn't something planned - it just sort of happens and when I see something I will trigger a "share". This made me think whether "relationship building" is something we consider or design with in mind when developing change programs.
2. Unknown sharing: this is a bit like the blindspot in the Johari window. I realised that I am on many social and business networking sites. It is possible for me to share a message, say on Twitter, and then this is retweeted (forwarded on to others). I have no idea who the people are, though Twitter is useful as it is possible to track the sharing - not so with email. Sometimes the only way I know something has been shared is when I get an email form someone I have never heard of yet they are commenting on something I said. This is a very powerful dynamic at work and I wonder how much this is taken into account when developing communication strategies? I've learnt how random this process is. Got to be in there and involved to have any sense of how the internet can generate both velocity (speed) as well as scaling up of a message.
3. Problem shared is a problem halved: I have found sharing problems and looking for support and answers from others is an important strategy for me. I use LinkedIn to pose questions and also reach out to colleagues. This means I have to describe my problem - this process of sharing usually means I end up part solving the problem as I do the definition! So I wonder whether in our change efforts we spend too much time requiring solutions to be articulated when one strategy may be to help people both find words to their problem as well as find someone to whom they can reach out.
4. Random sharing: ever found yourself telling your life story to someone sitting next to you on the bus and who you only met 30 seconds ago when you sat down?! Well, not quite as extreme, though I have found myself sharing all sorts of things with people which don't fall into relationship building (except perhaps very short term) or as precisely as problem solving. There is something opportunistic here. So I wonder whether we can help more of these opportunistic meeting happen in the workplace?
5. Good idea promotion: yes, I did do some promotion activities, sharing good practices I have seen elsewhere and which may be useful to the person or team I was working with at the time. However, this was only a very small percentage of my "sharing" time. Standing on a stage and telling stories also counts a bit of good practice sharing, though again this was a small part of my sharing activity. So I wonder whether we are over cooking the need to share good ideas?

So what I discovered by my own behaviour is I have not consciously set out the share good practice and good ideas. It is a lot more random than that. Also, my desire to share is really quite complex. OK, I am only a sample size of one - if you have stories about your own desire to share then please write a comment below.

I will be doing some thinking before designing the next communication and "spread" intervention I am involved in.

More on the fallacy of the tipping point

Last time I wrote about the fallacy of the tipping point I received a host of comments asking me to defend my thoughts a bit more. I ended up in a number of email conversations, some of which have persisted over the last few months.

The debate is essentially a Gladwell (as "son-of-Rogers") versus Watts debate if you want the protagonists' version. I see it more about Taylorist approach versus the networked world. Gladwell, like Rogers, has pursued very eloquently the theory that messages spread through a hierarchical type of system. It is based on a number of key influencers who spread the word. This is what he calls the "Law of the Few" which posits there are a few specifically influential people who spread the word. While there is some social system consideration in this approach it is essentially, to me, one of control and organisations. Maybe this is why so many leaders and organisations have fallen in love with the theory of the tipping point - it gives them a handle on which to explain their process driven communication plans.

I have felt for a long time that Gladwell/Rogers is way out of date when it comes to communication. Much of the arguments Gladwell use come from the 1990's - and can you remember how you used to communicate on both a small and large scale back then? Much of Roger's research was done pre-internet.

So, on the other hand, we have Duncan Watts who is approaching the debate from a networking perspective. His work demonstrates we are as likely to get information form a fairly random contact as we are from a "key influencer". The Watts approach to creating a viral experience for a message is harnessing the power of ordinary people's networks and strategies. Sure, there may be some influentials who spread the word, however, what Watts is making us think about is this may not be the only reason message spread. Gladwell's theories and examples are presented as a hub and spoke model - whereas Watts uses a more networked model which to me seems to more accurately reflect my world and experience. The difficulty of course is that it is not as easy to design a message spreading program is we believe the spread is more random than controlled.

One example both have used is the famous 6 degrees of separation one. Each has taken his own perspective. Gladwell repeats Milgram's results. Watts tested the theory using email and found that only 5% of the messages spread through what might be called Influentials - the rest was down to ordinary and perhaps less connected people.

If I had to invest in a spread strategy I would be looking to create learning communities, to be harnessing existing online connections, finding ways to get the messages into the email systems, developing content that worked on an online format etc. I used to be sold on the Rogers then Gladwell format but my own action research has led me to lean more to Watts.

Large scale change through small interventions

The phrase "large scale change" seems to be flavour of the year. What I am learning is that it means different things to different people, even when they are working in and on changing the same system. Something here about perception and definition I think.

While large scale change is in the press and on the lips, "small scale" changes or tests of changes seem to be dropping out of fashion. For those who have cut their improvement teeth in the realm of the PDSA cycle will know about the limitations and also the value of small scale changes.

So where does small scale and large scale meet?

I am finding it useful to focus on the the words impact and implementation. How can I achieve a large scale impact (maybe it is possible to have a large scale change yet insufficient impact)? How can I implement large scale change? So let's use large scale impact and large scale implementation as a way to define our change intentions.

There are many ways to achieve a large scale impact. My search is for the small scale changes that can have a large scale impact. For me this means getting the most efficiency, productivity, quality, outcome, gain, benefit (whatever your choice of measurement is) from the least amount of effort and disturbance to the system.

This is about paying attention to the what appears to be the small, boring and probably not award-winning changes that can make a difference. Focusing only on the bright and shiny changes can have many adverse consequences. Yes, it's good to talk of transformation, though that does depend on your perspective of the system. From an objective, outsider view that seems a rational task to accomplish. From the insider, subjective perspective this can creative unnecessary disruption. Also, transformation as a rhetoric provides little clue as to the how of transformation (see Weick,2000 for more info on this dynamic). It is possible that accumulated small changes can result in transformation. However, in the present financial situation for most organisations I am seeking large scale impact with small scale effort.

How can we determine whether the small scale change will have a large scale impact?

Looking at Impact (high/low) and Volume (high/low) for a specific proposal can help determine where to start, where more data analysis is required and where to put organisational change resources.

I am specifically nervous about what looks like a high impact yet is over a very small volume. One of the adverse consequences of implementing change here is regular, routine and predictable processes can be disrupted on the pretence of improvement. Pretence because it may be that the reasons for the change, for example a small patient group that needs additional time or never seem to be treated the "best" way, come about because of trying to solve the wrong problem. It could be this patient group needs extra special care. One way to get this is to look for small improvements that can be made over the large more predictable groups. By doing this more resources can be freed up to work with those who, by definition, will always be special cases.

In the current financial context I am hard pressed to agree to work on any change process unless some basic data analysis has taken place which demonstrates it is both high impact and high volume. If not HI/HV then some explanation of the need to change and the knock on consequences of both doing and not doing the change would be helpful.

I have a growing list of examples where small changes can have a big impact. For example, how saving 2 minutes on this procedure here by using resources in a different way can save £500,000+.

If you have any examples like this let me know (respond to this blog or email me).

Weick, K. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organisations.Breaking the code of change. M. Beer and N. Nohria. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press: 223-242

Selling ideas without application experience means low credibility

How do we get others to adopt new ideas? This is a question I am often asked. One way I find useful is to think about how I might not get someone to adopt a new idea. What can I do to stop it happening?

I was triggered into thinking this "negative" view when hearing a group of training course attendees debrief themselves after an event they had attended. The event was on a semi-innovative topic, with the participants exhorted to use a variety of new techniques in their work. It appears that those doing the training had not used or were not using at the time, the techniques they were espousing. This meant their own knowledge was superficial and lacked any credible examples, including the examples of what doesn't work so well. So the attendees I overheard all said they enjoyed the day and it gave them some new ideas, however, they were left feeling unable to actually carry out any of the techniques. They had received the equivalent of the management summary written by a technical writer and they wanted instead to be linked to the people who actually have experience of the techniques covered. When I asked whether they would adopt the techniques they all said "not until we see the organisation espousing them, use them".

This does give us a problem in how we get new ideas across to others. I find it useful to label courses, events, papers etc as "information" or "ideas only" events. Thus distinguishing them from the more "applied" events where we are expecting some demonstration and application of the techniques back in the workplace.

My caution is selling, training, espousing good ideas and theories - with the expectation others will use them - when the self (person, team, organisation) hasn't the experience of implementing them). This disconnect is obvious to the recipient of the message.

If we take a topic like protocols and guidelines or new theories on how to deliver improvement, this then emphasises the importance of having examples of good practice, examples from the people who have implemented it. Only they know the real issues in applying the techniques. Maybe we need to be patient in developing theory into practice and also be patient in finding and supporting those who are applying whatever it is we need to have in place. Without this, credibility of the espouser will drop off - yes, people will be entertained at workshops, but behaviour will not be changed.

Social media kits: CDC as a good example

Whatever your position on H1N1 swine flu, there is no doubting the news spread fast across the world.  Many change programs would like to emulate this type of activity; it is the Holy Grail of large scale change.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) in the USA is an excellent example.  I challenge organisations to respond as quickly, thoroughly and extensively as them.  In the case of H1N1 they didn't have a vast amount of planning time, though I suspect they had some contingency plans in place, to come up with a range of social media / social marketing tools.  So the first point to note is these were available almost instantly.  No waiting 2 - 3 months for a communications and marketing department to negotiate with an IT department following the meetings of the Change program division etc.... in order to get something done.

Secondly the CDC appreciates and understands the value of social media in getting messages out and helping them to spread, hopefully quicker than the virus they are focusing on.  Their H1N1 swine flu social media page  has:

• widgets; a whole variety to suits your own needs
• mobile information
• buttons
• online videos
• podcasts
• ecards
• rss feeds
• twitter link
• image sharing
• as for social networks you can find them on Facebook, mySpace, DailyStrength

Using social media is not the only way to communicate.  However, well done CDC for showing the way, probably breaking some rules in the process, and demonstrating to laggardly public sector organisations and departments how social media can be of value and no great sweat to implement.

Innovation may be a barrier to improving healthcare

I know I am on a sensitive topic here. However, the angle I'd like to mention is one that concerns me. I worry it might be a case of the emperor's new clothes. So just in case, I'd like to strip the outer layer of clothing off something that we take for granted and assume is "a good thing". Innovation.

It was announced this week that the NHS in England will have a prize fund of £20 million pounds to go to individuals, teams or organisations who come up with innovations that make a substantial improvement to services. So what I am wondering, is whether this is helpful, or in fact whether prizes and the ongoing emphasis on innovation is helping deliver long term, sustainable, effective and efficient improvements in the delivery of healthcare?

Disconfirming question #1: Why develop more innovation when the current good ideas, innovations etc are used by so few? I wonder what the impact would be if £20 million pounds was up for grabs if you could demonstrate you have implemented an existing evidenced good practice? Do we need more activity on research and new stuff when we have lists and lists of practices that can be of benefit if actually implemented? If an innovation comes up with an idea to get evidence into practice across whole systems and large groups of people, without them really noticing it, then yes, I am behind it. But I am not behind single, one off innovations which are so off the wall that the normal healthcare population can't conceive of ever implementing them.

Disconfirming question #2: Why emphasise innovation and not research? Though a part of me is frightened that any more research will go over old ground - so maybe that is why an innovation focus may be better?

Disconfirming question #3: Why focus on starting something new when stopping something that doesn't work might have more of an impact. The BMJ published in 2004 a list of "bad ideas" or practises in general use which are no longer considered "good practice". These sorts of practices continue to mean large variations in care. So if the innovation rewarded is one which erasing the use of "bad ideas" then I'm all for it.

Disconfirming question #4: Why focus energy on creating new ideas when the same energy could be focused on activity around implementing known and evidenced good ideas. Before I turn entirely into a "grumpy old woman" I do see that innovation and creativity is good. However, as a taxpayer in our system I want to see action on what we know already can work. I suspect tough times like a recession will enable the natural innovators to do their stuff - and they will do this regardless of prizes or focus. It's the greater norm population that doesn't regularly do innovation that bothers me; how can we get action underway there?

Disconfirming question #5: What is innovation anyway? This could leave to a philosophical debate. It could be that anyone implementing an existing known-elsewhere practice will feel it is like an innovation when they implement it in their own context. I suspect this is not what the prize organisers have in mind.

Yes, I do understand innovation and the need for it. My feeling is the innovating population will innovate anyway - that's their nature. I want support, profile and focus on getting existing known practice into place and in stopping known "bad ideas". We could start with hand washing - or someone could come up with an innovative something that means hand washing is an irrelevant activity in the drive to reduce hospital acquired infections.