Book Review: Groundswell by Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff

The authors define a groundswell as “…a social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions”. mmm that sounds like an important thing to know about if you think you're a traditional institution, or if you think you're breaking new ground, or if you're a consumer wondering why you're starting to feel left out the loop.

What I liked about the book was the examples and case studies. Usually I skip these, however, I foudn these ones riveting reading. Who needs thriller novels when the business world presents us with such chaotic and roller coaster events. Fabulous.

I also found the way the book was constructed and organised to be very helpful, especially when faced with a disconcerting topic. Far from being disorganised, the underlying structure helped get the message through.

Read this book and it will move you on from thinking about "all we need to do is have the odd blog and a fancy web 2.0 website" and get you into strategising about your social media presence. I have always been convinced that social media is not just for the youngesters and this book has all the examples and conceptuals models to help you create some of your own thinking for your business to prove it is for everyone.

The book has, as you would expect, a great website. http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/index.html It is good to see them practising what they preach. They have a blog and there is also a social media profiling tool you can download and use.

I'm not one for giving 5 stars to a book, but this one deserves it. I might just read it a second time.

Connection is key for innovation

A little luck and a lot of perspiration is no longer the prerequisite for innovation. Nowadays connections, relationships and networks are key.

Steven Johnson's next book is about Where Good Ideas Come From. You can watch him in action on this TED video (which starts with a picture and talk about the Grand Cafe in Oxford).



A couple of key points include:

1. Innovation is the result of the brain making new connections and these connections mirror workplace connectivity.  The better the networks and more complex the relationships then the more likely it will be that good ideas arise. His premise is that innovation is an interactive process.
2. The architecture of space is important if ideas are to be generated and spread - he has looked into what environments have contributed to innovation. If we want innovation we need to design spaces that enable connections.
3. Great ideas that appear to spark from nowhere are most likely the result of a long period of incubation which may not be obvious and are most likely cobbled together from a variety of existing ideas.. He argues that ideas are networks and the way of thinking about them as sparks, illumination etc is no longer relevant.

4 kinds of relationships

So much of spreading good, known and evidenced practice is based on social connections and relationships. John Maxwell has four ways in which relationships can be categorised.

1. Some people add things to life (we enjoy them) +
2. Some people subtract something from life (we tolerate them) -
3. Some people multiply something in life (we value them) *
4. Some people divide something in life (we avoid them) /

If a key role of the person who group is trying to influence others to change their behaviour then it might be useful to reflect on the relationship between the "spreader/pusher" and the "adopter/puller".

There are some people I avoid (4) and I am unlikely to even receive the messages they are pushing out, let alone act on them. In a similar vein, those I tolerate (2) I will probably put them low on my priority list and will be fairly sceptical about what they put out. Whether I adopt anything they are pushing will be a matter of personal judgement.

On the other hand, those whose company I enjoy (1) I will probably get to hear a lot about what they are saying, thinking about and pushing in my direction. I will take their information in quite quickly, though may still toss the ideas about before making any changes to my behaviour.

Those I value I will probably not wait for them to send me information. I will be finding ways to connect, listen out carefully and will most likely shift my behaviour quite quickly when they send out behaviour related messages.

So which types of relationships are you creating and endorsing?

Energisers enable social movements

I'm in the fortunate position that I can usually choose who I work with which means when I encounter someone who starts to sap my energy, someone who manages to de-energise a group, then I choose to walk away. These are the people who go through working life discovering the problems, the roadblocks, pointing out the pitfalls, relishing in the cloudy skies - well, they don't encourage me to take on new behaviours - unless it's the one to walk away.

On the other hand, you may also have experienced what it's like to be in the same room as someone with a sunny disposition. I'm not referring to the eternal optimist as this person can be a bit tiring. I'm remembering those individuals who make time to be with people, who will be present at the meeting in more than body. They put their Blackberry's to one side and listen in, engaging with the conversation and finding positive and helpful ways to facilitate the discussion.

These same individuals often seem quite purposeful. They are task focused yet approach these activities with a care and compassion for others. If they disagree, they keep focused on disagreeing with the topic in hand and not attacking the person behind it. They keep communicating, even when the chips are down, addressing tough issues with integrity and sincerity. When I work with these individuals they help me gain meaning about the issues we're grappling with, while directing me, and others, towards an goal.

I hear a lot about the need for social movements in healthcare. There are some complicated frameworks and messages about hwo they get implemented. For me, it's all about the positive energy of those involved.

Are you energising or de-energising those around you?

Creative Commons 2008 Sarah Fraser Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative

Solution seekers or problem solvers?

Maybe you've had this experience too? You've come across one of those people in a team or organisation who just seem to have things around them so, well, sorted. I've come across another one of these great folk again so I spent some time investigating what it was that contributed to their success. Of course, this also meant I had to rearrange a few of my own mental models in the process.

Yes, they met all the usual requirements of good interpersonal skills, they had good time keeping and you could rate them as productive and efficient leaders. But there was something else. They were working in a fast-paced operational environment where quality improvement was required and the technical skills associated with improvement and change management were highly prized by their peers and senior managers. I anticipated seeing a high achieving improvement manager at work, putting their skills into action and solving problems.

I was wrong. What I encountered was almost the opposite. This person had few if any technical improvement skills. They knew enough to hold a conversation. Their focus was on the business and on diagnosing the context and the wider issues at stake. So how did problems get resolved and improvement take place? And how did this leader stay remarkably unstressed while also delivering a newly streamlined operation?

Their approach was one of a solution seeker? All their language was about solutions. This was more than internal organisational debates and discussions. This person was a vast networker. At the first sign of an issue, feelers were put out on their web of networks, asking questions of their contacts, "anyone seen this issue?", "who has solved this and how", "who has a guideline or policy for this?". If this person didn't get a response within a couple of days the questioning moved on to "does anyone know someone who has solved this problem, can you introduce me to someone?". Very soon, phone calls were set up and discussions held. As quickly as possible they linked up members of the team with teams in other places that had solved the problem and they shared experiences.

Coldy written here in the blog, this looks like any old description of a way to share good practice through a social system. Thing is, it seldom happens this way for real when leaders are up against the hot pipes and working in organisations where the culture is silo'd and boundaries are firm.

This leader is different. They have a fundamentally alternative view of their role. They look outwards. They know they cannot have all the skills necessary to solve all the problems. They know one of the most effective competencies they can bring to the role is their ability to network. They also know the capital their network brings and they use it.

This is the solution seeker mentality and it is focused on speeding up the adoption and implementation of better practices.

CC 2008 Sarah Fraser Creative Commons-Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative

How opinion leaders may be ineffective

The word "Champion" gives me shivers when I hear it as a label given to someone by senior management who then overlays their expectations on this person to lead the change of a topic with their peer group. For example, in healthcare, we get clinical champions for colorectal cancer, or nurse champions for infection control. Often these individuals are identified because they have participated in projects or shown interest and leadership in their work, within their peer group.

So what happens once they get "promoted" to champion?

Before answering this question, some background. I am aware of much research on the topic of opinion leadership. Much of this is contested and conflicting. In fact, come of the recent research questions whether they exist at all and other research points out they may exist, however, the manipulation of them may be impossible, for many reasons I'll not cover here. So or the purposes of this short note I am assuming you're interested in the concept because you like the use of it and wonder whether and how it works for you.

In colloquial terms, I do find there are two types of opinion leaders. The promiscuous type and the powerful ones. The first category are those who have a lot to say. They have strong opinions and will talk to many people, within and without their per group, about those opinions. The extent to which others are influenced by those opinions I feel is rather weak. This may be because of the volume of them, the weakness of targetting or the number of different ideas discussed. In contrast, the more powerful opinion leader is the one who shares a little less and builds more credibility with focus. More of an expert this person is also a bit more interested in ensuring the ideas are successful in the workplace. So the followers will place credibility in the ideas this person speaks about or actions that are taken. Obviously there are some grey areas in between these two steareotypes I have described above.

So what happens to the 'champion' role?

If the person who is placed in this role comes from the more promiscuous type of opinion leadership orientations, I feel they will start with less credibility amongst their peers. From the management perspective they may appear quite (or indeed very) effective, as they may be able to maintain a high degree of communication. The issue is whether this communication transfers into a change of behavior. At best it does. At worst it creates noise in the system and a consequential immunity to further change.

For the more powerful and expert opinion leader, the transfer to 'champion' often ends in the loss of credibility. The individual is seen by their peers as having 'gone over to the other side'. The very factor that gave them their power is then lost. Perhaps they would have been best left in their place and given support to carry out their social leadership role, without interference.

There is theory and research, and there is practice. I read the theory and research and spend time in organisations and working on projects. My difficulty is connecting the theory and the practice when it comes to opinion leadership. I'm starting to realise that the theories are very limited and maybe it is time to do some reframing by looking very closely at what actually happens in practice.

And maybe it's a good idea to work with the social system rather than to mess with it.

(c) 2008, Sarah Fraser