Skilful Minds

A Weblog for Larry Irons
  • Home
  • About Skilful Minds
  • Notable Mentions
  • Publications
 

Gossip, Collaboration, and Performance in Distributed Teams

August 15, 2010

What do you think the typical manager might say if you told them their employees don’t gossip and engage one another enough in social interaction at work? 

Most managers know about the water cooler effect. However, not enough understand the meaning of the concept and how it relates to performance and collaboration.  People thinking about how to support collaboration and performance need to keep in mind the simple fact that employees don’t only gather around the water cooler or coffee pot to get a drink. They often use getting a drink of water, or a cup of coffee, as a pretext for taking a break, and information sharing happens incidentally as they interact in that informal process, sometimes playfully, with their peers and, in exceptional organizations, their managers. 

A couple of studies released this summer dealing with performance and collaboration in teams merit consideration in this regard. Not so much for what they specifically say about performance and collaboration as much as what they imply about the importance of social relationships to both. 

The consulting firm RW3 recently released a study of distributed teams, reporting that “40 percent of members on virtual teams believe their groups are underperforming”. We previously discussed such distributed teams, noting that team members often disagree with team leaders about who is, and is not, on the team. Michael Schell, CEO for RW3, noted in Chief Learning Officer magazine that, of the teams studied, “Half of these teams never meet in person…They don’t get time to create any kind of rapport, which is very important when you’re working across cultures.” 

While the RW3 research points to a salient issue in distributed teams, it fails to acknowledge that merely recognizing and talking about the impact of cultural variation on performance and collaboration, whether in informal online meetings or in training, fails to address the main issue. Members of distributed teams perform more effectively when they understand one another as people as well as employees. Specifically, 

Collaboration means getting to know that other employees possess expertise on this or that topic, but also developing comfort with one another by sharing significant symbols relating to self, family, friends, and social activities, thereby understanding one another as people. 

Merely orchestrating virtual water cooler meetings on a regular basis does not address the issue, especially when management coordinates the meetings. As I observed in a previous post on the importance of empathy and collaboration to social business design, 

People who identify with one another are more likely to share information proactively, without waiting for others to ask for it, because they understand how their own work relates to that of other people and see the flow of work from multiple points of view, spanning silos. Too many social computing experts view collaboration from within a command and control prism, assuming people collaborate because coordination and communication are part of their job description. 

Effective collaboration really requires proactively sharing information with those it affects, not simply reacting to information requests. It means anticipating the future impact of actions you take on the responsibilities of other employees or business partners, or the needs of customers. People really don’t do this well unless they see other employees, and customers, as people too. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons that social networks increase in importance as collaboration decreases as a face to face activity. 

Recent research on collaboration, performance, and job satisfaction in co-located teams provides useful findings to consider in thinking about what social networks add to the mix in distributed teams. 

Read the rest of this entry »

15 Comments | Change Management, Collaboration, e-Learning 2.0, Learning Experience, Social Business Design, Social CRM, Social Media, Social Networks | Tagged: Collaboration, Customer Experience, e-Learning 2.0, elearning 2.0, empathy, Enterprise 2.0, Experience Design, Social Business Design, Social Media, social networking | Permalink
Posted by Larry Irons


What are the Organizational Limits to Analytics in SCRM?

June 24, 2010

From "A Journey Round My Skull's" photostream on Flickr

Recent studies, one by Sentiment360 and the other by FreshMinds, concluded that social media monitoring tools aren’t very accurate in automatically measuring sentiment, much less influence.  The insight isn’t a new one and speaks to the now well-known issue of whether social media engagement is scalable. Consequently, we now see social media monitoring companies combining with text analytics companies to bundle their service offerings to increase their ability to monitor a customer’s activity and online influence, tracking that information to the workflows of marketing, sales, customer support, or operations in near real-time. 

How well hybrid analytics companies, combining social media monitoring with text analytics, can deliver on the automation promise, and scalability, in managing the customer experience remains in question. For example, in attempting to convey the limits of the marketing promise, Maria Ogneva of Attensity360 in The “Right” Degree of Automation recently offered the following distinctions, between process automation, response automation, and pre-response automation. 

Process automation involves developing rules to use in decisions about the flow of information. Response automation involves using automated and “canned” responses to customer questions, generally a “no no” in social media unless tied to an information update rather than a marketing message. It is worth noting, as Maria’s colleague Michelle de Haaff does, that response automation also includes automatically determining which social media messages merit engagement and which ones don’t. The whole SCRM discussion needs independent research on these new hybrid tool sets to assess their degree of accuracy over the existing automated sentiment analysis tools.

I don’t think it is too soon though to assert, following Mark Tamis recent point, that the importance of collaboration across the Enterprise  and its ecosystem is crucial to SCRM. It isn’t as simple as training people to collaborate, as some imply. Rather, a learning organization and the culture that goes with it are crucial preconditions for employing analytics effectively in SCRM, especially if business processes and work practices are to deliver customer experiences seamlessly.

The thoughts Maria shared about pre-response automation are key to our discussion here. 

Somewhere in between process and response automation there exists another kind of automation. It’s a hybrid of sorts, let’s call it pre-response automation. What in the world is pre-response automation? Well, I did just make up the term, but bear with me – let’s see if we can make it catch on. Your system reads, understands and distributes social media messages in step 1. Then taking it a step  further, it looks up a potential answer from either within your FAQ or an external user forum, and queues it up as a potential answer for the person who should be sending this message. This way, you as the company rep, get to send a message that’s automated and personalized at the same time. The thing you are automating is the research that would take you time to look up – time you would’ve spent on a menial task that could be spent on engaging and humanizing your responses. Imagine how many more customers you could talk to then! As long as you are putting human touches on all of your messages, using automation to help you write the straightforward response is A-OK. Of course this only works for fairly straightforward cases, nothing custom or complex. Then there’s no shortcut around research (my emphasis). 

 Maria’s distinctions about how to apply text analytics in fine tuning social media monitoring to engage the customer experience are well put. In fact, as Lior Arussy recently noted, the more Social CRM advocates promise automation as a feasible choice for meeting the scalability challenge of social media for businesses, the more their consulting strategy mimics traditional IT consulting where the technology, though claiming to only provide a part of the solution, is actually assumed by clients to provide THE solution. As a result, crucial organizational and cultural challenges too often go unaddressed. 

…we should not rush to embrace new technologies, when we lack the substance to initiate the customer engagement. A fan club on facebook or constant tweeting will not disguise inferior customer experiences. In fact it will only magnify the problem and distribute it to millions of potential new customers. 

At the core of social CRM success must be not the tools but the organizational readiness to act. Both through executives’ readiness to listen and commitment to act combined with design and delivery of superior, differentiating experiences. 

 In his comment to Lior’s post, Marc Mandel observed that ” in my experience the fault about trying to substitute a tool for a truly appropriate organizational solution is neither the exclusive domain of the buyer or the seller, but often a shared culpability.” To her credit,  Maria Ogneva of Attensity360 straightforwardly notes that analytics and monitoring tools cannot substitute for a business strategy.  

How can we keep the people and culture challenges in organizational focus while deploying analytics in SCRM? As Christian Finn, Microsoft’s Director for Collaboration and Enterprise Social Computing, recently noted regarding Microsoft’s use of Sharepoint 2010, “Solve a Problem, Don’t Deploy a Technology”. To get more specific, ready the organization to solve bumps in the customer experience in a seamless way first. A good customer experience can be delivered without SCRM technology, as the video below by Jaffe Juice makes clear in relationship to an experience with Starbucks and Foursquare. 

 

Frequently a seamless customer experience will need delivering without SCRM since the customer’s job demands application of a barely repeatable process. Or, as Sig characterizes barely repeatable processes over at Thingamy,” The activities that employees spend most of their time on every day”. 

In other words, Brands Don’t Talk to Customers, Employees Do. Organize for collaboration accordingly and emphasize empathy as well as information sharing.

Posted by Larry R. Irons

Share this post…

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : TailRank : post to facebook

6 Comments | Collaboration, Customer Experience, Social CRM | Tagged: analytics, brand, Collaboration, customer dialogue, Customer Experience, empathy, Enterprise 2.0, SCRM, Social Business Design, social CRM | Permalink
Posted by Larry Irons


Dialogue Strategy and Social CRM: A Customer Experience with XO

June 7, 2010

From nad2000's photostream on flickr

Over the past five years my thinking and work focus is on the strategic importance of dialogue between businesses and customers. The potential of social software, specifically social media and also Social CRM, to extend dialogic opportunities between the wants and needs of customers and the way companies meet those wants and needs with products and services intrigued me from the start. On several occasions I’ve discussed dialogue in relationship to organizational self-orientation, open innovation, brand strategy, and learning. 

As I recently noted, 

A dialogue strategy builds on the assumption that companies learn more from customers when customers learn from them, and doing so benefits both. I increasingly think it provides a basic framework to think about, and consider as part of your experience design strategy, when relating to customers. Thought leaders increasingly refer to the challenge as social business design. 

The overall premise of this way of thinking rests on the idea that consumers and customers, as well as others with influence in a company’s ecosystem, are gaining increasing power to affect the meaning and value of brand offerings as well as the evaluation of operating assumptions. As a result, strategic efforts of organizational transformation are inevitable for most companies. Dave Evans puts it well,

Social CRM involves multiple elements, linked together, to provide an end-to-end understanding of how your brand, product, or service is received in the marketplace and how your internal processes produce and deliver experiences that drive this reception.

Surprisingly though, we continue to see debate about whether strategic transformation is needed to successfully implement Social CRM, making it seem that all companies really need to do is get on with using social media, or Social CRM tools, as solutions for specific functional areas. 

As an example, Barry Dalton recently advocated, 

We’ve been talking to customers over the phone for how long?  Exactly!  So, what’s the difference?  Sure, social platforms are more public.  But, does the public nature of the channel automatically turn us into bumbling idiots that are going to trash our company’s brands in 140 characters? 

Barry seems to make the point that you don’t need to know how much influence a customer exercises in your ecosystem to provide them with services. I certainly agree with him on that point, and I’ll offer a personal account about why later in this post. However, in my view, Barry draws the wrong conclusion from the point. He paraphrases a quote from Frank Eliason at a recent SOCAP conference when someone asked about influencers and influencer analysis. Frank, reportedly said, ” I’m in customer service.  I don’t care how influential they are.  I need to solve their problem.  Do you ask who your customer knows before you answer their question on the phone?” 

I suggest that the influence of the customer does matter for the business supported, but not necessarily for delivering customer service alone. Along the same lines, Paul Greenberg notes in his consideration of the concept of Social Relationship Management developed by Brian Solis, 

Measuring the whispers gives you some idea of how influential someone can be or how fast a trend can grow or what kind of chatter is spreading about your company — good or bad — and who is spreading it…. 

…Optimally, using these measures will help you gain some insight into individual customers and their particular influence. If you then provide them with the personalized products, services, experiences and tools they need to sculpt their own relationship with you, because the customer is prone to trusting “someone like me”, it is entirely possible that they will think of your business as a “company like me.” 

Influentials matter, especially if they are one of your customers, or even a brand advocate, since they can help you flip the marketing funnel through word of mouth. These opportunities do not reduce to the goals of Public Relations, or marketing, or sales, or operations, or any other specific functional area of a business. The interrelationships are too important for specific functional areas to adopt tailored solutions to their own processes and add the word Social as an adjective, as Mitch Lieberman’s comment on Barry’s post makes clear.  

Any strategy needs to support cross-functional goals and objectives which, I think, makes it essential to create or take advantage of new dialogic opportunities, or existing ones, in the business ecosystem. Not doing so, or simply approaching Social CRM as a solution, threatens to fail in an analogous manner as CRM itself did, treating relationships as transactions. Perhaps a cautionary tale about CRM can convey the point. I offer the following anecdote of my own recent experience as a customer of a technology service provider’s CRM system. Note that my experience was a social one, even though the business, XO Communications, doesn’t seem to recognize that social channels exist, nor does it seem capable at managing communication across channels with customers. 

Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments | Change Management, Collaboration, Customer Experience, Experience Design, Service Design, Social CRM, Social Media | Tagged: customer dialogue, Customer Experience, dialogue, Experience Design, social CRM, social learning, Social Media | Permalink
Posted by Larry Irons


  • You are currently browsing the archives for the Social CRM category.

  • Skilful Minds
    discusses
    Experience Design
    and the ways it matters to client stakeholders, whether users, consumers, customers, learners, or just plain people.


    © Larry R. Irons|All Rights Reserved|
  • You can hire me here!

    Customer Clues
  • eLearning Learning
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 237 other subscribers
  • Look for posts by type

  • Collaboration/Learning

    • Big Dog, Little Dog
    • Brent Schlenker
    • Digital Media and Learning
    • eLearning ++ Blog
    • eLearning Technology
    • eLearningLearning
    • elearningpost
    • Enterprise Collaborative
    • Free as in Freedom
    • Harrold Jarche
    • Iconlogic
    • Internet Time Alliance
    • Learning Alliances
    • Performance. Learning. Productivity
    • Rapid E-Learning
    • The Social Enterprise Blog
    • Upside Learning
  • Experience Design Blogs

    • Anthrodesign
    • Anthrostrategy
    • ARC
    • Artefact
    • Choosenick
    • Compexity & Management Centre
    • Cultural Bytes
    • Customer Experience Matters
    • Customers Are Talking
    • Design Dialogues
    • Design for Service
    • Design Observer
    • Design Research
    • Design Thinking
    • desonance
    • Digital Signage
    • do_matic
    • Ethnography Matters
    • Ethnologik
    • Experience Matters
    • Good Experience
    • Healthcare Innovation by    Design Thinking
    • Johnny Holland Magazine
    • Knowledge Games
    • LivePath
    • Logic+Emotion
    • Metaphorical Web
    • Pleasure & Pain
    • Presentation Zen
    • Putting People First
    • Reflexive Practice
    • Revelation
    • Sam Ladner
    • sceptical futuryst
    • Service Innovation
    • Social Interaction Design
    • The Bank Channel
    • The Co-Creation Effect
    • The Fertile Unknown
    • Timo Arnall
    • Wireframes Magazine
    • Yanko Design
  • Social Media/Software

    • apophenia
    • Being Peter Kim
    • BuildContext
    • Collaborative Thinking
    • CommunitySpark
    • Confused of Calcutta
    • Conversation Agent
    • Digital Influence Mapping Project
    • Don Bartholomew
    • feverbee
    • Going Social Now
    • Green Chameleon
    • GrowYourWiki
    • John Tropea (Library Clips)
    • Marketing 2.0
    • Media Philosopher
    • PARC
    • Personal InfoCloud
    • PluggedIn
    • PR 2.0
    • Ross Mayfield
    • Social Abacus
    • Social CRM Ideas
    • The Click Company Community
    • The Measurement Standard
    • Thingamy
    • Traction
    • Web Strategy by Jeremiah
    • Web Worker Daily
  • Choose Your Connection(s)

    twitter_icon rss
  • Reader Favorites

    • About Skilful Minds
    • Experience Design using Bone Conduction
    • Notable Mentions
    • Publications
  • Skilful Tweets

    • Why Do Standards Fail? thecaglereport.com/2022/11/19/why… #theCagleReport 2 months ago
    • Leave it to Kurt...been lucky enough to find his work here and there since the Lingo days. twitter.com/panu/status/15… 9 months ago
    • Oh no, what Will we do? twitter.com/peterme/status… 10 months ago
    • BOTS of any kind suck! This has been true from the beginning of them. twitter.com/WhatIsAWomanBo… 10 months ago
    • Well, I have a disabled iPad that will not let me connect to iTunes cause I don't have an iTunes account and they w… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 10 months ago
    • RT @OPENreprohealth: OPEN researcher and @SociologyUmsl Assistant Professor @EJohnsWolfe joins the @Buckeyesreach podcast to discuss how #C… 10 months ago
    • RT @odannyboy: If users don't see any value in doing something, it doesn't matter how easy you make it to do. 11 months ago
    • RT @MightiJamie: All technology entrepreneurs should study sociology. The technology that has been produced has not done much to improve… 11 months ago
    • RT @davegray: I’m looking for ways to make online visual collaboration more “sticky” and habit-forming for senior executives and leaders wh… 11 months ago
    • The confusion emerges from confusing conversation and collaboration with dialogue. twitter.com/JustinDelabar/… 11 months ago
    • Just paying homage to the #hashtaginventor twitter.com/chrismessina/s… 11 months ago
    Follow @lirons


Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Skilful Minds
    • Join 237 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Skilful Minds
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...