Tagged: culture 2.0 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Dioni Nespral 9:00 am on May 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , culture 2.0, , , , , social technologies   

    The Business Revolution is called Social Business 

    Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

    Editor’s note: Today we would like to start by welcoming a new contributor on our blog. Dioni Nespral (@dioninespral) is Social Business and Digital Innovation Manager at everis. Dioni is an expert in business innovation and sociodigital strategy. With a degree in Business Administration and Management from the Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, he also holds an Executive MBA from the Instituto de Empresa and a Master’s degree in Marketing and Sales Management from the ESIC.

    Fear of change is universal and has been around since the dawning of time. No one likes their surroundings to change and we all dream of the greatest stability possible. However, the era in which we live is established in permanent change and with a differential feature: the speed of change is exponential. Nothing happens at “our own speed”, everything takes place dynamically and somewhat unpredictably. It is the greatest challenge of our era: we live in a world that is instantaneous.

    I’m sure you’ll have heard of many executives talking about growth, improvement, change, and even innovation. You’ll have heard about it on numerous occasions, but are we really getting the best out of our organizations? Are we getting the maximum potential of the people and the talent who work with us? The answer is obvious: No. A big No at that. Once again, we can’t see the wood for the trees. And the wood is immense.

    In such dynamic environments, leadership with a clear vision and an ordered administration is required. We have created fans of the perfect administration that have gradually destroyed (and continue to destroy) different visions that enable us to face incremental changes. The vision-administration mix is more than advisable, because we have become too used to the organization prepared for “no-change” in a world of constant chaos. I suspect that many organizations are not reflected by these words and are looking to start to change towards incremental improvement, growth, diversity, and perhaps, towards innovation.

    A connected society commands a socio-connected organization

    Social Business emerges as one of the greatest solutions for achieving greater speed in companies. When living in such a connected environment, adaptation is essential, and adopting solutions based on the Network philosophy and social technology is the driving force. The speed of change in companies is becoming faster. The behavior of users, citizens, customers, in short, people, is changing in gigantic leaps and this means organizations need to have open constant bridges of connection that are flexible and dynamic.

    Out of this arises the socio-connected organization, which must be one before appearing to be one. Its members need to be connected, it needs to be collaborative, open, digital and innovative. And obviously, in tune with its market’s demands. A company from a dynamic sector is not the same as one in a more traditional market, and hence, the speed of change is slower. Knowing the right speed helps to move fluidly on the business highway of each market.

    And yes, it’s about people. It seems obvious, but change won’t take place if we don’t put talent at the center of our organizations. How easy it is to say this and how complicated it is to put this into practice. This is understandable, as no one has taught us to do this. At the center of the organization, there always needed to be processes, standards, protocols, management. Now, when we look inwards, and try to find how to drive our talent, we don’t know how to do it, because we need to place differential elements that are not as predictable and much less manageable at the center. But that is our challenge and the pending (r)evolution.

    Social Business affects strategy, culture, processes, people, and technology. The impact of the social side is so strong that it reaches each and every corner of the organization, requiring a single sociodigital implementation model for each case.

    Social technologies together with open, horizontal, collaborative and connected communication enable, when used in the company, its adaptation to traditional processes in the organization, favoring tangible benefits like for example, reduced number of processes, improved customer service, generate incremental ideas and innovations, unveil differential talent or intelligent knowledge in the behavior of customers thanks to the analysis of their experience and processing relevant data.

    Initially, changes are organizational and cultural, as the first major decision is to look inwards and promote level structures where people can connect and communicate more easily. Because most new ideas, those that lead to innovation and enable incremental changes, come from the people in the organization. And these individuals need to find a highway that provides a constant and adequate flow.

    Welcome to the next revolution. Welcome to Social Business.

     

     
  • Jose Miguel Bolívar 9:00 am on May 14, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , culture 2.0, , ,   

    Knowledge Networks: Life After the Organizational Chart 

    Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

    Editor’s note: The new ways of the enterprise 2.0 transform companies and mean a change that affects even hierarchies and organizational charts. Today we’d like to share with you this post that José Miguel Bolívar posted a few days ago on his blog which we think is highly interesting. Thank you, José Miguel, for letting us share it.

    In a recent post, Ximo Salas asked himself where is my organizational chart? and, among other things, he stated that “organizational charts haven’t died” and suggested the need to invent an organizational chart 2.0. Unfortunately, it’s true that organizational charts aren’t dead… Yet.

    However, without knowing exactly what Ximo understands as being “organizational chart 2.0” and what type of organizations need one, I think the concept “organizational chart”, or at least in its traditional sense, has no place in the type of organizations we talk about and that we undoubtedly will become, no matter how slow we are in becoming one or how far away they seem at present.

    On the other hand, the death, present or future, of the organizational chart is not a new topic. Much has been written, and well done at that. Like for example this post by Manel Muntada and this other one from Pedro Muro.

    However, apart from the above, the big question for me continues to be: are organizational charts necessary or not in post-industrial organizations or, as I prefer to call them, in knowledge organizations?

    The model used by organizations in the Industrial Era as the backbone is the hierarchy, in other words, a structure that arranges its elements according to criteria of superiority or subordination between people.

    This structure starts from a model, bureaucratic administration, that assumes the division of work as its principle of efficiency, expressed as the division of roles and responsibilities and that hence, seeks as its primordial objective to optimize the transmission and execution of orders or instructions.

    If we think about the traditional assembly line, the model makes sense. There are people whose responsibility is to think, assess the alternatives, find solutions, assess the risks and propose options. Other people are responsible for making decisions and taking risks. Others are responsible for transmitting those decisions quickly and effectively and supervising that they are carried out to the letter. And others, finally, are responsible for carrying out those instructions.

    What’s more, to make it easier, the information travels in a single direction, without return.

    But what happens when, apart from “doing”, all people in the organization must also “think” and “decide”? What happens when we want the information to travel in multiple directions and in real time?

    In these circumstances, the organizational chart is not only no longer useful, but it becomes one of the main obstacles for organizational performance.

    Anyone who knows how a knowledge organization works “from the inside” knows that nowadays the organizational chart has become a decorative and costly element; an organizational relic serving the ego of a few; a bastion of the paradigm of control that perpetuates mediocrity and hinders innovation.

    Today, having a specific position on an organizational chart does not indicate how much you know nor how valuable you are as a professional. It only indicates how much you can manage to bother the rest of the organization if you set your mind to it.

    Organizational charts today are Snow White’s looking glass of a management class in the process of extinction. The carrot of “some day this will all be yours” for too ambitious newbies. And little more.

    The future is going elsewhere. In a world with an overabundance of information, of knowledge in transit, organizations will become progressively more complex while, paradoxically, more flexible and dynamic.

    After some years “leveling out” the organizational charts, it turns out that the organizational future is multi-dimensional. Knowledge networks that cross over and superimpose each other, in constant mutation over time.

    Knowledge networks that are generated from a shared interest, like for example learning (sharing and generating knowledge) or a project (applied knowledge). What’s more, a single person can play not only one but many roles and these roles can be the same or change according to the network. Different roles in different networks… The antithesis of the organizational chart. And of course, all in constant change.

    I’m talking about a future focused on people and not on structures, unlike current organizations, in which people are dependent on the structures (and the processes and technology).

    A not-too-distant future in which the most important thing is not how much power you have, rather what you know (you personally and also through your networks), and above all, what you know how to do with all that knowledge and how you are demonstrating it.

    In that future, and the need for tools that help tonavigate knowledge networks fluidly becomes evident.

    Be it a profile directory, a social search engine, or any other technology solution, we need tools that tell us in real time what people know about a specific subject, in which networks they are operating, on what projects they are working, and how to contact themto in turn weave new networks.

    An image that produces vertigo in anyone allergic to change, in organizational zombies, in those addicted to the predictable. But that’s life. Diverse, complex, unpredictable, and constantly evolving.

    Fortunately, there is much life after the organizational chart. What’s more, I’d say that the future is ahead of us…

    Jose Miguel Bolivar (@jmbolivar) is Artisan Consultant, ICF coach, lecturer, researcher, speaker and author of the blog Óptima Infinito, in which he has been writing about Innovation in Productivity and GTD methodology since 2008. With a degree in Social Psychology and Political Analysis from the UCM, a master’s in HR from the Centro de Estudios Garrigues, José Miguel has extensive experience as an executive in highly competitive environments such as HP or Life Technologies. Currently, as Artisan Consultant and Coach, he works to increase competitiveness in organizations, improving individual and collective productivity of its employees.

     
  • Eirene Ramos 9:00 am on January 14, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , culture 2.0, ,   

    Alejandro Formanchuk: “Enterprise Social Networks are synonymous to multiplication within organizations” 

    Estimated reading time + video: 4 minutes

    One of the experts on Internal Communication 2.0 processes in South America is Alejandro Formanchuk. Someone who awakens the collaborative and innovative spirit wherever he goes and who firmly believes in the improvement of organizations through the evolution of their corporate culture towards a social corporate culture.

    Alejandro shared his opinion of Enterprise Social Networks with us, and today we would like to show you this video of the interview:

    Zyncro would like to thank Alejandro for sharing his opinion.

    Does what Formanchuk talk about in the interview sound familiar? Would you like to start an innovative evolution process for your company? Try out Zyncro for free!

     

     
  • Jose Miguel Bolívar 9:00 am on January 11, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , culture 2.0, ,   

    10 Traits of Organizations 2.0 

    Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

    MolecularThe general situation with regard to the changes we could include under the ‘2.0’ tag continues to progress in the right direction.

    Although it is true that this evolution is in fact much slower than many of us would like and, above all, than is necessary, it does seem as though the conditions necessary for its definitive acceleration are appearing, and for the change to occur across the board.

    I mean, of course, organizations whose raw material is knowledge, not necessarily solely but at least partially. In other words, a growing percentage of organizations in developed countries.

    If we look back four or five years, we see that we have gone from a situation in which hardly anyone in a position of responsibility in an organization was aware of what ‘2.0’ was all about, to one in which three large and very different groups have appeared:

    1. The first group, probably the largest, is made up of people who still don’t dare to make a move in order to be part of the change, but who are increasingly more aware that they need to.
    2. The second group, the smallest, is made up of people who, admirably show sufficient courage to actively contribute to change. They are our great hope and an example to follow
    3. The third group,which is fortunately becoming smaller and smaller, includes different tribes: cynics, skeptics, unbelievers, the ignorant, the proud, egomaniacs and other organizational specimens, who continue to show active passiveness, if not open resistance, based on the absurd belief that no change is a viable option and that this way they will protect their status quo.

    In spite of all this, it appears that there is still a certain amount of confusion about which traits define an organization 2.0. Being an organization 2.0 goes beyond “having” communities of practice, enterprise social networks, internal wikis and a presence on social networks.

    Being an organization 2.0 is, above all, about “showing” that a series of so-called values 2.0 have been understood, adopted, interiorized and begun to be expressed, and also proving that it has evolved, overcoming the bureaucratic traditional administration model, towards new forms of understanding the role of people, processes, technologies and structures in organizations, which allow answers to be given to the needs arising from this new situation.

    There are probably more, so these ten points are just a starting point. So, here are the 10 traits of organizations 2.0:

    1. Netarchy: This is an indispensable requirement. An organization cannot be considered genuinely 2.0 until it has overcome the paradigm of control. By definition, an organization 2.0 is a network organization that is merit-based, rather than hierarchical. Meritocracy replaces the organizational chart. Painful as it may be for some, hierarchitis and groupitis are organizational diseases typical of a bureaucratic administration model. As Eugenio Moliní rightly points out, “the network is the only configuration where it is possible to shine with your own light at the same time as others”.
    2. Distributed: An authentic netarchy doesn’t need physical structures to obtain its identity. Large corporate infrastructures make no sense in a network world where connection replaces physical presence. In the Knowledge Era, work is what you do, not somewhere you go. The work centre and working hours are two relics of the past which are anachronistic to an organization 2.0. In a world that is increasingly more globalized, structures must be flexible, dynamic and delocalized.
    3. Fluidity: We live in fluid times and organizations 2.0 cannot ignore this reality. They must therefore be flexible in configuration and size, leaving behind the obsolete concept of job position and focusing on projects. This means changing from understanding the organization as an institution to understanding it as a platform.
    4. Connected: BYOD is the bridge towards a new environment in which each node of the network is an autonomous and independent person responsible for the technology he or she uses. In an organization 2.0, being connected is critical. Nodes of the network must be able to share information and knowledge at any time and under any circumstances, immediately and efficiently. Technology must be understood as a means of uniting people and not become a permanent obstacle to collaboration, as occurs currently in the large majority of traditional organizations.
    5. With a purpose: A large number of organizations have currently stopped being a means and have become an end. Hierarchies are looking for ways to perpetuate, even at the cost of sacrificing the reason for which they were established. In organizations 2.0 sensemaking cannot be brushed aside. Organizations 2.0 don’t need an empty mission, vision or values, but a real and shared “for what”, representing the interests and values of their nodes.
    6. Innovation: To innovate is in the DNA of any organization 2.0, to point where it must form part of its purpose. Innovation is understood to be an essential requirement for adapting and survival. The objective of the people, processes, technology and structures of an organization 2.0 is to encourage and facilitate continuous innovation.
    7. Diversity: One of the main obstacles to innovation for traditional hierarchical organizations is the lack of diversity. The typical groupitis of hierarchies becomes single thought. Diversity, the hybridising of experiences, knowledge, characters and perspectives that are different and complementary, are the essence of any organization with a vocation for innovation.
    8. Open: In line with this vocation for innovation, organizations 2.0 are open. If, as it appears, it is true that there is such a thing as collective intelligence, why not use what our customers, suppliers, friends and even competitors can contribute. In an organization 2.0, the desire to learn and collaborate in order to innovate must always come before the interest to compete and win.
    9. With a human voice: There is room for all voices and opinions in an organization 2.0, not only because they are enriching but because otherwise it would cease to be an organization with a human voice.
    10. With productive people: The challenge for organizations 2.0 is to become networks of productive people who innovate. The increase in productivity must be understood as the aggregate result of the increase in the personal productivity of all of the nodes in the network. The performance of an organization 2.0 is only possible if the people in it are productive at an individual level.

    What features would you add, change or delete? Do you know any organizations 2.0? Feel free to continue the conversation with your comments.


     Jose Miguel Bolivar holds a degree in Chemistry and a degree in Sociology, and has a Master’s degree in Human Resources and Coaching. He is the author of the blog in Spanish, Óptima Infinito, a collaborative space where he writes about Innovation and Productivity for a World 2.0 as seen by individuals, networks, and organizations, and where you can find the original publication of this post.


     
  • Mari Carmen Martin 9:00 am on December 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , culture 2.0, ,   

    Communication 2.0 and organizations 2.0: designed to understand each other 

    Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

    A few weeks ago Alejandro Formanchuck was visiting Barcelona and he took the occasion to participate in an event organized by Zyncro: #Ysehizolaluz, which I was able to attend and during which he enthralled us with a conference about internal communication 2.0. Alejandro made us ponder a number of questions such as “Are 2.0 tools revolutionary?”, “Who uses these tools?”

    To be honest, after learning that even Queen Elizabeth II and the Vatican have been convinced, it should come as no surprise that many Spanish companies are currently deciding to join the 2.0 revolution.

     

    This table shows some of the differences in some areas between enterprises 1.0, those which have yet to adopt internal and external 2.0 tools, and the so-called enterprises 2.0. It is clear that the gap between 1.0 and 2.0 is not only semantic, but is also about a natural and sophisticated evolution in many areas and fields of the company, initially by adopting more universal and humanist values, and within a framework for collaboration.

    According to Alejandro, to create a culture 2.0 the following is necessary:
    • Access to and availability of information
    Minimizing the asymmetry between senders and recipients
    • Boosting the prosumer logic
    • Extending participation
    • A genuine interest in people generating the business and sharing contents
    • Interaction in decentralized network formats
    • Collective construction, collaboration and meritocracy
    • Willingness to listen and make use of this information
    Respect for people and giving up ego
    Minimizing control

    Every day more studies show that adopting and using 2.0 tools contributes positively to better company results. In this sense, in 2011 McKinsey statistically proved that businesses which internally and externally use technologies 2.0 to a larger extent, are more profitable. In the same study, 27% of companies declared to have better margins and market shares than their competitors. The conclusions state that “a connected company has 50% more of a chance of belonging to this group“. The latest study by McKinsey from November, about Strategy, shows how “social intelligence” guides decisions and how “internal and external social networks” are changing the classic decision-making process. The influence is clear, if from a common sense point of view we analyze the enormous amount of information that social networks provide, businesses need systems to be able to process the subject in an intelligent and suitable way. This leads to the conclusion that in the development of social CRMs there is a need to include all this “big data”, one of the greatest challenges facing companies over the next few years.

    In the most recent study by IBM on companies that have adopted a social business model, surprising data has been revealed such as:

    • 9 out of 10 businesses report benefits thanks to the adoption of a social business model
    • 57% of companies obtain better results than their competitors which do not have a social model
    Growth in expenditure on social software by companies is forecast at 61%, up to 2016, reaching a business figure of 6,400 million dollars.

    I would like to put a few questions to directors of Spanish companies with regard to this matter: Do you need more data? Do you need more time? What are you waiting for to get prepared? What are you waiting for to drive the strategic change and adopt your company’s social model? Do you want to start with a change in the company’s internal communication? Try out the Zyncro Enterprise Social Network.

    Mari Carmen Martín (@maricarmenmar) is a trained Industrial Psychologist and an expert in HR. Currently she works for Cloudtalent, a company of the Humannova group, where she is responsible for creating personal branding programs for executives and professionals.

     

     
  • Eirene Ramos 9:00 am on November 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: culture 2.0, , , ,   

    And there was light… with Alejandro Formanchuk “Culture 2.0: we are all experts in something” 

    Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

    On Tuesday, November 6, we held the first Zyncro “Y se hizo la luz…”, a business after-work event for companies covering innovative approaches in business transformation processes.

    On this first occasion, we had a stellar guest, Alejandro Formanchuk, an expert par excellence in Internal Communication 2.0 processes and leader in the field in Latin America.

    As a good 2.0 expert, Alejandro managed to bring us closer to the reality of companies with a practical, non-dogmatic perspective, opening our eyes to many aspects:

     

    We need to lose the fear of internal communication 2.0

    To consolidate 2.0 values in a company, the first step is to lose our fear. In this sense, Alejandro gave us a striking example: if the British Crown and the Vatican, the conservative institutions that they are, are not afraid of the 2.0 world and use social channels to communicate, any company, no matter how conservative it is, should “launch itself” into the 2.0 world, although not without undergoing a cultural transformation.

    A question of cultural transformation

    Alejandro also suggested that losing our fear is not enough, that there must be an entire process of change in the organizational culture. Having 2.0 tools doesn’t make us an enterprise 2.0. Technology is the means, but as Alejandro pointed out, “when we only have the technology and not the culture, we are destined to fail, social dialog cannot exist in the company and any attempt towards social evolution will fall short.”

    Achieving business culture evolution by capitalizing on collective talent and dialog

    Once the processes of cultural change have started, we need to generate collective knowledge environments. “We are all experts in something and we can all contribute new knowledge, fresh ideas, a new breath of fresh air to our company.” Opening a 2.0 space minimizes the control over employees, but there is no need to fear empowering employees, quite the opposite. Criticism must be accepted as it helps us to improve, innovate and hence grow. More importantly, people are taken into account and feel part of the organization, meaning they will work in an optimized environment.

    Corporate culture, a transforming process

    Business transformation is a reality. For that reason, we no longer talk about employees but contributors; the Human Resources department is the ‘People’ department; information is transformed into dialog; the director is a ‘facilitator’; the hierarchy falls in the favor of talent, the office is not our only place of work, there is flexibility to work from anywhere with platforms like Enterprise Social Networks.

    To summarize, as Alejandro himself says, “Culture is communication in movement. And Communication 2.0 moves along several paths: access and availability, equality, usability, participation and interaction, collective construction and collaboration, active listening and respect, interaction, minimized control and ego…” Yes, it sounds difficult. According to Alejandro, it is quite a challenge, but it is the natural evolution to adapt to new times and to capitalize on new tools for optimizing productivity and work.

    To finish, we would like to thank Alejandro Formanchuck for his collaboration with Zyncro at the first edition of “Y se hizo la luz…” It has been a pleasure to hear your contributions on Culture 2.0 and internal communication. We encourage you to follow Alejandro on Twitter and check out his web, where you can download free the ebook in which he talks about all the concepts he presented.

    For those of you who couldn’t make it, don’t worry! Soon we’ll upload a video of the event and present a new edition of “Y se hizo la luz….” Stay tuned 😉

     

     
  • Manel Alcalde 9:00 am on November 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , culture 2.0, ,   

    A question of attitude 

    Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

    Rock n’ roll musicians say that you can be a great or a mediocre player, but what matters essentially is attitude. With the 2.0 world, the same happens: technology gives us tools to encourage and help work on the Internet, but without the right attitude, you’ll have trouble in making your collaborative processes become catalysts of creativity and innovation.

    Some of us grew professionally in companies where the idea of teamwork was similar to that of a chain, an infinite loop designed to ensure minimums in productivity, but not designed at all to stimulate really innovative cooperation. Stagnant departments, complex bureaucratic processes, insurmountable confusing hierarchies… Within context, a collaborative attitude has very clear limits, because it is not within the right environment to develop. In fact, in those structures, many limiting atavistic beliefs perpetuate. Our cultural legacy contains many fears about teamwork, presumptions like “they’re poking their nose where they don’t belong”, “they are going to steal my ideas”, “my weaknesses will be on display to everyone”, “Working together? There’s something fishy going on!”, “We’re never going to agree on anything” or “Such-and-such will end up taking over”, that boycott any possibility of healthy, productive cooperation. It is the fruit of a tradition of independent, distrustful and territorial thinking that seems to have little meaning nowadays.

    According to John Abele, founder of the US technology company Boston Scientific and expert in collective intelligence, to achieve “genuine” cooperation demands more than just the skills to communicate and problem-solve.

    You need to develop a “collaborative mind” or “state” that does away with those cultural prejudices and starts us off on a profitable process.

    What qualities does a “collaborative state” need to have according to Abele?

    Trust, to finish that distrust and believe in others’ contributions.
    Courage, to chase after common goals with diligence and contribute ideas and opinions without fear.
    Creativity, to find new solutions to new problems.
    Confidence, to work in plural, diverse and changing environments.
    Humility, to know how to recognize our own imperfections and the importance of outside contributions.

    Encouraging those qualities lies with each individual. Although our employment history is linked with “old school” companies and our habits in work have been forged in a world where control took precidence over collaboration, I believe with the right “attitude”, we can all find the resources to change our outlook and adapt ourselves to new ways of working. But a collaborative mind will only grow among a collaborative community, in other words, an organization that has defined a shared purpose, that cultivates an ethic of contribution, that develops processes that enable people to work together flexibly and efficiently, that values and rewards the contributions of its members. An organization with leaders based on values who inspire their employees by encouraging their creativity and know how to align everyone’s energy, talent and work towards achieving a common vision and identity.

    Manel Alcalde is creative writer, audiovisual producer and digital communicator. In his personal blog, Nionnioff, he writes about creativity, communication and narrative.

     

     
  • Matthieu Pinauldt 9:00 am on September 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , culture 2.0, , ,   

    Taking advantage of the crisis to evolve towards a new business model: Enterprise 2.0 

    Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

    In periods of stability, many workers settle into a routine in work. This routine as a rule is accepted by both among organization employees and directors, as apparently this enables them to optimize repetitive tasks and make efficiency highly predictable. Over the long term, however, it leads to favoring individual work, becomes a source of demotivation and halts creativity. But when the routine is anchored to the business dynamic, making changes is complex.

    In times of crisis, objectives are more difficult to achieve. The efficiency evident in routines no longer seems to work, redundant tasks become a chore, and motivation evaporates. The comfort of the routine disappears to give way to the desire for change that can be felt throughout the organization. It is time to break away from the routine!

    At crunch periods, communication becomes a key aspect for reassuring and preventing teams from being faced with problems. Communication must be fluid and capable of answering employees’ concerns before those rumors start to become bigger than the problem itself (remember scandals like a oil spill in Louisana or the failure in communication terms of the Japanese government in dealing with the Fukushima disaster). To make this possible, we need to be capable of listening!

    Collaboration is one of the trump cards in the hands of those managing the organization to continue with a policy of innovation, especially in a period of limited means due to the crisis. We need to prioritize collective knowledge and teamwork!

    Evolving towards the Enterprise 2.0 is the best means for escaping from a difficult period:

    • Structural and cultural changes are a true company project in which all employees and especially top levels need to be involved. The project unifies the company, showing that there is a vision for the organization in the long term.
    • There are greater chances that employees will take to changes more easily than in periods of prosperity: Natural resistance to change tends to dwindle as traditional models no longer work.
    • Communication processes improve and answer the needs of the company, evolving in an increasingly competitive market (see the infographic on the ROI in collaboration projects).
    • Members of the company find satisfaction in their jobs once again. Although the transitition towards a collaborative mindset temporarily disturbs employees, the exchange and communication associated with change notably increases motivation.

    Implementing a collaborative culture in your organization can start to help employees to emerge from that vicious cycle of a lack of motivation typical of periods of crisis. The benefits of business productivity increase within a short time (McKinsey gives figures of between 20 and 25%). The Enterprise Social Network Zyncro is the ideal tool for accompanying you and your company in that cultural change, and making that change stick. Try it for yourself!

     

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel