How Open is Too Open?

June 2nd, 2013

Since May 26th I’ve been traveling; first to Munich, then to Tbilisi (in Georgia), and then to Milan where I will be keynoting a conference on the future of work mid June.  Thus far it’s been an exciting trip.  My family is actually from Tbilisi and hasn’t been back in almost 40 years so my grandmother, mother, and now fiancee (who I proposed to in Tbilisi) traveled there to see where they grew up and what has changed.  Georgia is a beautiful place but there is a of corruption and political instability which leads to a high unemployment rate and poverty level.  One of the things that the current president of Georgia did was to create a glass administration building so people could see what goes on at the government level.  It’s not purely transparent from the outside but I’m told that once you go into the building it’s easy to see into offices and rooms throughout the building.  That got me thinking, how open is too open?

We talk about openness, transparency, and sharing, but how far would we be willing to go with it?  Would you feel comfortable working in an all glass building where people can see everything you do and every move you make?  I do believe that organizations need to be much more open and transparent but there’s a balance that needs to be struck here.  There’s a big difference between showing everything to everyone vs making things open to people should they want to see it.  To use an analogy it’s the difference between constructing a glass building vs constructing a regular building that just doesn’t have locked doors.

Can everything always be open to everyone?  I’m talking about product development, financial statements, investor meetings, etc?  I’m not too sure actually; especially at the enterprise level.  It might be a bit idealistic to expect that a company like Apple, Disney, or GE will just open everything up to everyone internally.  This is the key difference between building a present day company from the ground up based on the idea of openness and transparency vs trying to make an existing enterprise more open and transparent.  I’ll explore this more in an upcoming post.

Being open and transparent is a scary yet interesting thing but as with everything else there needs to be a balance.  In a more corrupt country like Georgia, extreme measures are taken to force transparency but this approach would do more harm than good in many other parts of the world.

But, what is the purpose of being open and transparent to begin with?

This topic alone can easily take up several blog posts but simply put the purpose is to:

  • Keep everyone on the same page
  • Build trust and foster better relationships
  • Allow employees (and customers) to contribute ideas and value where they see the opportunity to do so

If the strategy and approach that your organization is taking isn’t doing these things you may be doing more harm than good.

So, let me ask you.  How open is too open?

 

 

Structuring and Building Enterprise Collaboration Teams

May 28th, 2013

In developing enterprise collaboration teams it is common to find that some employees are more involved than others.  David Straus developed a concept called “rings of involvement” that applies to how involved relevant stakeholders are in collaboration.  That concept inspired the chart shown below and I talk about it in much greater depth in my book, The Collaborative Organization.

In looking at how emergent collaboration platforms and strategies get implemented in an organization, it’s helpful to think of several degrees of involvement, as shown in this figure:

degreesofinvolvement-medres

 

Implementers
This is the core team that essentially works on rolling things out.  Implementers are the day-to-day employees who do everything from selecting the vendors to developing adoption strategies.  The implementers are usually full-time employees devoted 100 percent to making sure the effort is successful.  They can be thought of as the construction workers responsible for building the organization’s emergent collaborative house.

Enablers
This is an extension of the core team but is not as involved.  The extended team might work on a subset of the core project such as trying to figure who the evangelists within the organization might be or trying to predict certain risks.  Ultimately, the extended team isn’t a part of the big-picture strategic initiative but assists the implementers in making sure the big picture fits together.  The extended team is akin to a right-hand man.  The enablers effectively help make the implementers’ job possible.

Strategists
The strategists work closely with the implementers and the extended team as they help develop the big picture.  The strategists can be thought of as the architects who design the blueprints for the implementers and the extended team.  Often there is crossover from the implementers and the extended team to the strategist role.  All these categories are permeable.  Strategists may not do the actual implementation.

Feedback Providers
These employees attend meetings and receive all the information they need to provide feedback and/or insight to assist in the project.  Feedback providers don’t actually have a hand in the roll-out or strategic decision making but contribute ideas, recommendations, and insights when and where needed.  These employees are great for bouncing ideas off of.

Update Seekers and Advisors
This group of employees just wants to know what’s going on with the initiative.  The group can be large or small, and typically it receives updates via alerts, e-mails, newsletters, or perhaps briefings.  Sometimes certain executives like to be the update seekers; they want to get enough information to know what’s going on and that things are going well.  Keep in mind that we are describing nothing more than involvement.  This doesn’t have anything to with seniority, the size of a group, or importance.  It’s possible that someone senior will be part of the implementing group and an entry-level employee will be part of the update seekers group.

How involved employees are can depend on all sorts of things, such as how much interest they have in the project and whether they have the time to contribute.   Also, these types of involvement groups are not mutually exclusive or permanent.  Employees can be a part of more than one group and can also move between groups; for example, an employee who may start getting updates and information about the project and then realize this is something he or she wants to be part of.  This isn’t meant to be a rigid bucket of employees; it’s merely an overview of how employees are typically involved.  It is something you can easily adapt and modify so that it fits your organization.  Try to identify where and your team fit in this framework.

Connect to Work

May 20th, 2013

Last week I wrote about one of the key themes that I believe are going to make up the future work, I encourage you to read that post titled: The Future of Work is About Customized Work.  There are several of these themes that I’m going to be exploring in the near future and the [...]

The Future of Work is Customized Work

May 16th, 2013

The typical career path for an employee starts in an entry level position in a particular department wherein the employee needs to then ascend the corporate ladder and move up the proverbial food chain to a more senior level role.  Most of the time the employee ends up stuck in a particular department or a particular role [...]

Aligning on Purpose

May 14th, 2013

One of the things we can’t neglect when thinking about the future of work is for organizations to align on a sense of purpose.  Many organizations who are investing in enterprise collaboration tools and strategies to a good job of messaging and conveying value but where many fall short is on being able to align [...]

Enterprise Collaboration Technology Deployment Scenarios

May 9th, 2013

I’m seeing a few trends around how organizations are deploying enterprise collaboration platforms.  Typically one of four paths are taken which are: a unified solution, multiple solutions (not connected), an aggregator solution, or multiple solutions which are integrated together.  These are explained in more detail in the table below. There is no perfect approach and [...]