McKinsey Consulting has recently released a report titled “Six Ways to Make Web 2.0 Work” (downloadable PDF).
It is based on studying 50 early adopters, and it is concise and to the point. It also mirrors many existing observations, analyses and recommendations offered over the past two or three years for addressing organisational structure, the reasons for using Web 2.0, leadership and management awareness and responsibility, and key issues involved in putting the applications and dynamics to work.
I also think it mirrors a lot of the key points embodied in the principle of wirearchy.
.
1. The transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top
I have labeled this called-for shift the need for leaders to champion-and-channel, as in championing new ideas and new paths for exploring and addressing issues, and channeling resources to those discoveries that seem promising (for a range of possible reasons).
2. The best uses come from the users – but they require help to scale
Users are going to have to continue to learn how to adapt, to manage between the still-prevalent industrial-era design of jobs and the explosion of information flows. This implies intelligent and flexible aggregation ands filtering of the continuous flow of information input, as well as the explicit acknowledgment that the boundaries between work and other aspects of life have blurred significantly.
3. What’s in the workflow is what gets used
I think that those who research, write about and advocate the need to capture and retain information from workers who are departing are misguided. People work mostly with current information, and as well as the use of collaboration platforms grow, all the exchanges that happen and the content material contributed will be automatically absorbed into the platform’s archives.
4. Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs – not just their wallets
It’s been recognised for a long time that people find primary motivation in the meaning of their work (this is near and dear to me, a key reason why I did OD (organizational development) and change facilitation work for so long). It’s one of the fundamental touchstones in the development of the principle of wirearchy … purpose is what drives peoples’ membership and participation in online social networks.
I was also involved in compensation consulting (strategy and tactics) for a decade, and have seen the distortions introducing incentives can (and usually does) help to create.
5. The right solutions come from the right participants
This is almost a direct quote from the self-organizing and self-managing principles of the group process known as Open Space, or the more fashionable unconference framework for getting people together for a reason. It’s those people who care about why something is being done, and are invested in the results, who stitch themselves into a wired network, or a wirearchy, to get things done … and it’s the right people to do it who end up staying committed enough to work out how to do it right.
6. Balance the top-down and the self-management of risk
I have been saying from the outset that hierarchy and wirearchy are complementary (hence the beginning of the definition of wirearchy, ” a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority … “). I have often cited Stan Davis’ seminal description and forecast of an emerging organizing principle that will “encompass both hierarchy and networks“.
I still think that’s right, and I still think that the working definition of wirearchy encompasses the need for balance between top-down direction and total self-management. For group processes that require broad distribution and building consensus, there’s a fundamental need for instantiating action and organizing and communicating the ways the action can and / or will be distributed and coordinated.
.
The link above is to “What Is Wirearchy?“, where I’ve summarised the practical implications of this new and spreading interconnected environment.
.
Leave a Reply