The Social Business Edge … Stowe Boyd

Hmmm … your comment is interesting, and important.

My first reaction to your comment:

If you read my post carefully, including a careful reading of the quote, you will see, I believe , that my post is not much more than an announcement and a wee chance to do a bit of clumsy semi-snarky promotion of the notion of wirearchy.

“We are seeing a rethinking of work, collaboration, and the role of management in a changing world, where the principles and tools of the web are transforming society, media, and business.”

I’d say that’s a generally acceptable statement .. some of what it claims is yet to be proven, but the tea leaves are pointing in that direction

“The mainstays of business theory — like innovation, competitive advantage, marketing, production, and strategic planning — need to be reconsidered and rebalanced in the context of a changing world. The rise of the real-time, social web has become one of the critical factors in this new century, along with a radically changed global economic climate, an accelerating need for sustainable business practices, and a political context demanding increased openness in business.”

I do not have any particular problem with this general statement.

“These issues cannot be dealt with one by one, but instead approached as connected elements of a new world order for business.”

This is not new thinking .. systems thinking 101, with a flourish of hyperbole tossed in at the end almost as punctuation.

I used that quote (in italics above) to piggyback off some general statements, as a way to perhaps garner a bit of attention for “wirearchy”. Re: “wirearchy”, no doubt I am “in love” with my creative thinking, and as Stowe once said to me when we were walking down the street one day .. “well, it hasn’t taken root or gained traction, so I guess it’s meaningless”. Of course, I did not like hearing that, and basically I do not agree with him, though no doubt sooner or later I will give up my quest for recognition.

However .. whether one calls it wirearchy or heterarchy or linkarchy or netarchy or cyberarchy, I stubbornly remain believing that there are emerging patterns to how we are interacting, and that there will come to be an organizing principle for this interconnected era. I like my working definition of wirearchy, and whether it is right or wrong, I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and so do not consider it completely trite. Bigger and better thinkers than me have said as much about a new organizing principle, regularly, over the past 20+ years.

So, what I am wondering is if you saw the headline, with the term ‘social business” in it, and went forward in the comment with the argument you have been developing, which I think is correct. ‘Social’ is not the big deal, better, faster and more effective learning IS the big deal. I have problems with the label ‘social business’ as well.

So, to your comment:

Jon, I’m still having a problem with this. Both the term (there were always social aspects to business) and the thrust of a new label. To say that innovation, to strategic planning need to be reconsidered and rebalanced is basically saying the majority of people in those roles were / are incompetent. Some are… some aren’t. The rise of the real-time web is not a surprise so strategics and knowledge managers shouldn’t be shocked. My clients had Scenarios that often covered elements of this 10 years ago.

Understood, and agreed.

The real issue is organizations are slow to learn and the speed of technology adoption is outpacing the capability to adapt. Putting a social label on this won’t change learning practices and may hinder them. That said there are skills being learned in social media that will be important to companies both understanding and how they adapt.

Again, understood and agreed.

The real impact of radically accelerated knowledge flows is not “social” per se, it is where it is contained, where filtered, and where it is created or produced. The customer gains power and importance in this flow… because it is one more transparent / public and two easy to aggregate by “others” outside the firm – eg competitors. The organization is required to be more agile, more adaptive and wise to share more…

And again, understood and agreed.

The danger is companies get trapped into thinking that feed the flow / be part of the flow gathers them some new and endearing social construct or context. I think that is doubtful.

And dangerous, possibly.

(In fact as a competitor to Co X I’d be looking at them using the same social tools on who I should hire or is that steal from them.) There is plenty to be learned from developer communities.

Yes.

All the other elements… the economic climate, the sustainable business practices are thought fillers behind an idea (they are even better understood)…. that as customers accelerate their flow and exchange of information the business must be more available, better on the listening front and needs to master simple questions… which they can ask frequently.

Yes.

If there are benefits to naming good strategy and good KM “social business” then it may be it captures a much younger group of up and coming managers that want leverage. Perhaps we need a new label for those that are willing to try something new. But really new…. Sorry I don’t think so.

I come back to my point above. Your comment and the ground that it covers (and that has been covered plenty already by competent strategists, as you point out) is bang-on with respect to the marketing-packaging-and-speak of the label ‘social business’ or ‘social business design’.

My post was milquetoast-ish in that I did not argue about the label, but rather have participated in promoting it for my own selfish purposes.

Thanks for your interest and attention, and for holding my toes to a flame.
.