Learning Organizations: New ways of managing

Learn to learn... every day

As companies grapple with the effects and opportunities of the Internet, social media and the smartphone, internal organizations are having to adapt and transform to accommodate new ways of communicating, new marketing methods and metrics and, in sum, new ways of managing.

An organization’s ability to learn and to adapt to the changing environment is fundamental for long-term sustainable success.  Constant learning means recognizing one’s errors, learning from one’s mistakes.  It also means be willing and agile enough to shift courses; all part of an optimized Learning Organization.

Creating a successful Learning for Development program

A founding piece of this learning and change can – and should — take place through the internal university or Learning for Development (LFD) programs. [I have written extensively about the notion of a Brand University.]  There are three principles that must underpin successful change through these internal universities :

1. management must not only actively support, but positively identify – even remunerate — contributing staff;
2. learning must be ongoing, with a before – during – after, whereby management’s message and style is consistent and coherent with the LFD content;
3. the style of teaching, as well as the tools and content, must model the behavior that the organization wishes to adopt.

Future of Learning

Learner focused

Today, education is about educating you. In the jargon, we call this being learner focused. Teaching cannot be about just passing along MY messages. Pedagogy and learning are in mutation, pushed by a new understanding of learning, a new generation of tools, and a new crop of students, familiar with collaborative tools and the “web 2.0” spirit.

Distance learning

Whereas teaching was once the singular domain of classrooms – as is mostly the case in offsite seminars – there is now the opportunity for accessible and effective distance learning. Learning on the job can and is happening on the road, thanks to the portability of the computer, access to the internet and the mobile phone or even the ipod. The options and formats for distance learning are multiple.

Interactivity is the lifeblood of learning

Nonetheless, distance learning is not the complete panacea. It takes time, money and a real expertise to develop – without which one is often left wondering about the applicability and effectiveness. Too often, the eLearning is rich in content because of the obsession with transmission of information, but it is bereft of interactivity, the lifeblood of learning.

Moreover, learning is not just happening in classrooms or on the desktop terminal. It is happening elsewhere, all around us. There are new tools, sources and locations. Learning is and has always been happening informally, via the conversation in the corridor, at the cafeteria or at the famed water cooler.

Moving outside the classroom

It is said that 70% to 90% of all learning happens socially and informally. The tragedy is that LFD departments continue to focus on the remaining 10% to 30%. Moreover, too often, that training remains one-way, professorial and uninviting in style.

New tools exist today that can facilitate more widestream learning without exaggerated costs or massive changes in workflow – an essential ingredient to make informal and distance learning succeed in the workplace.

Four types of learning

There are four types of learning :

• classroom
• distance learning (or eLearning)
• blended learning (a combination of classroom and distance)
• and, the last but not least, social learning. Certainly, social media can be a part of this mix, but there is of course much more to social learning.

Companies need to choose and enable the right tools – infrastructure is a strategic consideration, a veritable investment with a viable return, not just a cost. Organizations need to invest in distance learning platforms — such as Cross Knowledge or Omega TV — but also allow for webinars, podcasting, teleconferences, group work, etc. Moreover, the attractiveness of an organization, from a new employees perspective, is heightened when learning is an integral de facto experience. Critically, managers must learn to be coaches.

Constant learning

I finish with a quote from Jay Cross: “Working smarter is the key to sustainability and continuous improvement. The accelerating rate of change forces everyone in every organization to make a choice: learn while you work or become obsolete.”

Powerful words. Learning For Development should be a corporate-wide endeavor; it must reinvent itself and gain the full thrust of upper management’s support to help the organization transform, to be ready for tomorrow’s fast changing environment.

Digital Marketing by the Pols

eeeelections on the web & diplomacy 2.0

I made a presentation a couple of weeks ago at Hotel Napoleon, at the Conference entitled “Innovation Napoleon.”  This conference, at which I have made a number of presentations, unites a heterogenous crowd around digital and innovation topics.  Usually, there is anywhere up to 100 people in attendance.  At this last conference, I was asked to provide a “breather,” sandwiched in between presentations on the digital marketing campaigns from four major political parties in France (there was no Front National representation).

There are a whole lot of different choices to make, based on the political culture, democratic fibre and best local social media tools.  Personally, I see 2012 being a robust year for social media.  How politics and politicians specifically use the web to run their campaigns and influence their constituents will surely have a pivotal role in the way social media itself will evolve.  With 28 different presidential or prime ministerial elections on the docket for 2012, next year will surely be the year that all political bodies take social media seriously.

Some digital stats and analysis of politics 2.0

Herewith a glance at how politicians and politicians around the world are currently using social media, as well as a look at the fledgling notion of Social Media Diplomacy (or Diplomacy 2.0?) and some of the “3rd party” (not necessarily political) applications and tools that have been built around Politics on the Web.

In light of movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring, the question is: will politics use and abuse social media or will social media get the upper hand on politics and politicians?

How to customize marketing efforts without violating personal data?

With all the news about the “close quarter” searching in the United States at airport security check points, one might be excused for thinking that airlines are getting a bit too close for comfort.  Technology that spies on you, airport security that rubs you up… and, last Friday, airports closed in certain places around Europe due to weather and flash controller strikes.  All the same, I found this recent article “Airlines Get Personal (pdf)“, written by Andrew Compart, Transport editor on Aviation News, of interest.  Airlines getting up close and personal?

Airlines Get Personal

Getting beyond eVIL 2.0

As the tension mounts about the incursions on privacy and potential mismanagement of personal data becomes headline material, there is a seeming de-emphasis on what is good about personalized service.  Personalization cannot happen without a degree of understanding and knowledge of the individual in question.  Customer Relationship Marketing, when well done, should be a time saver, a positive surprise and, ultimately, personally satisfying.  If it is not, you ought to have the chance to unsubscribe, opt out.  Somehow, paranoia is setting in as the press hankers on the negative side of Big Brother, what I like to term the eVIL 2.0.  We are moving into a phase of protection rather than positive projection, to use a phrase I picked up while listening to Jean-Marc Manach (author of a book whose title is roughly translated: “Private Life, a problem for Old Farts?” and the Bug Brother blog on LeMonde).

The real challenge for companies wanting to create a personalized marketing approach is threefold:  first, having a company culture that is galvanized around the customer; secondly, creating a voice and service level that is coherent with the brand and is shared, de facto, throughout the company; and, thirdly, finding or recruiting the expertise (aka talent).  On the one hand, there is a need for technical expertise.  As written by Compart in the article, “[j]ust because things can be done, does not mean they are easy.”  There is also a need to find talent able to listen to and engage with customers and one’s community in an online dialogue where the conversation is truly happening — in complement to any “CRM system” (Siebel, Salesforce, etc) that is installed.  In other words, getting personal means knowing how to communicate on a personal level.  Making a machine do this is, as yet, an imperfect science.  Having human beings do it is evermore expensive and, certainly, hard to scale with consistency.  Yet, if we, as a society choose to block off all access to personal data in a response to eVIL 2.0, the chances are that — for those hoping CRM means “Conversation, that is Relevant and Meaningful” — will have to wait a good deal longer.

What do you think of the raging debate on privacy protection and the opportunity for personalized customer service?  Do you know of any good examples of companies navigating the delicate path between privacy protection and a powerful & personalized CRM?

The window into your company is open

Are we there yet?

In the mad race to become, overnight, enterprise 2.0 and web 2.0-friendly, companies are seeking to talk up their “engagement” in the new process in an attempt to lure in talent.  I had a rather animated discussion the other night with someone telling me with great bravado how he felt his company was “taking the internet seriously” and was becoming web-centric.  The funny thing is that (a) it is pointless saying that you are “there” when it is entirely visible from the outside the company is still stumbling on the internet; and (b) it is not something that can — or even should — happen overnight, no matter how much money is thrown at the topic.

Examples of things to look out for (through the open window):

• number of engaged fans on Facebook fan pages
• how quickly and with which level of enthusiasm the brand replies to questions and comments (ie on a Facebook page, Twitter or even in a forum…)
• integration of social media on the ‘institutional’ website — is there a widget on the home page that promotes their social media presence?
• is their presence online being touted consistently with their offline media
• number of blogs published by the employees (with commentary and a good following) — are any of the senior managers doing blogs?
• Twitter accounts with pertinent links in the content as well as abundant followers, of course…

Get engaged before you get married!

A company’s eReputation includes its ability to engage actively its customer base.  There are just too many ways to evaluate a company’s eReputation and web-centricity from the outside to say that the company is “well on its way” when the path is a long one and that they are, in reality, far from it.  Humility and understatement in this regard are probably de rigueur, I would suggest.  A company that is used to being transparent, moreover, will know better not to exaggerate its prowess.  For most companies, especially those in the command & control system, transforming into the 2.0 mindset will be like learning a new language and there is little reason to want to say you speak a language fluently when you could be called upon to speak in that new language at any instant.  The bluff is too quickly called.

Furthermore, the success of a company’s 2.0 strategy will depend on the company’s customer-centricity. The less a company is customer centric, the more the web 2.0-ness will look hollow and feel commercial.

Just as when your kid asks you from the backseat, “are we there, yet?” there is sense in understating the speed at which you expect to arrive at the destination to create more chances of a positive surprise.  In the case of a 2.0 myndset, of course, it is not a destination in itself, but a journey.

So, I ask the question, are you there yet?  And, if you are not, what message are you sending to your teams?

What’s Twitter for?

Twitter is a space where you share — with people who follow you — “tweet” messages (up to a maximum of 140 characters).  These tweeted messages represent, for the most part, what you are doing, reading or thinking about in the present.  Your messages become your “stream” and, over time, become a sort of journal.

Twitter is the pinnacle of ”now-ism“. Up to each of us to define what we make of it.  Twitter is neither Facebook (social) nor Linkedin (business) as you do not choose your followers (although you can choose to block someone).  Twitter will surely evolve — so we must remain nimble, if not humble, and in all cases, careful about our online presence.

How do you get many followers?

Some people are obsessed with getting as large a number of followers as possible.  I have two thoughts about this.

First, concentrate more on the quality of your own stream, rather than worry about the number of followers you have.  Your stream of tweets will become, more than your bio per se, who you are.  Whether you are more interested in Twitter for the personal or professional side, make sure your stream becomes you.  Key concepts to bear in mind: authenticity, consistency and meaningfulness.  Some good general practice tips are: to thank people who RT (retweet) you; if you RT someone, I recommend adjusting the message to reflect your input; always reply back to questions directed at you (i.e. @you); and reply to general questions when you have a solid answer.  Slowly explore the different themes and symbols.  For example, you will find some fun little twitter memes such as #FollowFriday (when you suggest someone new to follow on Friday) — but don’t go hashtag crazy (what’s a hashtag#?).

Secondly, find people of interest to follow.  Qualifying the people you follow will allow you to have a stream of your friends’ tweets that will always be of interest to you — as opposed to junk or, worse, spam.  People I follow tend not to post too frequently (overdose), not to over-promote themselves (egohead), participate in conversations (@reply, ReTweets…); and, of course, write about things that are in my spheres of interest.

Today, Twitter allows for the “mass follow” approach and there are numerous programs and schemes to get thousands of followers.  Personally, I hope that the quantity quest will peter out — but that won’t happen as people and business will naturally want to equate quantity with popularity and/or as business opportunities, etc.  Fortunately, Twitter has an easy opt-out scheme, so if the result is that you receive some senseless twits or spam from someone one doesn’t trust or respect, follows can be just as easily unfollowed… which keeps it a free market. Hopefully, Twitterville will find a way to find and create a layer of trusted twitterers… There are already some great tools for vetting who you follow, and there will surely be more created given Twitter’s recent opening up of its development platform.

My top 4 favourite Twitter tools are:

1. Tweetdeck – for following the tweet stream of my friends, @replies and direct messages
2. Socialoomph – for checking keywords (great way to find other people of interest) & managing/scheduling my posts
3. FriendorFollow – for finding out who is following you but you are not following back, and vice-versa.
4. Echofon – Twitter on my iPhone

For those of you contemplating more than one twitter account (one for personal tweets and one for business tweets, for example), I’d suggest keeping yourself to one account and figuring out a consistent voice that suits you … This is simplest path because a healthy twitter stream requires upkeep and vigilance.  Moreover, specifically when considering your professional profile, the boundaries between personal and professional are increasingly intermingled because the stronger professional leaders are able to include personal notes of humour & emotion, etc., in short, personality.

Meanwhile, from a trademark perspective, you might want to reserve/capture the twitter username of your brand as well as your personal name if that option still exists… you may want to do this even if you don’t plan to use it, since there is no way to protect the name officially at this point.

In conclusion, find your voice in your tweets, tweet regularly (but not too much) and meaningfully, and follow who you find of note/interest. The rest is up to Twitterville whether or not they choose to follow you.  Otherwise, the best advice is just to launch yourself and bear in mind that your stream is your brand.

Would love to have your input, so please don’t hesitate to add your best practices and thoughts on how to use Twitter better!

Even if it’s tera-bly fast, it’s still a slow long tail. The digital world is a seemingly fast paced world, but there are not so many short cuts to create the real world.  The rules of engagement on the internet are not fundamentally different from the real world.  As my friend Mitch Joel says, it goes so fast, it goes so slow, thinking more about the take-up of internet by the mainstream corporate world, but the statement also applies to the notion that you can’t hurry or hustle up a strong community spirit.  And, as time progresses and the internet becomes more ‘clogged’, the easy opportunities to go truly fast are probably diminishing. But, regardless of the many unique opportunities which remain, one of the major messages is that digital solutions and marketing will not provide the quick fix for which so many companies wish. You can’t buy friends (social network) like you used to buy customers (through ads).  With the oncoming notion of social search, building an authentic network will clearly be absolutely critical — and if it is to be a large circle of friends, that can only be built up over time with care.  Developing a digital strategy — and a subsequent online presence and network — requires time and commitment.  But, it a true digital strategy requires alignment with the overall company strategy above all else. If you are not (yet) a customer centric organisation (B2B or B2C) than there is less benefit from hitting the digital waves.

One of the most common questions I encounter when I discuss with CEOs about their digital strategy — in a seemingly pavlovian manner — is: What’s the ROI? The issue is that the ROI is along different axes than companies are used to measuring.  For example, doing a blog can cost zero dollars; the investment is time and energy to create great and valuable content.  Content is the new media, as Mitch Joel says in “Six Pixels of Separation“. Why would you want to give away great information? is another mainline executive refrain.  Because the return can be customer engagement which can foster, over time, long term loyalty and a desire to share with their personal network.  The real question is how much is that worth?  Much more than a singular product launch, I wager.  New(as in innovation) is still an important concept, but collaboration, conversation and community are becoming the real levers of business and trust truly is going to become the new currency. Learning how to put the customer at the heart of the business, whether it is B2C to B2B, is the crux of the issue.  As Chris Brogan said at LeWeb after he heard about Zappos‘ sense of customer service, “Now, I know the ROI of customer service: $928 million” (the price at which Zappos was sold to Amazon).  And the opportunities to provide excellent customer service are infinitely augmented via the digital waves once the company has the right disposition and employee workforce.

Another important facet of the LeWeb conference was the human factor.  As virtual as the digital era may appear, the digital natives have humanity inscribed in their core values.  Human contact, emotion and a deeper sense of meaning are vital triggers.  Well beyond devising a digital strategy, companies need to keep these issues in mind because the digital natives are, first and foremost, natives — born, natural and community-focused.  Social media is essentially social, where the long-term values of society are just as valid.

And finally, the overriding presence of Apple among so many early adopters at LeWeb surely indicates the path of things to come.  Not that other companies will not find great alternative solutions, but the key is that that iPhone is paving the way and attitude of ubiquitous connectivity.  The question for companies is going to be less about their internet strategy and more about their mobile strategy — and for some companies, that seems like an awkward stretch considering their difficulty to adopt the new ways of the internet.  If slow food and quality of life remain aspirations for the healthy of mind, the fleet of foot in the new world — in our palm — have a unique opportunity in the coming 2 years to take markets by storm by reinventing how they interact with their customer.

What are your reactions?  Which companies are doing a great job of taking advantage of the new world?

—–

*I first published this post on Dec 23, 2009, on www.minternet.biz, but have chosen to transfer over to this blog.

If you are like me, you will have said, “what on earth is an ontology?” Some form of scientific anthology? Well, I first came across the word “ontology” here, a post in which Professor Michael Wesch from Kansas University said/wrote that “Ontology is overrated.” While the term remains somewhat esoteric, I am ever more conscious that the ontology concept will catch on, albeit limited to the domain of knowledge acquisition and storage. So, what is an ONTOLOGY? In a geeky paradise, ontology is the new portal. Ontology is the metier of the 21st century librarian.

As defined in the Wolfram Alpha search engine, ontology in an organizational sense, “is a rigorous and exhaustive organization of some knowledge domain that is usually hierarchical and contains all the relevant entities and their relations.”

A recent report by University of Illinois professors & researchers, Allen Renear and Carole Palmer, published in Science (14 August 2009), an article entitled, “Strategic Reading, Ontologies, and the Future of Scientific Publishing,” in which they describe and measure the effects of the web on medical research. Broadly speaking, the article highlights the gargantuan rise in the number of articles published, the increased number of articles being read (by fellow researchers, etc.) and the average amount of time spent on reading each article (decreasing). On the one hand, there are the obvious benefits of providing, instantaneously, potentially life-changing medical information anywhere around the world. However, the presence of so many articles poses an ever greater challenge for researchers needing to claim authorship (i.e. original ownership) of an idea or a discovery. (See Illinois News writeup).

As information proliferation will continue (in the short term it will undoubtedly continue to accelerate), the need to rationalize, filter and digest information will become critical not only in the domain of science, but in many more areas including arts and business. As Renear says, “efficient strategic reading becomes increasingly critical in scientific work…” and I say that the same will be true in many other areas, too.

Here is the BEAUTIFUL concept behind the ontologies being crafted in wiki fashion around the sciences (and later to all areas of documentable expertises): they have inverted the way research is done. You search for the real information you are looking for and then follow up by reading the supporting article(s) as opposed to reading the article to find the information for which you are looking. Of course, that means less reading per article, but it also saves an immense amount of time on background information (and, often-times, noise). The next step would be integrate into these ontologies semantic web concepts, to make them ever more effective and efficient.

Some examples of ontologies out there:

The Gene Ontology is apparently the most famous of ontologies, and among the ones I found while trolling ontologies on google, is certainly the one that speaks volumes to me.

The Open Biomedical Ontologies, a collection of freely available well-structured controlled vocabularies. When you read the introductory paragraph on this site, you get the feeling of not wanted here, very quickly. Try this for size: “The OBO Foundry is a collaborative experiment involving developers of science-based ontologies who are establishing a set of principles for ontology development with the goal of creating a suite of orthogonal interoperable reference ontologies in the biomedical domain.”

And, a third example that is a little easier to get one’s head around, an Animal Behaviour Ontology, one set in motion by Darwin undoubtedly…!

Anyway, as the world progresses through the 21st century, I expect many other areas — less technical than science — may benefit from the knowledge accumulation and classification methods inherent in these sort of wiki-library ontologies. The discussion on ontology takes on a whole other layer when we take into consideration the ongoing “battle” for the digitalisation (numerisation) of the world’s books — truly a new métier for the 21st century librarian. And, the way the Google Books system works is very similar in look & feel to the various ontologies: find the researched term, then open (or pay for?) the whole text…

Will ontologies play a significant part in knowledge management systems? Can ontologies move into the mainstream? What do you think?

Change is gonna come

The ongoing worldwide economic crisis has created many obvious changes in behaviour, mostly focused on the effects of reduced funds. Whether it is the fear that makes a salaried person “tighten” his or her budget or someone who actually has less money coming in (for example, an entrepreneur struggling to make ends meet or, worse yet, someone who has been fired), there is less money floating around. However, given human nature, once the world’s economies recover and businesses reignite, with fuller employment, most of these shifts in behaviour will inevitably revert back in pavlovian style to the habits of the past.

The question that interests me most, however, for this post is which of the changes will be permanent. The profound changes in culture and the creation of related new processes are what will cause the change to stick. Many of the changes pre-date the recession, at least in their origin. The recession has also provoked new business models and practices. Among the lingering changes in behaviour, clearly, from a corporate standpoint, managers who have never had to face such difficult times will have plentiful learnings which should augur well for being better prepared in future downturns. A perfect example is how management at internet companies have managed this crisis much better since getting their proverbial fingers burned in bursting of the internet bubble in 2000-2001.

I will present below which four major changes I believe will have staying power, at least in the much of the developed world.

Durable Sustainable Development Effects

As the need to green has invaded mass media, I have three thoughts here about the more lasting cultural shifts: (1) There is clearly a move away from heavy consumption of fossil fuels (SUVs and cars in general), creating new habits such as walking to work or taking public transport which may, in turn, help justify and finance more public transport development. (2) Purchasing “green” for the long term should have, by definition, a long tail. An example is the purchase of long lasting LED lights whose benefits of durability and low energy consumption are slowly gaining traction, even if they present a higher upfront cost. (3) Attention to reducing water consumption has meant walking away from bottled water (at restaurants as well as at home) and perhaps showering a little quicker and, perhaps, less frequently… On average, every minute under the shower represents 2 gallons or 7 1/2 litres. (Find out how much water you use daily with this handy USGS calculator here). There’s a continuing business opportunity for the water filter companies, although it is not so good for the shower gel business.
Goods that are good for you and the end of consumerism
I would argue that, for an ever growing part of the population, there is going to be a true and lasting trend away from hyper consumerism. Ownership is not all it is be cracked up to be. Beyond the worry of reduced finances, the issue of buying and owning goods is one of quality of life: people will come to the realisation that owning too much is actually a burden, a headache, often times actually creating additional embedded costs and hassles; and, it certainly does not lead to greater happiness.

Someone who owns more than two homes knows what I am talking about: each home creates multiples of paperwork, presumably having to adjust to different rules and regulations. Just making sure that each house is stocked with the basics, much less complete dinner settings, etc. is quite the ongoing exercise. If you are someone who owns a super expensive car, you know that investing in spare parts and getting little scratch marks fixed is a hassle — especially as you roam away from the local dealership. Finding “protected” parking when you decide to take your jazzy car for a ride in town is an extra constraint. Of course, having too much of anything means that you need to have the space to store it… extra hassle and expenses. One of the more potent trends that plays to avoiding owning yet another holiday house: swapping homes (whether for the holidays or not). Here’s a plug for a friend’s initiative, Geenee, which allows for a swap with the “world’s best.”

On another level, eating at home as opposed to going out to the restaurant will create a new culture of homecooking, with a sharper attention to the ingredients (not just their cost). There has apparently been tremendous growth in cooking school enrollments. And, in a similar vein, there is also the notion of SLOW FOOD*, as promoted diligently and valiantly in the US by Alice Waters (check out her restaurant Chez Panisse in Berkeley CA where they serve only in-season fruit and vegetables).

So, the lasting trend here is a move away from amassing goods that crimp my space, burden my mind and waste resources. Instead, people will focus on goods that bring mental freedom, physical health and, hopefully, a smile to the face. As the literature and media coverage latches on to this trend, I see this trend going mainstream even in the rich circles. Recommended reading: The Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard and The Art of Simpe Food by Alice Waters.
Buy LocalThere are two driving forces to buy local: “sustainable development” and latent protectionism. If you buy locally produced goods, the concept is that the items didn’t use as many resources travelling from faraway lands, and at the same time that you are supporting your local community. There are two subplots to this trend: the potential revival of the feelgood effect of buying from a local shopkeeper who knows you (even by name!), and greater attention to the content (“made in” labels) and ingredients (“made of”). In economic tough times, this may be a counter-intuitive trend in that mom & pop stores have a hard time competing on price. Nonetheless, I would look for this “Buy Local” trend to prosper on the other side of the recession.

Sharing, renting and leasing versus buyingThere are certainly economic reasons for not being able to buy something and, to the extent the item you are looking to buy is for limited use (e.g. a new dress for a party, a bigger car for a 2 week family holiday…), the option of sharing, renting or leasing becomes more inviting. Sharing & renting may also be collateral plays on the reduced need/desire to buy and own (point 2 above) as the need to preserve and store the item(s) is less onerous. Sharing & renting also pander well to the green conscience. With this burgeoning trend, there are many new offers that have cropped up. I cite a few of the more interesting ones that I have come across:

Craigslist, Olx and eBay are the leading internet plays on the circulation of second-hand goods (and services). With Craigslist and Olx, there is the local play as well.

Underpinning virtually all these structural changes in behaviour are (1) the internet and (2) sustainable development. I wrote a while back about how inter-related I felt web 2.0 and sustainable development are (read here), and when you overlay the evident economic benefits, I can only reinforce how this crisis will accelerate the changes and how, coming out on the other end, we will all be that much more on the web, taking advantage of new behaviours and goods & services, indeed creating a kind of new ‘unpop’ eco-culture.

*Slow Food, a non-profit, eco-gastronomic member-supported organization, was borne out of the anti-fast food movement in France in 1989 and is headquartered in Bra, Italy. Slow Food stands against “the disappearance of local food traditions and people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from, how it tastes and how our food choices affect the rest of the world. To do that, Slow Food brings together pleasure and responsibility, and makes them inseparable.” The organisation boasts over 100,000 members in 132 countries.

OBAMANIA & OTHER REFLECTIONS ON A SUNDAY MORNING

The effect of the Obama victory overseas has been impressive. Much like the initial outpouring after September 11th, 2001, since November 5th, 2008, I have come across a newfound sense of support for the US from many different corners of the world, and the support is quite similar in intensity. For most foreigners with whom I speak, the sentiment goes along the lines: You, Americans (at least on the coasts), faced with the biggest worldwide economic crisis in a century, 2 long unfinished wars, an Osama Bin Laden still on the lam, the prospect of ecological disasters and the risk of more voter scandals (untested new urns), overcame the urge for a recidivist reactionary vote, to adopt and hail its base values by electing Obama.

What is driving this support around the world for Obama?

In part, I detect an enormous feeling of hope, like the release of a good dream. He represents hope that change is truly going to come. What is said can be done. That diversity is not just a buzz word. I also detect that many are putting their hopes on the shoulders of Americans to rebolster the world, a world that is increasingly rocky. Beyond the economic crisis and environmental concerns, the Western world is worried by the deeper, structural issues including the rise of China, the Russian renaissance, the continuing splintering of nationalities and ethnicities as well as the omen of global terrorism. I don’t mean to have visions of grandeur for the Americans, but we all need to dream and many people seem to have tied up their dreams with Obamania. Aside from the 66.7 million American voters, Muslim communities around the world, the African community (well beyond Kenya), even a town in Japan have identified or associated themselves with Obama. And in the “If the World Could Vote” site, 87.3% of the nearly 900,000 people (up from the 49,000 I wrote about in my September post) casting their online selection for Obama.

Few would doubt that Obama’s plate is eminently full. As a black Parisian radiologist, Maxim, said to me, “it is a poisoned gift.”

For Obama and the Americans, all the real work is now ahead and it will be important to observe (a) the level and effectiveness in the bipartisanship — I have been positively impressed by the effect of President Sarkozy had in bringing in several valuable Socialists into his government; and (b) how Obama manages against the oh-so-high expectations. If the Democratic party were to get a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate (3 seats still undecided) and with the strong House representation (between 255-259 seats), there is a chance that Obama will be able to put through a good portion of his vision. But, what happens systematically — it seems no matter the president, the party or the country — is that there is a boomerang effect some 12-18 months after induction into office. The dissatisfied electorate then “punishes” the standing leader, curbs his or her power and the result is a near lame-duck experience for the remaining years. I have started to think that this is just a natural cycle in democracy. More likely than not, an external and/or unexpected event will likely occur that will unbalance the apple cart and, whether or not his policies have had time to work, will have a material impact on his presidency. It does seem ironic that an unexpected event will be likely. But, this, too, seems to be a part of the natural cycle.

Four More Reflections …

As I ponder this Sunday morning, there are four more things I would like to say about the past couple of weeks.

1/ Don’t you find it symbolic that the Chinese bailout plan at $586B is just below the US one in size ($700B)? Although, compared to its GDP (China’s is estimated at US$3-4 trillion versus $14 trillion for the US), the Chinese effort is far more seismic. You get the feeling that the turning point is around the corner. The burgeoning question for me is how will we, Americans, manage to alter our mania for consumption, so much a fibre of today’s US society?


2/ Forty’s are in. Obama, at 47 years old, joins a healthy stable of “forty-something” leaders. Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili is the youngest I could find at 41 years old. Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev and Sweden’s PM Fredrik Reinfeldt are 43. Ukraine’s Yulia Tymoshenko, Ireland’s Brian Cohen and Spain’s Jose Luis Zapatero are 48. Canada’s Stephen Harper is 49. I am sure that I have missed out a few others — but these are all (with the exception of Harper) leaders born in the 1960s. [Note, among other notables, that Sarkozy (53), Merkel (54), and Putin (56) are, with the majority of other leaders, in their 50s.]

3/ Seeing that Obama is a Web 2.0 President-elect (he has his own Twitter, MyBarackObama blog, YouTube, etc), how far can he be a Sustainable Development-President as well? See here for a prior post on the relatedness of web 2.0 and sustainable development. Certainly, this article by Thomas Claburn at InformationWeek would seem to back up the possible correlation. ADDED 22 NOVEMBER: I was turned on to this NY Times article, “Generation O get its hopes up” (Nov 7) after publishing this post. Obama communicated in a way that “spoke” to people. As the article writes, “Government under Mr. Obama, they believe, would value personal disclosure and transparency in the mode of social-networking sites. Teamwork would be in fashion, along with a strict meritocracy.”

4/ Did you realize that within two days of each other, Obama won the US Presidency, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga won the Paris Masters 2008 and was crowned #1 for France, while Lewis Hamilton became the youngest ever Formula 1 Champion? As both Hamilton and Tsonga are 23 1/2 years old, Obama at 47 is exactly double their age. And all three of them are métise (specifically a black father and a white mother). Rather remarkable, no?

Your thoughts?

Web 2.0 and Sustainable Development – A Way of Life

Via personal predilection and, as it happens, in my work, I am embedded in Web 2.0 functionality. When I take a helicopter view of web 2.0, especially as it applies to the corporate world, I associate the 2.0 mentality with the desire to interact, to listen and to engage. Words such as “open”, “collaborative”, “flat” (as in hierarchy) and “collective intelligence” feature regularly in 2.0 vocabulary. web 2.0 is, at its core, social — thanks to the many new functionalities and the spirit that comes with it. And with it, the internet has gone from cold and impersonal to warm and interactive. Furthermore, web 2.0 is entirely global in scope, like all things on the ‘net.

In another vein, I am personally committed to Sustainable Development (SD) and, in my professional world, am also engaged in the process. When I consider the mentality of all those who are also promoting SD, I think of the spirit of collaboration, community, an openness to new ideas, and a readiness to engage. And, in case it were not obvious, SD is also a global issue.

As part of any SD philosophy, there is a need to marry economic and ‘social’ benefits alongside the protection of the world’s natural resources. I like the definition that sustainable development is about the people, profit and the planet.

I have for quite some time believed that, whether it is the mentalities of those involved or the inherent challenges when applied to the corporate world, sustainable development and web 2.0 are intertwined, not to say interdependent. And, as it happens, both topics are very much high up on personal and corporate agendas alike. Those that are engaged in sustainable development and web 2.0 live it both at work and at home. Both entail a state of mind. Both are about individuals engaging in a community affair. And, typically, I have found that when you are into one, you are into the other. Going further into the analysis, the similarities are more than skin deep.

Sustainable development has a natural outlet via the web because its acolytes tend to be very web-friendly. When one looks at sustainable development initiatives (even in a corporate environment), the web itself offers wonderful opportunities. The most basic option is email. Rather than sending letters by post (and paying for and motoring the mail van), the web offers the option to send a paperless email (and even if the email must be printed out, it is quicker and you save on the stamp and the snail mail costs). Sustainable development is also about engaging with your community and there are terrific ways for building on-line communities that transcend borders, age and company lines. Similarly, whether it is an individual, a brand or a company that wants to link in with its community, it has no better way to do so than via 2.0 functionality.

Need to find meaning

In today’s world, especially true for the Gen Y — but also increasingly true for all generations — there is a heightened attention to find meaning. We are all, in our ways, trying to find or give meaning to our lives — and this is true in work as well. Whether a new recruit applying for a job or a current employee, there is an inherent need to feel that one’s values are aligned with the company for whom one is working [notwithstanding the crisis which may impair one's ability to act freely]. Increasingly, it seems that, in the search for meaning, the professional must be personal. Participating in one or other social media or even writing a blog (in most cases) is a personal act — and the lines are now completely blurred with regards to the corporate “friends” with ever growing corporate functionality in second life, Facebook, etc. Similarly, being committed to sustainable development cannot and does not stop at home.

Sustainable Development & Web 2.0 in the workplace

This all leads me to the notion of bringing web 2.0 or SD into a company that is not otherwise “there”. In a serendipitous way, I was talking with some French friends and realized that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Social Media actually have the same initials when translated into French: R.S.E. (Réseau Social d’Entreprise et Responsabilité Sociale d’Entreprise). But, whether it is sustainable development or web 2.0, implementation at the company level requires significant change management. And, there are drawbacks or risks to engaging in sustainable development or bringing a web 2.0 philosophy in the corporate world. In both cases, it is hard–if not incredible–to be half web 2.0 or just a little sustainable development. Being half-hearted about either leaves you exposed to having your ear eaten off. Implementing web 2.0 functionality necessarily means being able and wanting to listen because it is about two-way dialogue. If your client has something to tell you, you better have a plan as to how you plan to react. If not, the syndrome of the “fake blog” is quicky rooted out. Similarly, if a company trumpets its responsibility in sustainable development, but behind is wasting water (cf Starbucks nailed by the Daily Sun in the UK), the community bites back.

Taking on SD or implementing web 2.0 environments are neither invisible, innocuous nor temporary actions. Both CSR, as it relates to sustainable development, and the implementation of web 2.0 functionality and systems ultimately require a complete company adoption — and senior management involvement. Anything less will become either dysfunctional or causes disconnection, neither of which are healthy. Meanwhile, if there were ever any question as to why a company should want to go down either road (SD and web 2.0), it is increasingly obvious that the spirit of innovation is inherent in both. Web 2.0 has bred open platform innovation — bringing a wider ranging community into the innovation process. SD, when taken on board fully by a company, has an ability to transform old “in growing” models into vibrant, community-based models that combine ecological benefits (planet) with ergonomic improvements (people) and economic savings (profit), if not growth. By evolving corporate culture to encompass these state of minds, companies will benefit from attracting a certain profile of candidates. Both SD and web 2.0 have engrained in their approach an acute attention to the economics and, moreover, they both provide concrete and measurable benefits.

Three critical steps in “How To…”

But, you don’t get there overnight. So how to do it? As I mentioned before, it takes change management. I have three sine qua non suggestions — whether it is Web 2.0 implementation or Sustainable Development actions we are talking about.

First, part of the recipe for success is having senior management total benediction, if not involvement, to help push through the inevitable sticking points (company culture, etc.). Secondly, actions and implementation need to happen in bite sizes, but as part of an overall plan — otherwise, you can get the callout of “greenwashing” or fake 2.0. And, thirdly, when a company wants to undertake active CSR or integrate web 2.0 functionality (whether in intranet, extranet or internet sites), the internal communication and adoption by its employees are absolutely vital. Notions of greenwashing and web 1.0 management are immediately picked up by employees, so the internal marketing and actions must be carefully aligned with the external communications. Meanwhile, here is a good recap (below) from Search Engine Land on how to bring social media into a company (concept from Elliance.com).

So, in sum, Web 2.0 and Sustainable Development have paths that are intricately related. Not that Greenpeace is all about web 2.0 (of course, their site has plenty of interactivity), but, in that both SD and web 2.0 are associated with a way of life, they share many of the same traits and, to some degree, the same challenges. I scoured the web for others blogging on this particular topic, and I did come up with this article by Thomas Claburn at Information Week. What I did find more commonly was that there is room to act on Sustainable Development in a 2.0 fashion, namely Sustainable Development 2.0. Here is an October 2007 analysis from Knowledge Politics of Web 2.0 and International Development NGOs. For more on the topic, read below.

* Policy Innovations – Can Web 2.0 revolutionize CR by James Farrar, Gerhard Pohl, Emily Polk, Steve A. Rochlin, Devin T. Stewart, Andrew Zolli

What do you think? What similarities do you see? Or do you disagree? Thanks to bring your engagement with you as you comment!