Comments on: Breaking Cliques with Enterprise Micro-Blogging

By: The Case For Enterprise Microblogging | brandpilgrim

The Case For Enterprise Microblogging | brandpilgrim — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:50:19 +0000

[...] http://jbordeaux.com/breaking-cliques-with-enterprise-micro-blogging/ [...]

By: Library clips

Library clips — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:49:42 +0000

Microblogging is a low barrier to use as it’s intune with human behaviour…

A while back I posted about knowledge sharing in your flow of work, and in between your tasks, here are those posts: 7 seconds to knowledge share, 140 characters to knowledge share.
At work I’m finding our support team often don’t have t…

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:00:32 +0000

Nice post and i found the part about IM in your work force quite interesting. Over time i have also found that some people on my list get called upon less and less whilst others i turn to on a regular basis maybe i am losing out on valuable knowledge! You may be interested to read the Zeta micro blogging article that has been recently published here:
http://www.zeta.net/blog/2009/04/why-microblogging-could-be-the-next-email/

By: srxdba

srxdba — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:58:38 +0000

how is tweeting about your business affected by e-discovery rules?

What happens with employees that tweet negatively about the company, or worse, about another employee? If the tweet is entered from a company-owned computer, what is the obligation or liability of the company?

Is due diligence getting in the way of businesses adopting the social networking tools?

We’ve all heard about the drunk pictures on Facebook affecting employment…when will the obnoxious tweets start affecting jobs?

By: Linkpost: Community management already on the decline? Infographics in support of social learning; Office microblogs enable ever more powerful teamwork | Sharing at Work

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:28:14 +0000

[...] Tweeting coworkers break out of existing office power dynamics [...]

By: Khürt

Khürt — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:38:12 +0000

Quite frankly I think the reluctance to adopt of social media in the enterprise is related to social risk. When I participate in the sea of conversions on the public twitter I am less likley to be worried about what and how I say things. My conversations are somewhat ‘anonymous”. Most of the people I follow on twitter or who follow me are unknown. We have never met and our interactions are solely via the twitter box.

However, within the enterprise I would be conversing with people I actually do know and have met and perhaps works with closely. I may be promoting a particularly unpopular idea or challenging positional authority. That may be political suicide and I may find myself shut-out or worse kicked out.

In my experience corporate culture is not amenable to open and honest discourse.

By: Allan

Allan — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:11:45 +0000

I think social media, as any new idea, is first viewed as a facilitator of the old process. We are a long way from fully discerning the freedom and value inherent in our new systems. I do like the idea of enabling swarm intelligence, I will have to consider how best to appropriate it – and still have fun.

By: rajagopal sukumar

rajagopal sukumar — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:22:39 +0000

John,
Thanks. I could be wrong here. But I have 2 thoughts:
1. both IM and twitter and wikis and blogs and others are new things (you can eliminate the word technology). Any new thing goes through an adoption curve. Due to that benefits received by the participants will vary.
2. If you look at blogs and twitter, experience (both mine and the world in general) success depends on feedback received by the blogger or twitterer in the form pageviews, links, comments, @replies, retweeets, #of followers etc (call them feedback devices). When you have a small group adopting blogging or twittering, there is a high likelihood that a few in the group have not adopted it due to reason no.1 above. Additionally, if people don’t respond using the feedback devices, the blogger/twitterer will stop using it.

I have observed that when you have a critical mass, this problem doesn’t happen because lot of people are blogging/twittering and even if a few people drop out it wouldn’t matter.

I have found that wikis and forums work better in small groups because the expectation of feedback is not there. But i wouldn’t call wikis and forums social media.

If you have found small groups that have used blogging/microblogging effectively over a long period of time (more than 18 months), i will be happy to learn more.

By: John

John — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:34:19 +0000

Thank you. I agree I did not fully address your assertion regarding critical mass, I focused on trying to respond to the poor argument made by the CNET article.

I would be interested in exploring your examples where teams failed to adopt social media. IM and Twitter are fundamentally different tools – point-to-point versus many-to-many. The behaviors associated with these two tools are very different, and I suspect (but cannot yet prove) that the critical mass needed for adoption will be much lower.

By: rajagopal sukumar

rajagopal sukumar — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:26:19 +0000

John,
Nice post. After you pointed out i went through the comments on that yammer post and you are right it does seem ill-informed.

As for my assertion about critical mass i dont think your post answers that with evidence. In my experience because social is a new thing it has an adoption curve (similar to the one Geoffrey Moore used in Crossing the Chasm). In other words people adopt it in varying rates. This means that you need to have a critical mass. I have several evidences where small groups failed to adopt it effectively. I don’t know what the critical mass number is? But i definitely think there is a critical mass needed. Even in your example you mentioned several didn’t adopt IM. In the same way twitter will also have varying adoption levels.