Home
Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular
Is Enterprise 2.0 a Savior or a Charlatan? How Strategy-Driven Execution can pave the path to proving legitimate business value
"In this post, I want to describe what I saw at the conference, what I believe to be the missing components of the full Enterprise 2.0 picture, and also discuss how becoming "Driven to Perform" by understanding Strategy-Driven Execution is the best way to justify the value of Enterprise 2.0 in your organization.
"
-
I believe a significant part of the problem that crops up in the Enterprise 2.0 value discussions stems from the fact that the champions of Enterprise 2.0 significantly underweight the complexity and pervasiveness of the existing information technologies in the enterprise and the reasons why these technologies evolved.
-
They key activity steps of enterprise business processes embodied into today's ERP, CRM, SCM et al software, such order-to-cash, procure-to-pay, hire-to-retire, or record-to-report need to be highly structured for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is efficiency, their primary reason for being, but also for significant compliance concerns they address. I don't foresee a point any time in the near future where enterprises will leverage Enterprise 2.0 principles in the core of accounting, or payroll, or order management because there are serious risks to doing so for a business. These enterprise business processes are complicated enough without any unstructured processes surrounding in them, as you can see here in this offer creation process which we diagrammed in Driven to Perform in our chapter on Risk-Aware Marketing Performance Management.
- 3 more annotations...
Vendre !: La motivation n'est plus ce qu'elle était !
"Au long de ma vie professionelle, j'ai souvent entendu des dirigeants avisés affirmer avec une fière assurance : "de toutes façons, il n'y a que le plan de commissionnement pour faire courir mes vendeurs. Le reste c'est du bla bla".
Le principe de base est très simple en effet. Si vous voulez que vos commerciaux fassent ce que vous attendez d'eux, il suffit de mettre en place les récompenses (ou incentives, pour parler dans cet abominable jargon franglais qui envahit toutes nos correspondances désormais) qui vont bien. Plus tu fais ce pour quoi je te paye, plus je te paye."
-
2. Tant que les objectifs commerciaux peuvent être atteints à travers la répétition "mécanique" de tâches élémentaires, le système traditionnel de motivation par l'argent fonctionne conformément aux attentes : plus le système de commissionnement est attractif, plus haute sera la performance du vendeur ;
-
3. En revanche, lorsque l'atteinte des objectifs commerciaux passe par la sollicitation de facultés cognitives ne serait-ce que rudimentaires, alors le système traditionnel
de motivation par l'argent fonctionne à rebours du principe ayant prévalu à son élaboration : plus
le système de commissionnement est attractif, moins bonne sera la
performance du vendeur ; - 1 more annotations...
Enterprise 2.0 and the Paradigm of Social Partnerships
"Outside of internal team collaboration (say, a group of marketers, a group of engineers, etc.), no spray & pray / general purpose employee collaborative strategy (or tool application) is going to really show sustainable impact for every tribe or collective. And just like traditional business ecosystem partnerships (customers, suppliers, channel), these internal partnerships also get significantly rattled in the face of industry consolidation"
-
First, existing structural inefficiencies in how internal or external partners liaise as a result of little adherence to basic human interaction constructs and incentive structures, and unnecessary process centric technology that restricts human capital flow
-
. No doubt that the current tools will play a significant role towards simplifying these relationships. But to accelerate business performance via social computing constructs, lots of design work is needed along with the filling of critical technology gaps to truly account for context, cognizance of both process and social at the business activity level, and a deep understanding of and response to individual incentive that makes participation a natural instinct.
Don't Keep Up With Social Technology
The minute you stop trying to keep up, you open a far more exciting possibility: getting ahead with what matters to you, your team and your business.
The Fallacy of Financial Metrics
In both entrepreneurial and larger companies, we too often spend time focusing on the desired financial performance target, rather than the inputs that drive those numbers. Because boards, investors and management demand an objective way to measure performance, we often go right to the result without focusing on what caused those results.
What Is Execution 2.0?
All of these engagements enabled me to learn the different nuances of each market and the current status of the markets use of social technology. In each case the fundamentals of engaging and listening to the market of conversations remained the same. The engagements were centric to helping the organization build an effective strategy and related tactics. In each case the one critical element that would determine the success of the proposed plan was the effective execution of the plan.
Will Management Buy Into The Plan?
In management, the ultimate measure of performance is the metric of management effectiveness which includes execution, or how well management’s plans are carried out by members of the organization. Execution is not a singular or silo process rather it encompasses the following attributes:
-
Consider the brands who have tried to execute initiatives using social technology. The old 80/20 rule applies. 80% or more fail while 20% succeed. Why? Because 80% consider a Strategic 2.0 plan as a marketing initiative rather than a plan to transform the entire company into a “connected” organization 2.0 which leverages a Strategic 2.0 plan. Execution 2.0 requires a total organizational transformation.
The Rise of the Chief Performance Officer
A few weeks ago Obama nominated Jeffrey Zients, another consultant and Washington business executive, for the role. I don't know Zients, but I think the Chief Performance Officer role has a lot of potential, and it's a new wrinkle for something like this to appear first in the federal government.
-
Some of the participants pointed out that if you're going to be merging things, you might as well go a bit further. They noted, for example, that if you want to align knowledge and learning with work, you need to know something about business processes and how to improve them. And if you're going to align processes with the content needed to perform them effectively, you need to know something about the technology that would deliver the content in accordance with job tasks.
-
The danger, of course, is that a broad business improvement organization would have such breadth that it would lose focus, or that no individual business improver could master the broad array of tools offered. It will be interesting to see how organizations resolve this tradeoff of capability and focus.
Where’s the money?
Now, I believe that learning is more than skilling up to some minimal baseline. I believe it encompasses the information access to support performance, mentoring from the top end of novice through practitioner, and communication and collaboration that supports problem-solving and innovation. And the associated skills. Not only do novel inquiries and problems get dealt with, but new products, services, customer experiences, and more are the outcome of the full performance ecosystem.
-
where would an organization get 20-25% performance improvement? Not just from training, I’ll wager. You need to create a more coherent learnscape, where people are continually moving to the center of their communities of practice, where more people are effective learners, self-learners, and together-learners, where the cultural values and learning skills are as explicit as the organizational goals and individual roles
-
where’s the money? I want to suggest that when it gets into problem-solving, innovation, etc, it goes beyond a training budget to operations and R&D. R&D will undoubtedly have some infrastructure costs, but I’ll suggest that the innovation and problem-solving skills that are supported across the organization will have a substantial impact on R&D outcomes as well as more operational metrics.
- 1 more annotations...
« Les indicateurs de performance ont des effets pervers parfois coûteux pour l’entreprise »
Maya Beauvallet, économiste et maitre de conférences à Telecom Paris-tech, démontre exemple à l’appui, comment la multiplication des indicateurs de performance et des dispositifs d’incitation peut aboutir à la démotivation. Explications.
-
Mais tout déraille lorsqu’ils cherchent à évaluer la performance individuelle des salariés et servent de base pour obtenir des primes. Les entreprises ne doivent pas piloter qu’aux instruments. Le manager doit gérer et transmette un esprit d’entreprise. Il faut changer les relations humaines et ne pas manier que la carotte et le bâton
-
Il faut que le groupe soit homogène, que tous ses membres aient un niveau de production équivalent. Sinon l’employeur obtiendra l’effet inverse de ce qu’il escompte : les moins bons se reposent sur les meilleurs et la productivité moyenne baisse forcément
- 2 more annotations...
The Effects of Performance Pressure on Teams' Knowledge Use and Performance
With so many experts on a team, why does the result sometimes prove disappointing? New research by HBS professor Heidi K. Gardner probes the social dynamics of teamwork in knowledge-intensive settings, such as professional service firms, and the accompanying pressure to perform at the highest caliber. Her findings suggest that teams may yield right-of-way to colleagues with higher authority and thus miss out on the potential contributions of lower-status team members who know more about the client's needs.
65 Things I Believe About HR
-
I believe employees want to do a good job.
-
I believe people do what they get rewarded to do.
- 13 more annotations...
Improving and innovating performance management
Supporting my points about design and engagement in my previous post, the group noted that “the ‘ideal’ system and process still will have to be designed, and accepted”. These are some of the suggestions for improving performance management made within the article:
* Cascading goals vertically but probably horizontally as well
* Not using a forced distribution
* Being based on the organisation’s needs and, where possible, on each employees’ strengths
* Being employee driven
* Being fast and frequent
* Involving the entire community
* Being web based
* Being unique – not copying another organisation’s process.
Fear Factor in the Workplace - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
What really disturbs surviving employees about downsizings is that they cannot control or rationalize the events. If I have a co-worker who frequently arrives late and does low quality work, I can rationalize her layoff by saying to myself, “She didn’t carry her weight and deserved to be let go.” If, instead, my co-worker seems to work as hard and as well as I do and then, through no fault of her own, happens to be the victim of a “reduction in force,” I cannot rationalize that. More important, I fear that I cannot control my situation: in the first scenario, I have a sense of control over my fate by continuing to do high-quality work. In the second scenario, working hard or working well doesn’t seem to help me retain my job.
-
: If six people are left covering the work of 10, no one has time to think up new and better approaches to work. Invariably, people work harder and not smarter after a downsizing.
-
Adding to the problem is that people take fewer risks and become less creative. Creativity requires trial and error, and no one knows what happens to those who experiment with a new approach and then fail
- 2 more annotations...
Corporate apocalypse - Management Today
The bomb that has blown up the heart of the world's financial system was not primarily financial. It's true that finance provided the high explosive in the shape of the structured vehicles, collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) and derivatives devised by the rocket scientists of Wall Street and the City. But it needed a detonator to set them off: the unfit-for-purpose management model that has governed the way our companies work for the last 40 years.
-
This is the challenge for Management 2.0: reorienting management from
compliance to creativity, from flogging efficiencies out of existing
resources to generating new ones, from zero-sum to positive-sum by
recognising, as Hamel says, the commonsense proposition that in the long
term the corporation can only prosper if employees, suppliers, the
community and indeed the planet do too. -
First, many of the 'grand challenges' put forward in the discussions -
the need for companies to articulate a purpose beyond making money (a
conference near-consensus), distributed leadership and strategy- making,
the fostering of community and citizenship, building trust - are not new
at all. It's more that they have been driven to the periphery of
management concerns by the treadmill of Management 1.0. - 7 more annotations...
Down with the performance review?!
-
- Two parties with misaligned goals. When walking into a performance review the boss’ goal of discussing areas of improvement don’t match up with the employee’s goal of promotion and compensation.
- The false belief that performance affects pay. Culbert argues that pay is primarily determined by market forces (which makes sense - just look at our current economic situation - are many people expecting big raises/bonuses this year?) and most jobs are placed in a pay range even before the employee is hired.
- As objective as we try to be - there are always personal biases. This is a fundamental conflict. Depending on one’s position, their opinion and view will differ. This is where Culbert also brings up the “360-degree feedback”. When feedback is anonymized that creates more opportunity for various parties to further their personal agenda since there is no accountability associated with their review.
- Everyone is different - “once size does not fit all”. Performance reviews often revolve around a predetermined checklist. This is why people may focus more on pleasing their boss than doing a good job. Since a happy boss will (theoretically) leave you with a higher score.
- Employees are reluctant to go to their bosses for help (for fear that it will reflect badly on their performance review). It makes sense that employees would go to their bosses for help, guidance and improvement. But, “thanks to the performance review, the boss is often the last person an employee would turn to”.
- Disrupts teamwork. The most important type of teamwork is the one-on-one relationship between a boss and their subordinates. But in performance reviews, as opposed to taking the stance “how will we work together as a team”, it’s “how are you performing for me”.
- At the end of the day… performance reviews don’t improve corporate performance.
Get Rid of the Performance Review! - WSJ.com
-
Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay. But usually they don't. I believe pay is primarily determined by market forces, with most jobs placed in a pay range prior to an employee's hiring.
-
Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report.
- 5 more annotations...
Gensler Survey Measures Connection Between Workplace Design and Business Performance | Dexigner
Companies providing workplaces that are more effective for knowledge work are seeing higher levels of employee engagement, brand equity, and profit, with profit growth up to 14 percentage points greater than those with less effective work environments.
-
Our research indicates that if organizations provide work settings that support today's dynamic ways of working, they can reduce real estate and improve their company's performance at the same time - they can do more with less."
Bob Sutton: Sam Culbert in the Wall Street Journal: Get Rid of the Performance Review!
Although an entire industry of consultants, HR professionals, and software firms seem bent on devoting more and more time and money to performance evaluations, all the energy devoted to these things over the years have done little to change Sam's observation about the difference between the promise and the problems:
-
- The Promise: Performance reviews are supposed to
provide an objective evaluation that helps determine pay and lets
employees know where they can do better. - The Problems:
That's not most people's experience with performance reviews.
Inevitably reviews are political and subjective, and create schisms in
boss-employee relationships. The link between pay and performance is
tenuous at best. And the notion of objectivity is absurd; people who
switch jobs often get much different evaluations from their new bosses.
- The Promise: Performance reviews are supposed to
-
Sam's article is also in the spirit of design thinking, as in many cases, after people have spent years trying to perfect some procedure, gadget, or feature that they -- usually mindlessly -- accept as something they cannot do without and then a breakthrough happens when some clever person (often someone who isn't an expert in the field) comes along and removes it or unwittingly goes forward and succeeds without it. Then everyone realizes that they never needed it at all. - 1 more annotations...
Les KPI ne sont pas la priorité
Le plus important, c’est de savoir ce que vous voulez faire et comment vous allez le faire. Le moyen choisi pour mesurer ne vient qu’ensuite. “
-
A force de marteler des slogans du type “On ne pilote que ce que l’on mesure”, on mesure un peu tout et n’importe quoi. Au final on ne sait plus trop ce que l’on pilote, ni même si on pilote. Je me demande s’il ne faudrait pas, durant un temps en tout cas, inverser la formule afin de se recentrer sur l’essentiel. “ On ne mesure que ce que l’on pilote”.
Research brief links engagement, business improvement to internal use of Web 2.0
# 52% of organizations that adopt blogs, wikis, and social networking tools (among others) achieved best-in-class performance levels compared to 5% for those that didn’t. (Note to Aberdeen: I would have liked a definition of “best-in-class.")
# The same tools were used within organizations that achieved an 18% year-over-year improvement in employee engagement. Companies that didn’t use these tools grew engagement by a mere 1%.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
management (14)- humanresources (9)
- organization (6)
- ROI (4)
- performancereview (4)
- collaboration (3)
- enterprise2.0 (3)
- socialnetworks (3)
- indicators (3)
- leadership (3)
- motivation (3)
- measurement (3)
- evaluation (3)
- teamwork (3)
- strategy (2)
- collaborativetools (2)
- execution (2)
- alignment (2)
- businessprocess (2)
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in performa...
-
Rails Performance Optimization
Items: 7 | Visits: 60
Created by: Avdi Grimm
-
Consistent Hashing
Items: 8 | Visits: 85
Created by: Arrix Z
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo