« Launch E2.0 Broad, Then Go Deep | Main | How to Find Enterprise 2.0 Champions »

September 21, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Great post, Michael. More of these. :-)


Great post, you´re right at it I think. Distinctions are crusual.

Oscar Berg

Spot on! This is the best post related to the "Enterprise 2.0 is a crock" discussion I've read so far.

The reason for the resistance towards Enterprise 2.0 that we see coming from ”hierarchies” = (middle) management is not that they risk loosing their rights to make decisions. But some managers still build and retain their power by controlling information, keeping it from others, and only seeding out some information in bits and pieces. Transparency means that it will be more likely that others will get hold of the information that decision makers use when they make decisions. This way, others can use the same information to evaluate the decisions made. They can also add any other information they have that might be relevant.

This is a real threat to some managers, but a great opportunity for businesses since it can enable faster and better decision-making.

Rachel Happe

Hi Michael -

One of the things I talk a lot about is boundaries and policies - all of which are set by senior management - because communities are not particularly purposeful and productive without strong leadership. Does the leadership style change? Yes, a bit. But to your point, someone still has to be responsible for keeping the conversation and relationships productive because corporate communities - whether employees, partners, or customers - do not operate in a vacuum, they operate to further the goals of the company.

One thing that I think transparency does have the potential to do is to expose poor leadership but poor leadership is poor leadership and has always been a problem in pockets.

Great post and I think it's worth having more dialog around this.

Abigail Gertner

Having just come out of a discussion on diversity at my company I have been thinking about the potential for Enterprise 2.0 tools to foster diversity in leadership by providing opportunities to contribute for people who would not normally be involved in making important decisions. This is not exactly "anarchy" but it does suggest that the composition of management could eventually be influenced by the broader participation and transparency engendered by these tools. What do you think? Can Enterprise 2.0 contribute to more diversity in leadership?

Charles Ames

Michael -- check out http://orglines.com. It is a new web app focused directly on the subject of this article. We set out to rethink social software for business contexts, where the "social graph" is actually the org chart (which is also "socially" created.) I would love to get your thoughts on our work.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter