If 1% is the contributor in social internet market place and just that the numbers are good enough to sustain the supply-demand balance, what do the 99% do? As a fact, it is accepted that this ratio is the reason why social media in workplace is a long shot away from main stream business benefit solution.
Should we ask the question Why do the 99% care not to contribute ? Are they introverted consumers, or careless/carefree personas who want more than give away or just lazy to express or suffer the "starter" block failing to overpower it?
Well, I too grapple these questions without answers. :( However, some pointers are showing up in interaction with my customers.
1. People who contribute tend to be known for it. In big meetings, you know for sure that a chosen few will start talking neverthless the subject. The same people do not miss the opportunity in the web medium. May be the 1% team.
2. Many of them make a start and expect a reaction. This is where many of the flops happen. To respond, we send automated messages without context as the reaction. This is a let down. Further a commitment is missing the other direction. Their feedback may be tangential. Still they need to be recognized as a valuable feedback and ask them to give more ideas.
With one of my customers, we were given the challenge that the sign off would be given to us only if 50 users certify their usefulness of the e-Learning course. We provisioned a feedback button to prove our worth. The customer brought the team who commented in the feedback in the room and asked what they meant in their feedback. The results were dramatic. Post the meeting, each of them met me individually and gave me enough feedback (offline) to
- explain how they work,
- what we need to rewrite,
- analogies to explain.
3. Cynics Feedback into account: "One more task in my plate. Whew!!" ,"How much should I handle?", "What is going on is atleast ok." The majority of the team, will fall in this arena. They cannot be brought their way into the fold. They would continue to be so. However, they must be the best people to tear apart the exisiting structure and suggest an alternate and better one. They need a story to let them know how useful their earlier feedback was and what improvements were made. Cynics can remain the same. Just that, they should be your alibi and not a liability.
4. Rule Followers: Some people will start to attempt only if a rule is made. It is better to follow a rule than spend time in what is not mandated by the society. Hence make it part of KRA, give some bonus points or any thing that is documented. You would see followers seeking results.
5. Determine Levels of contribution: It is long tail that matters as good as Top contributers: The person who occasionally respond is equally important as top contributers. However, levels are important to establish a motivation level to move up the ladder to encourage more contribution.
It still matters that contributors will be small % of the consumers.
"Why should I care to respond" is important consideration to address to get a good collaboration solution in place than a technical solution.
This is a very pertinent and timely post given today's environment of endless and ever-growing medium of communication, collaboration, self-expression, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe dilemma is: "Why is the active contribution limited to less than 10%?"
The last sentence of the post reminded me of another comment made during one of our past discussions:
"Technology intimidates people, never aids them if they haven't asked for it."
I think this makes many a lurker on community sites apart from all the reasons you have mentioned.
There is one more category I would like to add to the list:
People who genuinely find joy in sharing their ideas and enjoy the debate, even if those are against their thoughts. Such people are forthcoming, express their ideas logically, welcome feedback and are open to revising their ideas if given enough logical reasons to do so.
They can drive communities through their passion and eagerness for knowledge.
They critique thoughts and ideas, never the author and engage in healthy, constructive debate.
They don't have any ulterior motive for contributing unless learning be considered as one.
Finally, they are the ones who bring new ideas and information to the masses and become the thought leaders of their industry.
Maybe, too idealistic a view, but I like to believe that some such people do exist.
OK, to all my dear friends I am the 90% who is still graping up with the idea of web 2.0 and my frinds surpassed me with social media and collaborative aspects. Out here at this very moment when i am keying down this I feel why am I doing this. Is this empowerment to express my thought as if I have never expressed.. Or it is a slavery to technology platform that I assume is democratizing my culture, the way I work, the way I express, and the way I new people... shaking hands, looking into their eyes and expressing affection.
ReplyDeleteIs the architecture of collective itelligence closing my own doors with living in my own world with people who think like me, mall which displays things that I had been using, a search engine that throws results that I have seen.
And then I am my own master who creates my own master piece and applauds to myself. I create my history and I am proud of it.
And now when I am concludig I see myself logged in as one of my dear friend and I am impersonating my thoughts on his name....
So who am I? an artist, a musician, a writer, an expressor who followshimself without any history to follow and will leave no culture behind to be followed. Because all my life I had been only expressing to situations...
Nibce post
ReplyDeleteThanks Zia for the nice comments. Am happy that you have taken step for enabling "collective intelligence".
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me was "Coming out of Cocoon" members are an important set along with Sahana's "People who enjoy debates".
Thanks for suggestions. Would love more such conversations.
By impersonating.. I meant real impersonating. See I proved my point of our journey towards own inward focussed route to self engrossement that we do not have differentiation of ideas / beliefs that an individual can express.
ReplyDeleteZia my sweet friend will never disagree to anything but knows in his heart what he wants, You want Zia to express his heart but that's individuality. Why will he do that?
We are proud of "collective intelligence" backed by the tools of social computing. Welcome the "self proclaimed" philosopher-
Your cruel Friend Sambit
Sambit,
ReplyDeleteWe knew it was you. :). I wanted Zia to come out as well.
Self-engrossment is the basic quality and law of nature. Remember the sayings "Like attracts Like. Money attracts Money..." types.
Regarding the point "You want Zia to express his heart but that's individuality. Why will he do that?" I like to digress that expressing one's feelings (likes, dislikes, anger, love) is individualistic and need not be shared, if not want to with an unknown world. However, gaining knowledge has never been inward and self aggrandizement feature. It happens in a social environment and is backed by a community led system. Hence giving back to community through social forums (not necessarily technology forums)can be argued as a must.
Difference between giving away knowledge and giving away opinions is a thin line, that makes collaboration initiatives a success.
For example, a discussion forum can be used to criticize, crib, promote certain policies, procedures, people. Do you think it will be of value (expressing individual preferences)in future or talking about say "Web 2.0, RIA, or principles of collaboration" (expressing the understanding in ones own words)would prove a value?
This blog has forced me to come out of my slumber today and has impelled a care to respond than to continue in my slumber, The reason is that only when 'cares to respond' is adopted there comes into exixtence collective wisdom and colloborative work being accomplished which will not be veteoed by others who look at the decision. when I am keying this comment I am reminded of one question that was asked by my students - why two or three and more - in odd numbers - sit as judges to hear a case? The answer is that a colloborative effort is put by like-minded persons and collectve wisdom is made to reflect in the judgment albeit dissensions may also be expressed by the minority in their judgments. All said and done,in today's business world in an enterprise what is required is 3 C'S - COMMUNICATION,COLLOBORRATION AND CORROBORATION and in this 'Caring to respond becomes an inherent must' which will not permit anyone to remain silent. Alas! caring to respond is a trait to be developed.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...I didn't want to extend this debate...but it's a little difficult for me to stay away when a debate is happening. I did try...:)
ReplyDeleteThree comments brought me back into the fray:
1. I like to digress that expressing one's feelings (likes, dislikes, anger, love) is individualistic and need not be shared, if not want to with an unknown world.
2. Difference between giving away knowledge and giving away opinions is a thin line, that makes collaboration initiatives a success.
3. The answer is that a collaborative effort is put by like-minded persons and collective wisdom is made to reflect in the judgment, albeit dissensions may also be expressed, by the minority in their judgments.
Comment # 1: I completely agree with this--especially, if the feeling is really from the heart. :) If knowledge in a generalized form can be extracted from those emotions, then one could write about that.
Comment # 2: An insight we have to cling to if we are to make any collaboration a success. If we get fanatic/possessive about what we are sharing, it becomes opinion--something to be avoided at all cost.
Comment # 3: This has been my Ah ha! moment today. I am going to tweet this with due acknowledgment. :) I am not going to comment on this here because the insight is deep and meaningful, and deserves a post of its own.
This set of comments has given me enough food for thought for the week.