*.There are two good things to say about the book and one criticism:
Good thing 1: Having a Harvard (now MIT) academic talk about the use of social software in the enterprise (plus a handy label) gave it respectability. The book continues that process of maturation. it doesn't hurt that from the opening sentence, it's well-written.
Good thing 2: Although much of the book seems to pull together the thinking & comments of others, AM does have something to contribute - the bull's eye model of strong/weak/potential/no ties. This provides an important perspective on how different social software tools work in different contexts.
Criticism: The last chapter in the book is entitled "Looking Ahead" and draws on Model 1 / Model 2 of Chris Argyris**. Although AM states: It is critical to stress that Enterprise 2.0 alone will not move people and organizations from Model 1 to Model 2 theories-in-use, he believes that they have a major role to play.
In this, he reminds me a lot of Karl Marx. Marx believed that human beings were corrupted by the economic system in which they operated (i.e. capitalism). Remove them from the bad system and everything would be OK. The thing is that environments & institutions can make human beings better or worse but hierarchy & social gaming are built into human nature. We are constantly in competition and co-operation at the same time.
So I personally think that Enterprise 2.0 technologies will have a comparatively small impact (but nonetheless one worth paying attention to) in how organizations work and workers collaborate. I think their combined historical impact will be less than email and other forces will actually drive more corporate openness (or indeed closure).
Of course, the thing about technology & social change is that you never can tell. Enterprise 2.0 is worth putting in the risky end of a barbell strategy.
*I wanted to link to the HBSP info but their site is screwed.
**This morning I was rereading chapter of 6 of Changing the Conversation in Organizations, where Patricia Shaw very carefully takes apart the tradition that Argyis comes from.
Posts
4 comments:
Suggest you might read some Marx, he never said anything like that - you just made it up!
Dear Anonymous (if that's your real name - people on the interweb are so untrustworthy).
Here is a quote that I made up: In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
While Marx used the term "utopian" in a perjorative way to label other socialists, his own project necessarily has a strong utopian element.
Please tell me what Marx thought. Make it less than 400 words as marks (or should that be marx!!! - I'm the first person to make that pun, oh yes) will be deducted if you go over the word limit. You may only reference Marx's thoughts on base vs superstructure twice.
And tie it back to social software if possible. The Marx remark (or should that be remar-, oh sod it) was a throwaway line deliberately inserted to generate controversy & linkage. Don't thwart my pathetic attempts traffic-hyping by turning the comments column into some tedious Marxism 101 reading group ("What he was really trying to say in the Grundrisse, and everyone has misinterpreted, was..").
Matt, thanks for the kind words about my book. In answer to the title question of your post, I don't think I'm a communist, or a techno-utopian with respect to Enterprise 2.0. My clearest statement on their organizational impact is here.
Andy - I don't think your a communist either - and thanks for the link, I think the title of your post is admirably realistic. Where would you put yourself on the Web 2.0 Beliefometer?
Post a Comment