Web 2.0 and the Workplace of Tomorrow - Revisited

Photo by Leigh Blackall. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

In 2007, I was commissioned by a Fortune 100 company to perform an analysis of their company's operations and suggest means by which they could become leaner and more efficient. The effort spanned six months, and included extensive interviews with numerous focus groups, representing all corporate functions and hierarchical levels, up to the Senior Vice-President.

My analysis considered the company's business systems, or all those things that supported the flow and distribution of money; the work systems, or all those things that supported the addition of value, from information technology, through tools and to processes and procedures; and lastly, it evaluated the company's human systems - the organizational structures, the alignment of performance measures, the distribution of roles and responsibilities, the total rewards package, and the means by which communication took place. Most importantly, I studied the way in which these three systems interacted, seeking to uncover any inherent conflicts.

The conclusion of my report was that the most powerful transformation tool available to this particular company was to be found in reorganizing the way in which its personnel combined to create value - the human systems. I was particularly influenced in my thinking by an article in the Economist, titled Teaming With Bright Ideas, The New Organization. Based on my surveys of the company's culture, the more progressive ideas in that article sounded like the perfect fit.

The speed and efficiency with which effective teams can be brought together to resolve problems is crucial to success in the modern organization." (from Teaming With Bright Ideas).

There were other bits and pieces of research that influenced my thinking: a Harvard Business Review case study on Linux called Collaboration Rules; the strengths of IBM's ThinkPlace concept; Wired Magazine's crowdsourcing experiment, Assignment Zero.

But another factor weighed hugely in my thinking at the time. Call it 'The Newsvine Factor'.

At the time, I was still a fresh bud on the 'Vine, having been around only six or eight months. But I was already extremely impressed by the culture. What struck me most as someone who was in the midst of trying to help a client find its way to becoming a 'flat' organization was the degree of self-organization it exhibited. To quote Dennis P. McCann, from his recent 'Bampots' article:

There was inherent quality control because quite simply, we would have been embarrassed to post garbage. Everyone, including or friends, would have come down on us. We held each other to pretty high standards because we all had a big investment in the site, and wanted to keep or standards intact.

Same with personal attacks. There was no voting up attacks in those days. Everyone involved in the debate would report violations no matter which side of the debate they were on.

This seemed to me to be inherently desirable. A self-policing entity, with inherent quality control, all enabled by the most current of social networking tools, real-time feedback and ongoing communications for course-correction. No supervisors, managers or directors required.

It was this promise that led me to propose to my client that they should seriously consider investigating the use of the full suite of Web 2.0 tools and enablers within their corporate environment. Make crowdsourcing an integral part of day-to-day business, using blogs, IM, social networking, wikis - hell, if Twitter had been around then, I'd have thrown it into the mix.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the empowered, high-performance workplace of the future. I don't know if my client implemented my recommendations or not. I hope to hell they haven't, because I have now been around long enough to see what the exemplary Newsvine community has descended to.

Endless flamewars.

Nuclear trolling contests.

Endemic Hate speech.

Juvenile schoolyard bickering.

Inflammatory content posted simply to jack up the page view count.

System-gaming to the nth degree.

There are a host of theories as to why this has happened, with the massive influx of users associated with the MSNBC acquisition being near the top of the list. But I'm not really interested in the cause. What I am interested in exploring is whether or not this scenario is unavoidable. Is it possible to grow a flat hierarchical model to massive scale without losing the 'inherent quality control' that was mentioned above?

As I wrote in the conclusion to my report:

Perhaps the ultimate killer app for social networking in the workplace is really nothing more complicated than its potential to serve as an enabler for high-performance teaming. Consider that two of the most critical characteristics of high-performing teams are effective dialogue instead of debate, and the ability to identify and resolve group conflicts. These represent a huge opportunity for on-line collaboration, as well as one of the biggest potential pitfalls. We've all been on social networking sites - or even just group forums - that regularly degenerate into flame wars. Conversely, Newsvine is a shining example of how to avoid that fate. It serves as a model on how to create, and how to moderate and resolve conflicts within an on-line community, that could be analyzed to great effect by businesses hoping to use interactive electronic teaming to achieve new levels of quality, productivity and quality of life for their employees.

How wrong was I?

13 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Synthesis's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Electronic Democracy Project, Newsvine Computer Society, Newsvine Futurists, Utopiavine
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

7.1

{"commentId":10460321,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

This is a lot more than meta navel-gazing, in my opinion. I still believe that figuring out how to collaborate effectively in the virtual world is key to the next generation of value creation.

If we can't figure out how to do it, someone else will.

{"commentId":10460321,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

4 votes

#1 - Tue Nov 3, 2009 10:26 PM EST

{"commentId":10461120,"authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(sociology)#Five_bases_of_power

I view this though the lens of the five powers.

If you have plenty of low ego self motivated high performers you can decrease the need for positional/legitimate power, coercive power, and reward power. But if you think about it if you have that communism would even work.

The solution is to put in structures that promote the positive.

Leaving group dynamics...

Why do roads work? Loyalty? Fear of the law? The orderliness of official painted lines? Because they were so well planned? Because that's where the signs are? No. Roads work because they are flat and non-roads are not. It's just that simple. People start going off-road if the road is more trouble that it's worth due to low road maintenance or traffic.

So the key is to make be "good" easy. This run contrary to how individual think about themselves and other individuals. Religion or plain simple ethics, being "good" is supposed to be hard and you are supposed to be so "strong" as to not need any encouragement to be "good". It's a very common very valiant outlook but it's not practical for trying to get the mass of people to be "good". Since we are all flawed we just need to make paths that help us be "good".

{"commentId":10461120,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

6 votes

#2 - Tue Nov 3, 2009 11:15 PM EST

{"commentId":10461175,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

Okay, I get what you're saying. But....so, what changed between early 2007 and say, around summer 2008?

Is it all just the random (and oft-cited) influence of MSNBC drive-bys? Or is there some other legitimate reason why the paths to being "good" have become choked by weeds?

{"commentId":10461175,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

3 votes

#2.1 - Tue Nov 3, 2009 11:18 PM EST

{"commentId":10461806,"authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

Where the eyes had to earned from. Before MSNBC (I'm assuming as one of the unwashed masses who cam emyself in the fall of 2008 via MSNBC clicktough) to earn eyeballs you had to attract from the internet at large. There are other sites better tailored for flamewars and NV wanted free deep content instead.

The gathering of eyeballs switched from drawing in the internet at large to holding the MSNBC crowd a few clicks longer. The flame wars and other pop items do that nicely.

The solution is to build a bypass. The new purpose of the front page is not going to change. People who's deep articles I've never seen are gone. MSNBC-NV would be wise to facilitate their non-drive-by addicts as we provide more daily repeat eyeballs. They would also be wise to provide some message in the flame-zones that the entire site isn't like that and your can tailor flames away somewhat.

What do you mean, why's it got to be built? It's a bypass. You've got to build bypasses. - Prosser from Hitchhikers guild to the galaxy

{"commentId":10461806,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

4 votes

#2.2 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 12:04 AM EST

{"commentId":10483423,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

The solution is to build a bypass.

A bypass? Or a spit valve?

{"commentId":10483423,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

2 votes

#2.3 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:06 PM EST

{"commentId":10462072,"authorDomain":"bigsaf"}

bigsaf

Navel gazing....mmmm...wha?

Great post, Synth.

I guess it depends on what the business wants to do with the latest communication channels and modes.

Collaborative and social sites open up a lot of opportunities and access, however everyone can rush in creating time wasters.

I guess heavy and intelligent moderation and guidelines set by the site administrators or the businesses and their employees, might help set a more conducive environment.

{"commentId":10462072,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"bigsaf"}

3 votes

#3 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 12:25 AM EST

{"commentId":10483464,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

I am squeamish about heavy moderation OR too many guidelines, just because I think it's much better to let things grow in an organic fashion - that will allow unforeseen kinds of teaming to take place. I am always in favour of minimizing the barriers to creativity as much as possible. Plus, the whole point is to do things without as much supervisory overhead.

Still, that said, in a business setting specifically, I bet that hiring a few moderators would be more than offset by the savings to be had by eliminating entire swathes of middle management.

{"commentId":10483464,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#3.1 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:09 PM EST

{"commentId":10463580,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Perhaps it's not the model but the reality of human nature itself that exhibits itself in any social interaction. People in all social interactions are bound to argue at some point but there's a decent civil way to do without the kiddie flame wars... Nor the ultra high kiddie egos that abound...

Maybe the reality is that way deep inside of "old" people that are online including the middle aged crew here on the Vine, we are all 14 years old inside. Hmmm, could be true....

The older I get, the more evidence I see of this being true across the board, both in cyber life and real life, and almost everyone has done it or is currently doing it with "it" being junior high behavior or even younger. Ugh!

This is one very big reason why I refuse to get on very controversial threads anymore: 1# I won't be another idiot contributing to idiotic, useless pointless flame wars- will I change others views here on the NV or anywhere else-No! Do I give a damn what they believe when it comes down it? No. And what the hell does it matter if it doesn't affect my personal Real life in the slightest nor change anything in real life where it REALLY matters? None!, 2.#To give a trouble maker moderator more page views, nah. and 3# I am better person than that and want to be a better person... and will hope to accomplish at least some of it before I turn into ashes for the Pacific Ocean and a lily garden.....

Thank you.......

{"commentId":10463580,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

3 votes

#4 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 5:18 AM EST

{"commentId":10463883,"authorDomain":"Jake-413451"}

Jake-413451

I think you could have hit upon a great truth here.

Maybe the reality is that way deep inside of "old" people that are online including the middle aged crew here on the Vine, we are all 14 years old inside. Hmmm, could be true

If we accept the premise that people's brains lose a great deal of their plasticity around the teenage years it would make sense to conclude that the method of thinking, the physical connections as such, would tend to stop developing. That what is normally termed maturity is generally fixed at given point. That whether people will be reflexive when answering a question or reflective (self-reflective that is) would by and large be fixed. That instead the middle-aged viners (of which I will soon be depending on one's meaning) are the exact same person they were, just with a greater depth of experience from which to draw.

I think an analogy would make my meaning much clearer. Let us imagine a well, the width of that well is the breadth of likely reactions to a stimuli, the depth is a measure of the experience, or memory of the individual. Around the teenage years, perhaps early 20's, the width becomes generally fixed, or at least work towards expanding it results in diminishing returns. Whereas the depth can be increased by the same amount of effort (exposure to new events or outcomes).

Anyway, I think that is about as "deep" as I can be this early in the morning. Nice post though Lilith41.

{"commentId":10463883,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"Jake-413451"}

3 votes

#4.1 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:58 AM EST

{"commentId":10463996,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Thanks, Jake, the scientific view helps but I was thinking among behavioral terms of people, especially anger managment and temper control albeit minus the early environment and and cultural influences each us gets.

The flip side of behavior is that people can continue to learn throughout life, but that doesn't mean their behavior will change even in rare instances though it can if a person really wills it.

In other words, I think all of us, have had our bratty 14 year old moments ( hopefully rare!) though each one of us might 30+, 40+ and more. Brats that want their own way and want everyone to agree with them even if it's not right or fair.

For the record, I am 41 chronologically and any other day depends on my mood and pain level; I can from 6-16-24 etc. or 1000 years old.

Today I am operating on the level of a 28 y.o....

Thanks!

{"commentId":10463996,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

2 votes

#4.2 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 7:15 AM EST

{"commentId":10483495,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

If we take as a given that people are going to sometimes be immature, or that conflicts are going to emerge, then it just seems that we need to take care in developing mechanisms and tools for dealing with them.

We know that's possible both here on Newsvine and, theoretically, in a business setting. How do we know that? Because it worked here really well for a couple of years.

Something fundamental changed to make those mechanisms less effective. Not sure if it was just sheer numbers, or mode of entry to the site, or what, but.....

{"commentId":10483495,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#4.3 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:11 PM EST

{"commentId":10484525,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Exactly, Syn, but I think higher numbers require more moderation, not less.

When I took care of 9+ patients, it was much more harder to be there for all of them since all had such critical needs. When California passed the ratios law, my job became much better: i could do more and give better care to each patient rather a "rush job" here and there.

I know this is a bit irrelevant, but my point is that the numbers do matter and one moderator ( Tyler) can't possibly do all effectively for everyone here- there's just too many people and he'll prioritize on the issues closest to him.

From speaking to some people here, I get the impression that when MSNNBC took over, was when the quality started to go down. I don't know if that's true since I wasn't here but it appears to be the case.

You can't have too many generals and only one soldier to do stuff- it isn't gonna happen. You can have all the fine rules you want ( CoH etc.) but without the numbers to enforce it, it won't happen and based on what I've seen here, the middle aged bratty 14 year olds can't be counted on to effectively moderate so that's out.

It's like having only one cop working the beat in the city of LA- absolutely pointless.

The mode of entry to the site can be overcome, what's needed is the numbers to watch the troublemakers so it can be truly enforced effectively.

{"commentId":10484525,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

2 votes

#4.4 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:06 PM EST

{"commentId":10484899,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

You can't have too many generals and only one soldier to do stuff- it isn't gonna happen. You can have all the fine rules you want ( CoH etc.) but without the numbers to enforce it, it won't happen and based on what I've seen here, the middle aged bratty 14 year olds can't be counted on to effectively moderate so that's out.

It's like having only one cop working the beat in the city of LA- absolutely pointless.

So if we take this out of the Newsvine model, and put it back into the business model, are you saying there's no alternative to the hierarchical model of supervisors and managers overseeing the work? Or are you just thinking of NV here....?

{"commentId":10484899,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

#4.5 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:25 PM EST

{"commentId":10485152,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

No, Syn, I am not saying that. I am saying we need the numbers to be truly effective in moderation. One cop can't work the whole beat in LA so neither can one person effectively handle the whole NV due to sheer volume. One human can only do so much.

And ever hear of a model called shared governance? We nurses use it where I am at and it works well.....

Shared Governance can be used everywhere......

{"commentId":10485152,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

2 votes

#4.6 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:40 PM EST

{"commentId":10485268,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

I think shared governance is in large part what I am seeking here. I guess I would want to be careful though that we are talking about the model where the people doing the work take the primary responsibility for decision-making, rather than another model of so-called shared governance which is largely consultative.

Consultation is good, but it doesn't enable the efficiencies that can be gained by decreasing supervision and making teams self-managing.

{"commentId":10485268,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#4.7 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:46 PM EST

{"commentId":10485369,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Look, Syn I don't work your field which I think is computer business/consultant type stuff, but for us nurses where I am at, shared governance is NOT consultative. All do contribute AND make decisions together. It not meeting BS between upper ups and the lowly peasant worker. I have been on these committees for years and know first hand what goes and also as Union rep for my division. Oh, I know how this works, and believe me, these upper up do know who I am and how I work as well as the proposals I've pushed for.

You miss my point.....

I meant Real Shared Governance!

{"commentId":10485369,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

1 vote

#4.8 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:52 PM EST

{"commentId":10485467,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

I don't think I miss your point at all....I just want to make sure that I fully understand it. I don't have any time for 'non-real' shared governance either - but sometimes that's what passes for it at some places.

In my assessment, the consultative version of 'shared governance' - while it's better than nothing - often serves as a 'sop' to the masses. And from an efficiency standpoint, it can actually create more non-value added effort, since it's not making supervisory replacement possible. Worst of both worlds, really....

{"commentId":10485467,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

2 votes

#4.9 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:58 PM EST

{"commentId":10485554,"authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

We've run into issues with shared governance on NV with voting gangs. Any kind of shared governance has got to have a higher bar to get into beside the ability to have a set of accounts.

Currently governance is limited to the options on the "!". The problem I see with that is that it's not educational. you don't know that your "!" until your article is wiped or comment collapsed. A more educational way would to see the "!" building up.

Definitions around the "!" types would be good as well. With that system some no-penalty "!" could be added (rude, divisive, partisan,droll). The no-penalty observation would cut down on people making venom comments against venom comments.

{"commentId":10485554,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

1 vote

#4.10 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:02 PM EST

{"commentId":10485606,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Syn, that may be true in your field but not in mine. Shared governance works because without it, we have idiots that have no medical, no nursing experience making laws and policies that affect my bedside practice and patient care.

Without our shared Governance, we have idiots that do this....

"Those that can't do, teach" or in this case set rules, laws etc for fields they know nothing about and could care less. I get my ante up with these business types that try to tell me about "productivity" and all they know is business models. How the hell does working with 4.8 of a nurse increase productivity and cut cost and YET better deliver patient care? It doesn't happen.

No way, Syn, I'm not buying it, not for my field.

{"commentId":10485606,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

#4.11 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:06 PM EST

{"commentId":10485796,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

Syn, that may be true in your field but not in mine.

What are you referring to when you say "that". Do you mean that there are no cases of lip service being paid to 'shared governance'? If so, good for you. I'm not sure there are many places where the governance is really as shared as I think it should be though. For example, when it comes time for a raise in your field, who makes the decision? Is it still shared governance? Or do those decisions all of a sudden get made by administrators?

And as for my field, I have no 'field'. I consult in, and write about, and teach in, a whole range of fields, from marketing to journalism to warehousing to manufacturing. It's a nice place to be, really, with a lot of change - not so much day by day, but there are interesting new challenges every six or eight months or so.

I haven't had the pleasure of doing any consulting in the health care field, though, sadly.

{"commentId":10485796,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#4.12 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:16 PM EST

{"commentId":10485839,"authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

Would you both say that "shared governance" is really "Peer to peer education" not "peer to peer correction"?

IMO hierarchical governance can be reduced to outlier poor performance if minor issues have a "peer to peer educational" type of "shared governace"

As as side note. I hate the our English language. It takes so many words to say anything of value in it.

{"commentId":10485839,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

1 vote

#4.13 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:19 PM EST

{"commentId":10485923,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

I hate the our English language. It takes so many words to say anything of value in it.

Yep.

Would you both say that "shared governance" is really "Peer to peer education" not "peer to peer correction"?

I would say it has to go a little bit further. For it to really pay dividends, it has to go beyond the strictly operational and into the strategic: setting targets for performance, determining rewards for exceeding targets, making the determination about whether targets and standards have been met, and so forth. It should even go so far as to allow a consensus approach to strategic business model development, to include input and decisions regarding growth, horizontal and vertical integration, facilities setup and design, etc.

{"commentId":10485923,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#4.14 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:24 PM EST

{"commentId":10485936,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

"That" is your assessment about the "sop to the masses." Check your comment #4.9.

Lip service? Yeah, sure was before we had a union and I was there when we had called Labor board for our very first vote, not the case now. The BS we went through before would shock lay people that actually get to eat lunch and use the bathroom during their work hours as well the not exactly legal practices of big business with patient care. The horror stories I got, none are funny and all are real.....

The answers to your questions can be answered by my Union. Would like a copy of our contract regarding raises, employee practice and policies etc?

Your field is writing and journalism I take it and you appear to be a jack of all trades, like a chameleon. Good for you.

Me, I can't stand cubicle work and wearing a suit akin to being trapped in a prison to me. I'm happy in scrubs with all the drama and emotion with blood and all- where the physical and mental action is of critical thinking.

Union RN and Proud! California#1 Union! The only state in the nation with patient safe ratios!

{"commentId":10485936,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

1 vote

#4.15 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:24 PM EST

{"commentId":10486110,"authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

Health care is different than how most office work is in that you have to have specific certifications to perform health care roles. To do office work you may be degreed, you may have to be talented, but you start by being thrown into it, no review boards or tests. There is just more structure to health care because it's not abstract like office work can be most of the time.

In any environment the goal is to treat the staff as talent like actors in a movie and "boss" has to take the role in movie terms of producer not director.

In an office environment "actors" and "producers" are interchangeable. In the health care environment a "actor" can become a "producer" but a "producer" has to learn to be a "actor".

{"commentId":10486110,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"nkycarbon"}

2 votes

#4.16 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:37 PM EST

{"commentId":10486131,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

eah, sure was before we had a union and I was there when we had called Labor board for our vote, not the case now. The BS we went through before would shock lay people that actually get to eat lunch and use the bathroom as well the not exactly legal practices of big business with patient care. The horror stories I got, none are funny and all are real.....

I would believe it. I have worked in both union and non-union settings, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. I am certainly not one of those who believes that the need for unions has gone away.

The answers to your questions can be answered by my Union. Would like a copy of our contract regarding raises, employee practice and policies etc?

I'd like to say yes, but the reality is that I wouldn't have time to read through it all right now anyway. I am just interested in who assesses the performance of the people doing the work. Is it peers? Or is it managers?

Your field is writing and journalism I take it

That's one of them. It's what I was originally trained in. But over the years I've branched out into organizational development, statistical process control, metrics and lean business, corporate training, continuous improvement - a whole mixed bag of things, some of which I teach, as well. What I'm working on at any given time depends a lot on what the current business needs in the economy are (as just one example, in the year and a half following 9/11, I spent a lot of time working with different organizations working on their disaster planning and business recovery regimes).

Me, I can't stand cubicle work and wearing a suit akin to being trapped in a prison to me.

Me neither. I basically treat even my consulting work more like a consensus building dialogue, working in groups and coaching those groups how to best focus on their common goals and challenges. I always work best in an offsite setting, which quite often means at some kind of resort or other. It's demanding, because you're basically facilitating a room full of up to a couple of dozen people, often with competing agendas and many different styles of communicating, so you always have to be 'on' - emotionally available, engaged and ready to give or take at a moment's notice. By the end of a three-day session, I'm utterly exhausted. But it's fun.

Not as dramatic as your job, though, I'm sure! (I've watched those hospital shows. I'm pretty robust, but I'm sure I'd faint with some of the things that you probably just take for granted.)

{"commentId":10486131,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#4.17 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:39 PM EST

{"commentId":10486155,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

In any environment the goal is to treat the staff as talent like actors in a movie and "boss" has to take the role in movie terms of producer not director.

A good analogy, iconoclasm. I like that.

{"commentId":10486155,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

2 votes

#4.18 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:41 PM EST

{"commentId":10486211,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Not quite. Nursing executives tend to be people that hate bedside nursing and actually like the business acumen and haven't touched an IV in years. They do know what goes on and the bottom line is what counts: not our practice, not the patients, but $$$$.

Hospital boards, nowadays are not medical professionals but lawyers and business folks who don't care but certainly put up a good front with the millions spent on cutey commercials...

{"commentId":10486211,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

1 vote

#4.19 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:45 PM EST

{"commentId":10511033,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Syn, both peers and managers assess each employee and we've had always had that. It has worked and been honest even before our union. And peers from our shift and the following one to actually assess the employee's performance.

As for unions, I don't know about other fields and I won't speak for them, but our officers are not paid and are also nurses as well ( not some cumma by lawyer business types) and I'm not paid for it though I was elected again for this term and I've been to our conventions. Last time was Beverly Hills, Don't know where we'll go this time. The only ones who get paid are at the very very top and the don't make a lot ( You go Ken Deitz, love ya babe!); the rest of the money is for strike fund and paying our lawyers and so forth.

Before our union came along, people could be easily fired simply because the manager didn't like your race, oh, yes, this happened to me and I had a very contentious group of meeting to NOT get fired over it. We did NOT get breaks and were actually reprimanded for NOT taking breaks and were held to corrective action. Managers used the policies as they wanted to rather following the guidelines in the policies; meaning they skipped over the steps and went straight to firing as they saw fit. New people were hired on at twice the pay rate ( non-experienced ones that is) than one with experience. I was making much less than those in handyman fields at the time here in California, and for about 8 years before I finally got a raise and I had the experiences of being Charge nurse, arbitrator, Mentor, Preceptor, Committee representative, "Fall woman" and more and I did not even make 15.00 an hour.

Speaking out on patient safety made a nurse a trouble maker and was branded as "untouchable" and was quickly sought to be fired by any means possible. Oh, yes, I am serious. The things lay people ignore are scary....

So you are really a free-lancer, then Syn. A true Chameleon with a writer's soul so to speak...

Teaching is tough, I've done a room full of nurses and it's hard but the one-one is tougher from my POV. I really grill my newbies frequently. They get support, but they gotta cut the mustard. No short cuts!

Nah, I hate cubicle work and suits. I am at home in scrubs at work and off work, leggings and tank tops- so comfy! I've only worn one suit and that was for a job interview only. Patients like the scrubs anyway, way more cheerful than starchy whites.

As FYI Syn, the hospital shows fall short on real life drama; a lot of horrible things happen all the time and the only phony baloney part is that doctors do not romance the nurses at all- big lie. We are at loggerheads often with each other because so many MDs don't have a good bedside manners and do not want to be bothered with calls at 3 AM because their patient is "crashing". I've known very few MDs that value my opinion as a professional and believe me, I do not call them to get sexually excited by their voices. None of us do, we want orders to take care of our patients and that is their job too. The reports I had to write up over the years.... ++sighs++

Other than that, I love my job! Critical thinking on the go and the human contact! I love it!

RNs rock!

{"commentId":10511033,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

1 vote

#4.20 - Thu Nov 5, 2009 9:39 PM EST

{"commentId":10511119,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Oh yes, I forgot. For a nurse, a bonus is a ice cream pop that management provides. What money? We get no money bonuses!......

That's it.

{"commentId":10511119,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

1 vote

#4.21 - Thu Nov 5, 2009 9:44 PM EST

{"commentId":10477485,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}

Raat ki Raani

Well done Synth. Fine time to air that case study, tailored specifically with the here and now. Some great thoughts and insights from iconoplasm, Lilith, etc in the thread.

It is tempting for me to do likewise with the similar study I was doing when I arrived here on NV although that was a corporate team effort and I don't fancy falling foul of intellectual property rights! I will dig up some of the sources I had at the time beyond what you've listed here.

I feel that the increased traffic generated by the MSNBC link up, without corresponding support processes for effective moderation (and very questionable credentials of the moderator we had then) certainly was a factor in reducing standards. But as mentioned already, when increased traffic was always intended to be the goal, standards were hardly going to be seen as more important.

A bigger factor (and in my view, the primary factor for dropping standards) was the sudden influx of a large, experienced and well established group of newbies who bypassed the Greenhouse with the ability to recruit friends, associates etc. With hindsight, it almost appears that NV was either simply not concerned how such an influx would affect the status quo of an established community OR naive that it would not have a long term detrimental effect. That influx should have been far better managed.

{"commentId":10477485,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}

3 votes

#5 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 4:01 PM EST

{"commentId":10483604,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

So....maybe NV was never designed for sustainability in the first place? More of a "make it look good until it sells" model?

I'd certainly like to think that wasn't intentional...but then again, I know that Calvin, et al have done some pretty deep thinking about the philosophies behind social media. It would shock me to find that they simply messed up and didn't predict the deleterious effects of massive growth.

Still, this would not be the first project to suffer drastically from better than predicted growth.

To go back to my corporate model, it makes me believe that a sort of cascading series of intersecting and networked social nodes, each with their own 'community model' might be a better path, as opposed to a single monolithic multi-million user environment. That way, you might be able to retain the sense of community that disappears whenever the population gets beyond a certain threshold.

{"commentId":10483604,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

1 vote

#5.1 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:17 PM EST

{"commentId":10488055,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}

Raat ki Raani

maybe NV was never designed for sustainability in the first place? More of a "make it look good until it sells" model?

I think it did have sustainability as a key component initially. That was what made it stand out in a crowd. But alas, competitive pressures (remembering that social bookmarking, Web 2.0, crowdsourcing, etc., was very much 'in' 4 years ago) dictated an aggressive growth path. Nothing wrong in aspiring for fast growth. But I think the risk to the business model suffering was not as well managed - we ended up with growth without mitigating the risk.

{"commentId":10488055,"threadId":"716073","contentId":"3458057","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}

3 votes

#6 - Thu Nov 5, 2009 4:54 AM EST

{"commentId":10510468,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}