One reason a business fails – it doesn’t act like a social network!
One reason a social network fails – it doesn’t act like a business!
Somewhere along the path to good business relationships something is often overlooked. Customers like to go where someone “knows their name” (like “Cheers!”). Employees like to work where someone “knows their name” (like “Thanks!”).
Somewhere along the path to creating social networks, something is often overlooked. Participants only show up to get their needs satisfied (like “Cheer$!”) Those who invest time and money to provide these platforms for that audience also show up for their own satisfaction (like “Thank$).
Turns out it’s the same process from either perspective – and it’s all about serving the common needs of people.
It’s a pretty safe bet that most people are seeking
equitable representation and equitable remuneration
within whatever system they participate – and that
smart investors will want a ‘share’ in that ..
Persons, professions, and communities have familiar characteristics. Studies in psychology have cataloged humanity into basic personality types that respond in somewhat predictable patterns. Those patterns may predict the purpose for which they join together in interest groups and undertake common initiatives (religious, social, professional, political). That also translates into the way their relationships are formed, especially where commerce is conducted and money is exchanged.
The purpose for which a social network or business exists may vary from purely philanthropical to purely profitable. The distribution of any proceeds created by those efforts then gets apportioned within that purpose. Given that framework (stated intention/reward), individuals can choose an endeavor and will participate so long as their expectations are proportionately met. Unexpected changes in the purpose or the proportionate benefit can cause upsets – and an exodus may soon follow.
Yet, if you look at the organization chart of a given business you will likely overlook how things actually work, ‘socially’. If you look at the process of a given social network you will likely just become ‘lost in the conversation’. If you look at the purpose of a for-profit business it may overlook the social values of its customers. If you look at the operating process of a not-for-profit entity you may see that it fails to ever accomplish its intended social purpose. It appears that we may need to change the process, on purpose!
A pair of documents come to mind – each perhaps missing from the ‘other’ arena:
Where are the ‘business plans’
for social networks?
– the critical path?
Where are the ‘social maps’
for business development?
– the stake-holders?
Both arenas appear to suffer the same lack of results and perhaps for similar reasons. Perhaps its time to merge the documents – and dissolve the paradox – maybe it’s time to CONVERGE.
SOCIAL NETWORK CONVERSATIONS…
were mapped to support BUSINESS PROCESS?
was the framework of SOCIAL NETWORK CONVERSATIONS?
and if we want real change…
What if each person, seeking equitable representation and equitable remuneration, could ALSO find that in their system of government?
Written by gsbigger
January 27, 2010 at 1:48 am
Posted in accountability, co-creation, collaboration, crowdsourcing, design thinking, Distributed innovation platforms, Facebook, Global Redesign Initiative, Idea platform, innovation, myspace, politics, Process Improvement, recovery, social capital, social collaboration, social networking, transparency