Alright Dean…fine. I’ll freaking post something. 
Twitter. Yeah I’m gonna talk about Twitter. I know, I know. You have probably heard enough about Twitter. I know I have. And frankly, I love Twitter. I tweet (twit, twirp, twalk, whatever) about all kinds of useless stuff. And strangely there are people that follow me. Even more strange is that some people actually respond and engage in conversation. I mean this is really 2.0tastic. Hell, I’ll be honest. When one of my twayings showed up on McAfee’s blog, I could barely contain my nerdborne glee.
But you know what? I don’t buy it in the Enterprise. Maybe I just don’t buy it in my specific Enterprise, but I can’t see the indoor version of this soccer game. (Whiskey Tango Cap’n Ron? Nate doesn’t like a social technology inside the firewall?!?)
If I were to execute the physical universe equivalent of Twitter, I would lose the glimmering shard of positive professional reputation I still have. Some of you may disagree that there is any left in the first place, but indulge me. If instead if twyping the random 140 character twoughts as they float through my head, I would just yell them out loud. I can just see the look on my office neighbor’s face when I yell “OMG this hummus is so good I want to put it in my hair” while he is trying to write a proposal. Twotally Twiceless. But that’s essentially what happens with Twitter. And that’s ok out there. But messaging has a different paradigm in the Enterprise.
I (like most) am inundated with messaging at work. Almost all of it is work related, and maybe half of it is relevant to me. But no matter what, people expect me to read it. Even the really useless stuff like deadlines and notification of dress code violations. (What? You haven’t heard of One Sleeve Wednesday?) I mean this is work after all, right? However, there is a significant enough mechanical barrier to entry (even with IM) to weed out some potential noise that I would be expected to read. Like the hummus comment above. I would totally tweet that. In fact I might have already. But would I email or IM that? Probably not.
Introduce a work-focused Twitter and all of the sudden the barrier to entry for “messaging” to “everyone” is potentially gone. Along with any expectation for paying attention. “Wait…you didn’t see my twesignation? It was between my tweet about my tworkout this morning and tweet about my twizzler obsession. Tweird”.
Now I have a signal to noise issue. Yeah I suppose I could unfollow people or ask them to segment their tweeting, but this is making my (or their) life harder, not easier. So far E2 has done well to make my life easier. But now…I am not so sure. You see I will still have my social network on Twitter even if I miss a few of the most important twannouncements. Will I still have my colleagues or my job if I miss a few tweets from the bossman? If you think yes, try not responding to his/her next email.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Dean Thrasher // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:36 pm
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? And you even took a controversial position on a current E2.0 topic likely to garner thought-provoking responses. That’s a blogging trifecta, my friend!
2 Jay Hariani // Jan 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Judging from the low levels of activity on our Yammer feed, I’d tend to agree. Activity blogging / microblogging is a tougher sell in the Enterprise.
3 Matthew Porter // Jan 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Nate and Jay, I agree as well. We have employees that Twitter. When the idea of Enterprise Twitter was discussed, it was shot down – quickly.
4 Justin Hayes // Jan 16, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Nate – of course part of the failure of Yammer within the enterprise could be that it is an alternative to twitter, which casts a wider net and is therefore more useful. Why would i tweet & use yammer? Two applications is a bad idea, and we will always opt for the one with better application (in this case twitter) and so the ostracized yammer is an afterthought.
Of course, the same notion could be applied to the notion of the internal blog. Not reading your boss’ blog may or may not result in your being fired – perhaps this is the margin of E2 and W2.
Government organizations recognize the difference between types of communication, there are separate and 100% verified communication systems (e.g. cables) [this is specifically for inter-agency taskings] that act as taskers (you will be fired if you miss this) and then there is email (principally for coordination and collaboration – for better or worse). In industry (and within gov organizations), emails are the language of taskers, perhaps IM and twitter could be the language of coordination?
At issue here is the lack of definition of acceptable expectation. Adding a tool without setting the bounds of expected use (e.g. if you want to make SURE i do it, send me an email) created uncertainty – and as we know too well in E2, uncertainty kills adoption – kills value – kills productivity.
5 Nate Nash // Jan 16, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Well look who came out of the PhD cave to drop some knowledge.
Isn’t “tool definition” a bit counter to E2 vanguard? At least in the enterprise, definition and selection come from on high, whereas need and usage start in the trenches. I think you make a good point on drawing some lines, but those lines should be drawn collaboratively.
6 Justin Hayes // Jan 16, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I meant in a cultural sense. There must be lines about which communication streams you are “responsible” for, and which are collaborative and helpful, but not “required.” If you don’t define resposibilities (including which tool mediums are appropriate for tasking), then the resulting confusion may result in your being fired.
This is not to say that individual teams cannot develop there own methods of improved communication – but if there is fear about negative consequences wrt use, then it is easier to reject than utilize. Many people would rather feel unproductively safe, than productively exposed – even if the exposure actually makes you safer (it doesn’t “feel” that way).
Leave a Comment