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).

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.

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.