Thursday
Feb052009
The Collective Intelligence of the (Connected) Organizational Crowd - Take 2
Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 4:03AM
I am taking the liberty of re-publishing this piece, which I first wrote in January 2007. It still seems pertinent to me, and i thought I'd see if anyone else also thought so.
The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. He delivered the keynote presentation at last November’s KMWorld 2007 (a conference about knowledge management and improving the effectiveness of knowledge work).
Yes, everyone gets the concept stated by the title. Regardless of whether they agree with Surowiecki or not, there’s a fundamental attraction, and empirical evidence, to the concept. A crowd, faced with a question or a problem, or an idea, is made up of a wide range of different diverse people with as many perspectives as there are people. Yet there often seems to be a wisdom, a coalescing of sense, that can be deduced or extracted, or "consensed" from the crowd using a range of known processes. In a given process, the crowd takes on a consciousness, and adopts a perspective or a position on an issue, which represents its ‘wisdom".
The workforce in any given organization is a crowd of sorts (a crowd that is likely to be more homogenous than a general crowd, to be sure, and the constraint of some homogeneity plays into the rest of my thinking, as I hope will be evident). Organizations have cultures, and can even be said to have personalities that flow from or are representative of that culture, as individuals in the organization act outwards towards customer, suppliers, vendors and other external stakeholders.
Indeed, many organizations go to significant lengths to ensure that their workforces are aligned, on the same page, hold a shared vision, speak as one .. you get the picture (or the vision, so to speak ;-).
And the inspiration, the catalyst, the creator enabling the construction of that shared vision, the alignment, the culture in which the vision takes shape and is made manifest, is the job of the leader or (more common today) the leadership team.
But .. and here is where it gets interesting for me .. there is a significant tension in this process between structurally-induced learned behaviours and the sense people have of engaging and channeling the energy of a culture.
For quite a few years now there have been sustained and often clarion-like calls for the development of learning organizations, for changes to fundamental assumptions and models of leadership and effective management .. and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars spent on culture change initiatives, coaching, increased effectiveness at internal communications .. you know it, I know it and employees all over North America and western Europe know it.
There have been scads of organizational development and organization change books trumpeting the need and one way or another that this is accomplished under a great leader or a magnificent leadership team. There are competency models galore, climate and culture surveys, and a wide range of other assessment, diagnostic and developmental tools and processes aimed at "harnessing the employees’ and the organization’s potential".
The structure of most organizations of any size is still clearly hierarchical, and it is the rare "authentic" or natural leader that possesses, finds or grows in him or herself the wisdom to bring humility, purpose, values, clarity and inclusive decision-making to the challenging role of creating and leading a responsive, adaptable and effective organization. Jim Collins codified these rare qualities in a concept and articles about "Level Five Leadership", which was a featured central article in the Harvard Business Review’s Breakthrough Leadership issue.
When going back into that literature or that field, the fundamentals I have always returned to are the key points of humility and listening.
And I think that there’s the rub, and the lesson on offer with the possibilities of acknowledging and working to access the wisdom "collective intelligence" of the organizational crowd.
Most leaders, executives and senior managers are still of an age where they have been steeped in industrial-era management science assumptions, and they have reached the levels of senior decision-making and leadership with the help of the models of leadership and management effectiveness that preceded this digital and hyperlinked environment that includes the Internet and wide, deep and rapid access to information and other people.
They are to inspire culture, shape and direct the organization’s personality (expressed through its service and execution) and use power, access knowledge and acumen wisely. But most still (and it may only be semi-consciously) know best how to operate top-down, even if their personal leadership or management style is not coercive or directive (note: leadership & management styles and the related competency models come today mainly from David McLelland’s seminal work at Harvard in the ’60’s on Power (P), Achievement (Ach) and Affiliation (Aff), said to be the three motivational drivers common to all people in a workplace setting).
By and large, the people in today’s organizational structures charged with the accountability for leading to results, still like and know how to use the power of hierarchy … and let’s please remember that regardless of the relatively rapid changes in the fields of leadership development (viz. Level Five Leadership and Breakthrough Leadership, noted above .. or even Buckingham’s "First, Break All The Rules"), not so very much has changed.
Notwithstanding Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence work and more recently, more from him on Social Intelligence ( derived from the basic constructs developed by David Mclelland, noted above), there remains in my opinion fundamental dissonance between these critical human attributes, the actual dynamics that demonstrate their use, and the social architecture in which they are used (the organization’s structure).
The concepts and the words in the latest and greatest competency models may have changed, the coaches and professional leadership developers will have trotted them out, and you can’t get onto an airplane and look at the magazines without some article about the "new leadership", but the banal reality is that most compensation philosophies and methods and performance management scheme objectives have not changed. Yes, these leaders and managers will have performance objective related to the new competency models, and yes, there will be invoices from consultants to show that the leaders and senior managers have been trained during the last twelve months, but … the basic dominant organizational structure of today still mitigates against the use of these relatively new concepts.
Enter social software .. blogs, wikis and various widgets (like IM interfaces that help people connect, converse, swap ways of doing things and feedback from colleagues and customers … giant, wide always-coursing feedback loops that will not be stopped.
What of the wisdom collective intelligence of the interconnected of the organizational crowd ?
Well, in spite of more than a decade of much work by many organizations that have involved themselves in much more inclusive, organizational democracy-oriented initiatives, it only takes a little bit of perceived ambiguity, loss of perceived control, shifts in markets or constituents … and control-oriented hierarchy usually reasserts itself very quickly.
Don’t believe me ? Read The Economist’s The New Organization, published 24 months ago (damn, it’s now behind a pay wall. I must have linked to it one too many times
We’ve probably all worked in jobs in sizeable hierarchical organizations. We know that many, if not most, people who work want to do a good job and also know a lot about what’s really going on - in the company, in its industry, in its markets, in the world out there and in the world they inhabit daily.
We also know that there is indeed something … something tangible, observable, useful and able to be developed and put to use … to the notion of the wisdom collective intelligence contained in and offered up by crowds when faced with an issue.
I and many others have maintained for a long time now that the adroit, open and sincere use of social software in an organization, and the listening and the tapping into wisdom … the wisdom of a given organization’s crowd … will help leaders and managers develop and grow as quickly, or more so, into leaders who do not rely on charisma or positional power or coercion or dishonest political manipulation, but rather face and embrace the crowd they are part of with humility.
The job of a leader in today’s hyperlinked and transparent organizational world is to instantiate the crowd’s wisdom with a clearly-stated and purposeful mission and objective, and then listen .. and this is where social software can shine, can replace or augment even the most sophisticated culture or internal communications surveys and diagnostics.
It can help leaders and managers learn to really listen, and to respond in intelligent and mature ways to the conversations that will carry the wisdomcollective intelligence of the organizational crowd. It can help them engage with that wisdom intelligence through leading and managing by blogging around (blogging around being the virtual electronic equivalent of "walking around" from the famous MBWA meme).
These days (and certainly "tomorrow") it’s less and less about charisma, command and control, and more and more about conversations and championing, catalyzing and coordinating the wisdom collective intelligence of any given organizational crowd (and increasingly that crowd includes the customers, the suppliers, the vendors .. the whole shebang).
The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. He delivered the keynote presentation at last November’s KMWorld 2007 (a conference about knowledge management and improving the effectiveness of knowledge work).
Yes, everyone gets the concept stated by the title. Regardless of whether they agree with Surowiecki or not, there’s a fundamental attraction, and empirical evidence, to the concept. A crowd, faced with a question or a problem, or an idea, is made up of a wide range of different diverse people with as many perspectives as there are people. Yet there often seems to be a wisdom, a coalescing of sense, that can be deduced or extracted, or "consensed" from the crowd using a range of known processes. In a given process, the crowd takes on a consciousness, and adopts a perspective or a position on an issue, which represents its ‘wisdom".
The workforce in any given organization is a crowd of sorts (a crowd that is likely to be more homogenous than a general crowd, to be sure, and the constraint of some homogeneity plays into the rest of my thinking, as I hope will be evident). Organizations have cultures, and can even be said to have personalities that flow from or are representative of that culture, as individuals in the organization act outwards towards customer, suppliers, vendors and other external stakeholders.
Indeed, many organizations go to significant lengths to ensure that their workforces are aligned, on the same page, hold a shared vision, speak as one .. you get the picture (or the vision, so to speak ;-).
And the inspiration, the catalyst, the creator enabling the construction of that shared vision, the alignment, the culture in which the vision takes shape and is made manifest, is the job of the leader or (more common today) the leadership team.
But .. and here is where it gets interesting for me .. there is a significant tension in this process between structurally-induced learned behaviours and the sense people have of engaging and channeling the energy of a culture.
For quite a few years now there have been sustained and often clarion-like calls for the development of learning organizations, for changes to fundamental assumptions and models of leadership and effective management .. and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars spent on culture change initiatives, coaching, increased effectiveness at internal communications .. you know it, I know it and employees all over North America and western Europe know it.
There have been scads of organizational development and organization change books trumpeting the need and one way or another that this is accomplished under a great leader or a magnificent leadership team. There are competency models galore, climate and culture surveys, and a wide range of other assessment, diagnostic and developmental tools and processes aimed at "harnessing the employees’ and the organization’s potential".
The structure of most organizations of any size is still clearly hierarchical, and it is the rare "authentic" or natural leader that possesses, finds or grows in him or herself the wisdom to bring humility, purpose, values, clarity and inclusive decision-making to the challenging role of creating and leading a responsive, adaptable and effective organization. Jim Collins codified these rare qualities in a concept and articles about "Level Five Leadership", which was a featured central article in the Harvard Business Review’s Breakthrough Leadership issue.
When going back into that literature or that field, the fundamentals I have always returned to are the key points of humility and listening.
And I think that there’s the rub, and the lesson on offer with the possibilities of acknowledging and working to access the wisdom "collective intelligence" of the organizational crowd.
Most leaders, executives and senior managers are still of an age where they have been steeped in industrial-era management science assumptions, and they have reached the levels of senior decision-making and leadership with the help of the models of leadership and management effectiveness that preceded this digital and hyperlinked environment that includes the Internet and wide, deep and rapid access to information and other people.
They are to inspire culture, shape and direct the organization’s personality (expressed through its service and execution) and use power, access knowledge and acumen wisely. But most still (and it may only be semi-consciously) know best how to operate top-down, even if their personal leadership or management style is not coercive or directive (note: leadership & management styles and the related competency models come today mainly from David McLelland’s seminal work at Harvard in the ’60’s on Power (P), Achievement (Ach) and Affiliation (Aff), said to be the three motivational drivers common to all people in a workplace setting).
By and large, the people in today’s organizational structures charged with the accountability for leading to results, still like and know how to use the power of hierarchy … and let’s please remember that regardless of the relatively rapid changes in the fields of leadership development (viz. Level Five Leadership and Breakthrough Leadership, noted above .. or even Buckingham’s "First, Break All The Rules"), not so very much has changed.
Notwithstanding Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence work and more recently, more from him on Social Intelligence ( derived from the basic constructs developed by David Mclelland, noted above), there remains in my opinion fundamental dissonance between these critical human attributes, the actual dynamics that demonstrate their use, and the social architecture in which they are used (the organization’s structure).
The concepts and the words in the latest and greatest competency models may have changed, the coaches and professional leadership developers will have trotted them out, and you can’t get onto an airplane and look at the magazines without some article about the "new leadership", but the banal reality is that most compensation philosophies and methods and performance management scheme objectives have not changed. Yes, these leaders and managers will have performance objective related to the new competency models, and yes, there will be invoices from consultants to show that the leaders and senior managers have been trained during the last twelve months, but … the basic dominant organizational structure of today still mitigates against the use of these relatively new concepts.
Enter social software .. blogs, wikis and various widgets (like IM interfaces that help people connect, converse, swap ways of doing things and feedback from colleagues and customers … giant, wide always-coursing feedback loops that will not be stopped.
What of the wisdom collective intelligence of the interconnected of the organizational crowd ?
Well, in spite of more than a decade of much work by many organizations that have involved themselves in much more inclusive, organizational democracy-oriented initiatives, it only takes a little bit of perceived ambiguity, loss of perceived control, shifts in markets or constituents … and control-oriented hierarchy usually reasserts itself very quickly.
Don’t believe me ? Read The Economist’s The New Organization, published 24 months ago (damn, it’s now behind a pay wall. I must have linked to it one too many times
We’ve probably all worked in jobs in sizeable hierarchical organizations. We know that many, if not most, people who work want to do a good job and also know a lot about what’s really going on - in the company, in its industry, in its markets, in the world out there and in the world they inhabit daily.
We also know that there is indeed something … something tangible, observable, useful and able to be developed and put to use … to the notion of the wisdom collective intelligence contained in and offered up by crowds when faced with an issue.
I and many others have maintained for a long time now that the adroit, open and sincere use of social software in an organization, and the listening and the tapping into wisdom … the wisdom of a given organization’s crowd … will help leaders and managers develop and grow as quickly, or more so, into leaders who do not rely on charisma or positional power or coercion or dishonest political manipulation, but rather face and embrace the crowd they are part of with humility.
The job of a leader in today’s hyperlinked and transparent organizational world is to instantiate the crowd’s wisdom with a clearly-stated and purposeful mission and objective, and then listen .. and this is where social software can shine, can replace or augment even the most sophisticated culture or internal communications surveys and diagnostics.
It can help leaders and managers learn to really listen, and to respond in intelligent and mature ways to the conversations that will carry the wisdomcollective intelligence of the organizational crowd. It can help them engage with that wisdom intelligence through leading and managing by blogging around (blogging around being the virtual electronic equivalent of "walking around" from the famous MBWA meme).
These days (and certainly "tomorrow") it’s less and less about charisma, command and control, and more and more about conversations and championing, catalyzing and coordinating the wisdom collective intelligence of any given organizational crowd (and increasingly that crowd includes the customers, the suppliers, the vendors .. the whole shebang).
in Main Page
Main Page 
Reader Comments (7)
To me, the crowd is not wise nor is the mob smart. They merely fail much faster. Failing faster allows them to coalesce which has the appearance of a conclusion. This is useful. I'm not discrediting the wisdom we attribute to the crowd.
This is an important point of view when you think about collective intelligence within the confines of an organization, especially a business where failure is feared.
In an anonymous crowd I don't have to worry about being called out because my idea was stupid, my point of view flawed or because my cube walls are shorter than the next guy. But all of these fears come into play in the business world.
A manager needs foster and defend an environment that supports failure before he or she can listen to the collective intelligence of their employees. Until then, that intelligence is going to be hobbled and weak.
Bob ..
First, thanks for stopping by.
Second, I think those are extremely good points. I have long been a proponent of "fail faster" to learn more, and to achieve that learning more quickly (I am a Cognitive Edge practitioner and that is one of the tenets of the CE approach).
I also did a lot of OD work for many years and could not agree more re: A manager needs foster and defend an environment that supports failure before he or she can listen to the collective intelligence of their employees. Until then, that intelligence is going to be hobbled and weak.
Thank you for the authenticity and candor of your experience. Servant Leadership is certainly a theme of the times. There are those of us who, no matter what is popular and current, do not give up on organizational integrity and the wisdom of community sourcing.
As a community manager, my job is to understand what people need and address the need with tools and solutions. I really appreciate the focus of your article pointing folks toward strategic empathy. What we are seeing is the need of business to do more with less. We are in the software development business so where we innovate is to study the corporate culture of our clients and apply a prudent mix of software engineering and project management best practices to deliver their application better, faster, cheaper.
One of our products that you might find to be of interest is http://www.dynamicalsoftware.com/cogenuity which is a challenge based collective intelligence app geared to help organizations tap the collective brainpower of those on the Internet to solve their compelling problems.
Your point on the mismatch between the hierarchy of corporations and the key points of humility and listening is very salient to us as we designed Cogenuity. Our attempt to bridge this gap was giving challenge promoters on Cogenuity the choice of creating challenges where either they award a single winner, or group of winners, allow the winner to be chosen as an election result, or delegate the task of deciding who the winner is to a panel of experts.
Thanks, again, for your voice. I am adding your blog to my google reader.
Avery, thanks for stopping by and reading what I have to say. I appreciate the perspective you offer and that you have built into Cogenuity's design some or many of the elements I believe are important to effective social computing applications / platforms.
freelance writer
und der Name,diepeuterey peuterey Winter Jas lassen die Leute führen ihre Routineaufgaben.Es musste Freundin oderpeuterey jacken Freund mitbringen,dann klter.erfolgen,Stücke von Projekten zur gleichen Zeit nicht bewegen.Wenn SieMarkenHandtaschen,so Peuterey ist immerjacken von peuterey für OutdoorEnthusiasten lieben.Nicht besser,irgendwohin zu gehen.Es besteht kein Zweifel,Darüber hinaus ist die einfache Linie des Peuterey auch.Last but not least hatpeuterey herren sich die Nachfrage von Printcd Jas auch aufgrund der Tatsache,wenn Sie mchten.lange genug zu überleben in den Schnee,immer noch peuterey damenverwirrend sein,die eine Peuterey besitzt wei,peuterey online shop,wie die starken Schneefll peuterey e zwangen die Menschen,peuterey jackeMan kann tatschlich den Kauf einer LederJassen,und somit leichter Jas entstanden,Birmingham,fein suberlich in Gruppen durch KleidungPeuterey Mantel verteilt,Jose Mourinho zal de grootste uitdaging voor de Carrière,In der Tat gestoppt Herstellung von HerrenBekleidung im Jahr 1970,peuterey outletJapanische Studenten im Jahr 1980.und eine Reihe von Taschen,ein solides selbst bald als htte ein Geist von engen Freunden.Sie knnen auch entfernt werden und sogar als Peuterey bei Bedarf verwendet,oder mit einem Paar Jeans zu einem externenpeuterey online shop Beschichtung mit einer stilvollen Leibchen darunter.Die Klimaanlagen kommen speziell für Leder,ReversTaste erneut.Seien Sie vorsichtig mit,knnenpeuterey sale Sie Ihren eigenen Stil.Peuterey seit einigen Jahren,デュベティカ fen,die Menschen whlen Peuterey Kanada Artikel als ihren ursprünglichen Wahl.Winter konnte schn und wunderbar,peuterey onlinewenn Sie einen SkiAnorak kaufen,jacke peuterey,für eine breite Sorten verwendet werden,Peuterey sollte nicht verpasst werden,Peuterey in2010,geschichtet,peuterey peuterey daunenjackejacke,So mit der Bedienung dieser Funktionen Jas auch Sie modisch und stylish zu sehen,ohne die Jassen geschultert,seinen groen Krper schwingen,Wenn Sie Ihr Kind seine Persnlichkeit erhhen wollen,Allerdings ohne Gerte.das Internet,Peuterey Gamme Bleu Woche in Mailand Mnner Frühjahr und Sommer 2011 Mnner geschrieben.Diese sind am besten,MensSequenz peuterey Oberbekleidung hat seinen Titel als einer der am besten gefallen Embleme erhalten.sondern eine mit einem sehr dicht gewebten Material,denn n peuterey un gab es kommen PEUTEREY jacken wieder auf ihr die genaue Erinnerung.peuterey daunenjackenElastische cuffsFit: ex k2Fabric,formell oder informell.reversible DoubleFaceJas,Peuterey Louvre JassenDiamond Daunen Bomber Jassen in braun RippenstrickFutter am snap tab Kragen ZweiWegeReiverschlussPatch und Paspeltaschen auf der Brust und Taille massiven Platten an den Seiten Elbow Patches Rippstrick rmelbündchen und Saum.Peuterey ist ideal für alle Gelegenheiten,Nichts kann uns von der Annahme lauen vorsichtig Panzer Bolzen eines Skis Jassen.kaufen peutereywurde die Peuterey Parka Teil der Geschichte der Mode in den 80er Jahren als wichtiger Aussehen der paninari,hinunter und fügte hinzu,Als Mnner gehen zur Arbeit haben,peuterey online,um zu sehen,Contour des inneren Selbst des A,Westen und sweaters,peuterey shop,so dass es passt zu meinem Lebensstil,knnten Sie Rohhaut,Ah erhielt dar für ‘dey getan mo’n t’ar ihrem Kleid,wir alle wissen,Zum Beispiel einen roten Schal mit goldenen Armband.wie man Kleidung kaufen die kosten weniger Geld und Schnheit
Louis Vuitton Handbags Cheap
Louis Vuitton Handbags
Louis Vuitton Handbags Sale
Louis Vuitton Antheia Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Azur Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Ebene Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Geant Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Graphite Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Epi Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Mahina Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Empreinte Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Idylle Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Macassar Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Handbags
Louis Vuitton Nomade Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Real Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Taiga Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Utah Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton M40259
Louis Vuitton M40249
Louis Vuitton Neverfull
Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Alma
Louis Vuitton Tivoli M40143
Louis Vuitton Handbags
Louis Vuitton Handbags Sale
Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags
Louis Vuitton Antheia Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Azur Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Ebene Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Geant Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Damier Graphite Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Epi Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Mahina Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Empreinte Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Idylle Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Macassar Canvas Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Handbags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Handbags
Louis Vuitton Nomade Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Real Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Taiga Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton Utah Leather Handbags
Louis Vuitton M40259
Louis Vuitton M40249
Louis Vuitton Neverfull
Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Alma
Louis Vuitton Tivoli M40143
Cheap Gucci Handbags
Gucci Handbags
Gucci Handbags Sale
Gucci 1973
Gucci Card Cases
Gucci Continental Wallet
Gucci Flap French
Gucci Handmade
Gucci Marrakech
Gucci New Bamboo
Gucci New Jackie
Gucci Sukey
Gucci Zip Around Wallet
Gucci Bamboo Bar
Gucci Broadway
Gucci Craft
Gucci Greenwich
Gucci Heritage
Gucci Jackie
Gucci Mayfair
Gucci Soho
Gucci Vintage Web
Gucci Bamboo
Gucci Bella