Le nouveau management de l'information

Entreprise 2.0 : Manager le travail collaboratif dans l’entreprise

Cours sur l'entreprise 2.0 donné par Anthony Poncier à l'Executive Education HEC

Les activités "in the flow" sont elles le remède aux freins culturels ?

Article de B. Duperrin qui reprend et explicite la distinction de Michael Idinopoulos

• J’ai également appris avec intérêt des gens de CSC qu’au delà de l’”adoption” proprement dite, l’utilisation même des outils variait selon les pays et que sur une même plateforme, s’ils n’étaient pas moins actifs que les anglo-saxons, les allemands n’utilisaient pas forcément les mêmes outils et pas de la même manière.
• les projets qui arrivent le mieux à neutraliser (au moins partiellement) la dimension culturelle sont ceux qui favorisent la dimension “in the flow” par rapport au “over the flow”. Pour mémoire, on parle de “over the flow” quand l’activité des collaborateurs liée aux médias sociaux est un “supplément” à leur quotidien qui les oblige à sortir de leur routine quotidienne, et de “in the flow” lorsque, à l’inverse, elle est totalement intégrée dans la routine et les workflow quotidiens afin de ne pas être “un outil de plus” et “une tâche de plus”, parfois même sans rapport avec la fonction et le poste de la personne.

Management’s Dirty Little Secret - How to Increase Employee Engagement

Gary Hamel pose les questions qui dérangent

• Given this, why are we complacent when confronted with data that suggest most managers are more likely to douse the flames of employee enthusiasm than fan them, and are more likely to frustrate extraordinary accomplishment than to foster it?
• The survey covered many of the key factors that determine workplace engagement, including: the ability to participate in decision-making, the encouragement given for innovative thinking, the availability of skill-enhancing job assignments and the interest shown by senior executives in employee well-being.
• Here’s what the researchers discovered: barely one-fifth (21%) of employees are truly engaged in their work, in the sense that they would “go the extra mile” for their employer. Nearly four out of ten (38%) are mostly or entirely disengaged, while the rest are in the tepid middle. There’s no way to sugarcoat it—this data represents a stinging indictment of the legacy management practices found in most companies.
• maybe their allotment of emotional intelligence is so meager that they are unable to distinguish between enthusiasm and ennui.
• Indifference
• Impotence
• Companies that score highly on engagement have better earnings growth and fatter margins than those that do not—a fact borne out by another
• This correlation between enjoyment and profitability is likely to strengthen in the years ahead. Let me use the example of the Apple iPhone to explain why.
• Think about it: how did Apple manage to jump into the mobile phone business so quickly, despite a complete lack of industry experience? The answer: by accessing a lot of commodity knowledge that was available in the form of standardized components from third party suppliers.
• The fact that Apple’s margins are so much better than Nokia’s reflects a simple reality: in making a mobile phone, Apple adds a lot more differentiation to the standard componentry than Nokia does, and Apple adds it in a highly efficient manner. Or to state it another way, among all the various players in the iPhone value chain, Apple has, by far, the highest ratio of differentiation-to-cost, and thus the fattest margins.
• In a world of commoditized knowledge, the returns go to the companies who can produce non-standard knowledge. Success here is measured by profit per employee, adjusted for capital intensity.
• It doesn’t matter much where your company sits in its industry ecosystem, nor how vertically or horizontally integrated it is—what matters is its relative “share of customer value” in the final product or solution, and its cost of producing that value.
• So Apple had to innovate again. It invited third-party developers to write applications for the iPhone and thereby laid the groundwork for a revolution in portable computing (100,000 apps so far, and still counting).
• in a world where customers wake up every morning asking, “what’s new, what’s different and what’s amazing?” success depends on a company’s ability to unleash the initiative, imagination and passion of employees at all levels—and this can only happen if all those folks are connected heart and soul with their work, their company and its mission.
• To escape the curse of commoditization, a company has to be a game-changer, and that requires employees who are proactive, inventive and zealous.
• Problem is, you can’t command people to be enthusiastic, creative and passionate.
• Engagement may have been optional in the past, but it’s pretty much the whole game today.

• The reason so few of my people are truly engaged in their work is because so few their jobs are truly inspiring. Isn’t that what the data are telling us?

  Uhmm, no.

• Surprisingly, 86% of the employees in the Towers Perrin study said they loved or liked their job. So what, then, are the culprits?
• points to three things that are critical to engagement: first, the scope employees have to learn and advance—are there opportunities for them to grow; second, the company’s reputation and its commitment to making a difference in the world—is this a company that deserves the best efforts of its people; and third, the behaviors and values of the organization’s leaders—are they people employees respect and want to follow?
• It is managers who empower individuals and create space for them to excel—or not. It is managers who help to articulate a compelling and socially relevant vision and then passionately pursue it—or not. It is managers who demonstrate praiseworthy values—or not. And more often than not, they don’t.
• My conclusion from all of this: first, engagement is essential to the competitiveness of every company and every economy—and we need to be doing a whole lot better than we are. We’ve got to get management’s dirty little secret out of the HR closet and into the boardroom. And second, if we’re going to improve engagement, we have to start by admitting that the real problem isn’t irksome, monotonous work, but stony-hearted, spirit-deflating managers.

Le référentiel des solutions 2.0 pour l'entreprise

Useo propose des fiches relatives aux solutions 2.0 pour l'entreprise (après inscription)

Enterprise 2.0 par Andrew McAfee

Critique de l'ouvrage de McAfee par Bertrand Duperrin

• Quelques points que j’ai donc noté avec intérêt

  - des cas très diversifiés qui montrent une multitude de scenaris différents prouvant qu’on ne parle pas d’un modèle unique

  - un traitement objectif et argumenté des objections, notamment sur la securité.

  - le traitement de la distinction “in the flow / over the flow” pas assez présent dans les discussions sur le sujet et dont l’incompréhension est à mon avis la cause de nombreux échecs

  - la prise en compte de la dimension managériale et culturelle.

  - une intéressante analyse des raisons pour lesquelles l’adoption de l’entreprise 2.0 n’est en aucun cas inéluctable pour les entreprises : malgré un potentiel évident l’entreprise peut décider de “passer à coté”.

  - pas de plaidoyer passionné mais la présentation objective d’une gamme d’outils et pratiques qui complètent idéalement l’existant.