The Rule of 1% is Dead….. well not quite round these parts.

After wondering in previous posts about how many people actually participate in online communities of practice, my son helpfully pointed me in the direction of the 1% rule of Internet culture. Fantastic, this felt like the world of 90% lurkers I recognise. Then the BBC goes and burst my bubble. In their online spring briefing they pronounce that participation rates in online activities are much higher, more like 77%. I’m confused; almost 8 out of 10 people actively participating? This doesn’t feel like the world I inhabit.

The 1% rule or the 90–9–1 principle is a hypothesis that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate. It’s been around since the mid 2000’s and has been likened to the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle), where 20% of a group will deliver 80% of the activity.

For online communities the 1% rule states:

• 1% of people will actually create content;
• 9% of people edit, modify or comment on that content; and
• 90% of people will view the content without contributing.

Based upon my experience this feels about right and seems to be a very plausible hypothesis. It could also apply to some of the offline communities I’ve experienced.

The BBC Internet Blog article presents the findings of a survey of over 7500 adult internet users that was gathered over an 18 month period. One of the key points author Holly Goodier makes is, “digital participation now is best characterised through the lens of choice. These are the decisions we take about whether, when, with whom and around what, we will participate. Because participation is now much more about who we are, than what we have, or our digital skill.” What I took from the article was that improvements in ‘ease of participation’ mean that there are no longer the technical barriers like there used to be. The other thing it says to me is, the content has to be good – something you want to / are motivated to engage and participate (no surprises there).

The BBC findings have generated a bit of debate. In this article by Bobbie Johnson on GIGAOM he argues that the BBC are comparing ‘apples with oranges’ to arrive at the 77% participation figure. In reality people (like me and many I know) use different parts of the internet for different things and the rule of 1% still applies when you look at things broadly. Not everyone agrees with him though and someone has commented, “The BBC are never wrong and you’re clearly are…”.  Oh dear, might be a lesson here…… be careful about criticising the BBC.

Coming back to my world of online communities and why I think the rule of 1% still applies:

• Professional knowledge sharing in an online community of practice is quite a bit different to a discussion thread about what a Radio 1 DJ is saying. When your professional reputation is on public display, most people I know will stay hidden with the 90% lurkers;
• Micro-participation is still developing in this world, it’s not quite the ‘done thing’ to ‘like’ a case study about social services or refuse vehicle maintenance; and
• There is still a lack of confidence to participate, and some organisations still don’t encourage it. Perhaps courses like social media for the terrified delivered by digitalandpeople.co.uk, which is aimed at civil servants, will help to increase the 1% and reduce the lurkers

So what’s the PONT?

1. The rule of 1% is very useful when thinking about how many people will actually participate in an online community of practice.
2. Content is king. If what is being said is interesting and highly relevant, you may well get higher participation rates (a bit like non virtual communities).
3. In the world of professional knowledge sharing lots of people still need to build their confidence before they will participate.

Sherry and Twiglets vrs Fence Building. How shared action builds relationships, and why I want a walking coach.

This might seem like an odd admission but…… I have always dreamed of having a boss that would take me out walking in the Brecon Beacons once a month.

There, I’ve said it. Now let me explain why……

I’ve got a new neighbour, who’s doing lots of renovation work on the property including fence building. Whilst I was busy constructing my shed (subject of a previous post on malicious compliance), I popped over to help with fixing the rails between the fence posts. It wasn’t a particularly difficult or strenuous job, but it was just a bit easier with two people. What it did allow was a bit of conversation between us. In the space of 45 minutes we covered a huge range of things, many of which I can’t remember now, other than walking away thinking, “he’s a decent bloke, we are going to get on well as neighbours”.

What also struck me was the difference between this interaction and the ‘sherry and twiglets’ experience we had when the previous neighbour had organised a meet and greet session before she left. There was nothing wrong with the event (the twiglets were excellent), I just didn’t have the same level of conversation or make the same sort of connection as I had whilst fence building. Doing things together seemed to enable a different type of conversation and the development of a deeper relationship.

This got me thinking, and then a few things happened to reinforce what I’d experienced;

• I watched my Mother, Son and Niece bake cakes together.  A shared (very messy) activity if ever there was one,
• The re-commencing of lunchtime walks in the park with a colleague who has been away for a while (welcome back btw), and
• I heard someone talk about ‘walking and coaching’ in a meeting to establish a South Wales network for the EMCC (European Mentoring and Coaching Council).

Walking and coaching intrigued me and following a quick search, much to my joy, I’ve found out that there are people doing it and it is a legitimate business pastime. Have a look at this site by The Walking Coach and Mike from Mentoring for Change who gives a good explanation of why walk and coach. I’ve been extremely happy at learning this. My desire to go walking with my boss isn’t just another peculiar fantasy of mine. It’s a legitimate business activity about coaching, mentoring; and for me building a better relationship and understanding of other people while sharing an activity.

When you think about it, why wouldn’t coaching in the context of walking be an eminently sensible thing to do? I know plenty of people who will happily spend a few hours in coaching sessions sat in hotel lobbies, meeting rooms and other peculiar sedentary locations. Why not get out there in the fresh air and have a walk when you are doing it. It seems like a win, win to me (just remember to wear some decent shoes though).

I’m sure there is theory and technique around how to get the most out of walking and coaching, finding that out is my next challenge. I’m the meanwhile; I’m off cycling for a week in Germany with my friend Geof. Not sure how this is going to work, it’s definitely a shared activity, but I can barely breathe most of the time, let alone talk.

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Sharing a physical activity with someone does help generate a different level of conversation and help increase understanding and develop relationships.
2. Walking and talking informally can achieve this (have a walk in the park with a colleague at lunchtime),
3. Walking and coaching (much to my joy) is a legitimate business activity. Have a think about it as an alternative to hotel lobbies or stuffy meeting rooms. Best of all though, try some joint fence building (or cake baking).

Flipchart foraging and why its worth trying the Draw Something app

One of my pastimes is checking out the abandoned flipcharts I find in the variety of offices and meeting rooms I get to frequent. It’s quite a revealing pastime (possibly about me unfortunately). Occasionally you do stumble across sensitive material, obviously this goes straight in the confidential waste bin, or back into the hands of the originator. However, it’s the other material on flipcharts that fascinates me. I reckon you can get a useful insight into an organisation from the debris gets left behind on the flipcharts. The more frantic the scribbles, the more I like it.  Line & box diagrams, mind maps, dodgy graphs, stick people and bullet points all feature. Whatever form it takes it’s all a great informal record of organisational life. The real story of what’s going on from the hands of the people who know the place best.

This helpfully gives me an opportunity to talk about some recent experiences where a drawing has helped focus a discussion.

Twice recently I’ve sat in meetings, slightly bored and detached from the action (a familiar situation for many I suspect). What this allowed was the opportunity for a bit of observation and testing a theory of mine about the impact of flipchart drawings.

Meeting 1. Business Process Review.  Nine people sat around a table discussing a document management process. It felt like something from a Dilbert cartoon. The alpha males and females (3 people) were vying for superiority, while two others were doing the best they could to get heard. The rest were in various stages of disengagement.  Plenty of arm waving and use of technical language to demonstrate ‘one’s own cleverness’ was going on. What looked obvious to me was that there were at least two versions of the truth being spoken about, and a contractor (supposed to be delivering the solution) looking confused, frustrated and increasingly desperate.

Eventually some bright spark suggested the contractor draw the process on a flipchart. Bingo! Suddenly everyone was talking about the same thing and rapid progress was achieved. It took 40 minutes to get to this point and 10 minutes to agree some action.

Meeting 2. Comparing Supplier Costs. Thinking about it now, this was a completely daft situation.  A group of 7 people were trying to compare two sets of figures. Most people had the first set of figures. Only one person had a copy of the second, and had only shared them verbally. The discussion was passionate and detailed, with strongly held views about the figures, but completely pointless.

Eventually someone wrote down the figures on a flipchart. It immediately became obvious where the issues where. This was incredibly not in the place where people had been expressing strongly held views! The group then got around to concentrating on the most important issues and developing options. Again, this one took about 40 minutes (of wasted time) before someone wrote on the flipchart and focused the discussion.

A few things I learnt from observing these events:

• Some people love to talk and express an opinion, no matter how irrelevant;
• A lack of a clear objective or point of focus allows the misguided (or even the meeting saboteurs I previously mentioned) to flourish;
• People quickly disengage in these situations; and
• A few ‘scribbles’ on a flipchart puts it all back on track.

If this is what can be achieved with a few amateur scribbles, imagine what can be achieved through expertly drawn graphics? Have a look at an earlier post about graphic facilitation and the fantastic material organisations like Delta7 generate by working with the people in organisations.

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Focusing a discussion or a meeting by putting something down on paper can (usually does) help everyone understand and ‘speak the same language’.
2. Using drawings, graphics or other illustrations can really help, especially with complicated processes, ideas or difficult situations.
3. Next time you are in a meeting going nowhere, have a go yourself, start drawing and see what happens.

If you are wondering, here is the connection with Draw Something.  If you are slightly nervous about putting something on paper, download the Draw Something app and start drawing. Practice makes perfect … possibly. I wonder if I can fit Elvis into a work context…….?

Linked posts: http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/the-staff-dont-understand-quick-draw-them-a-picture-or-something/

Will descending from Welsh Sheep Farmers prevent you collaborating?

Back in the mid 1800’s a group of Welsh emigrants were being rescued from an island where they been shipwrecked.  Before they left, they modestly showed their rescuers what they had achieved during their years of isolation. “These are our houses, this is the school, this is the reading room, this is the rugby field, and these are the two chapels”. “Why two chapels?” asks a rescuer.  The reply, “Oh, that’s the one we don’t go to…….”.

We have a long history of not getting along with our neighbours in Wales, but maybe we aren’t that different to lots of peoples who have descended from animal herders (sheep farmers). That’s the theory offered by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers in the chapter on Harlan County, Kentucky.

The theory is that cultures that have developed around animal farming on marginal land (eg upland sheep farmers) are inherently more confrontational than those where there has been a strong requirement to collaborate (lowland arable farmers). If you are a shepherd looking after a flock of sheep you constantly need to be on your guard against predators, of the animal or most commonly the human variety. Preventing people stealing your sheep requires some demonstration of your physical prowess and a evidence you will take action to prevent your flock being pilfered. This has led to a ‘culture of honor’ (prevalent in the Southern United States) as Gladwell describes it, or ‘getting a bit chesty’ as we like to say in South Wales.

Gladwell illustrates how this has been carried forward into the modern age and across continents by using the example of the violent family feuds that took place in Harlan County in the early 19^th century. He argues that the roots of this ‘honor code’ behaviour can be traced back many generations to the culture of the herdsmen who farmed the marginal uplands.  Many of these people emigrated to America and ended up in the rural areas of the Appalachians and places like Harlan County. He identifies the North of England and Scotland as the areas where these people originally came from, but there’s probably just as much as a case to be made for Welsh immigrants.

It’s an interesting theory that has been backed up by some research done at the University of Michigan, where certain groups of people (young men from the Southern States) were far more likely to ‘get a bit chesty’ if you insulted their honor. Have a look at the work of psychologists Cohen and Nisbett for more detail (Nisbett, R.E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South).

With the current emphasis upon collaboration between public services in Wales I wonder if we need to think about where our ancestors came from before we start? If they were (or still are) sheep farmers from the uplands are we starting at a disadvantage, particularly if we insult someone’s honor? This will be an interesting one to observe at the next committee meeting on collaboration………, ‘who gets a bit chesty’ and why?

The other great joy of reading Malcolm Gladwells book was that he does describe Harlan County in detail. Harlan interests me a lot as it seems very familiar. Not only is it the setting for Justified (a brilliant bit of TV based on books by a favourite author Elmore Leonard), they also have a strong coal mining tradition. As if it couldn’t get better, Steve Earle (another favourite) has even sung about the place, Harlan Man. Harlan might be in Kentucky but for me there are many similarities with bits of South Wales; feuding, coal mining, the general struggle to prosper and ‘getting chesty’. Maybe it is all to do with some common ancestry and descending from the same bunch of sheep farmers and miners?

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Our ancestors might have more of an influence upon our behaviours than we realise (have a read of Outliers).
2. Collaboration may not be the default position for some people; it depends upon where they come from.
3. At your next collaboration committee meeting, avoid insulting someone’s honor if you don’t want them getting all ‘chesty’ with you.

More Malicious Compliance, Mastery and lessons from Shed Building……

Shed building is not my day job; in fact it’s about as far away from ‘driving a desk’, as it’s possible to travel.  These two areas do however have some interesting crossovers where it’s possible (in theory) to transfer some learning. Before I say anything it is probably worth mentioning that my recent activity wasn’t just extending the shed, nothing here is ever as straightforward as it appears. There was a bit of chicken ranching thrown in, messing around with the sewage tank, significant amounts of concrete and lots cutting up logs. Naively I thought this would be an opportunity to test my motivational skills and transfer employee engagement ideas into the world of teenage sons…… like the complete idiot I am.

Malicious Compliance is worse than blank refusal.  I’d always imagined that my teenagers would be thrilled at the prospect of doing some building with me. Learning some of the skills I’d picked up from my father and others, and creating something useful.

Using a bit of motivational ‘pull theory’ I tried the following approach:

• Me, “kids, fancy having a go at chopping up logs with the chainsaw?”
• Kids, “No thanks…. we are fighting off zombies with double blade chainsaws on the X-box, woah, awesome, totally realistic!”

I could go on, but you get the drift. My initial ‘offer’ was then followed by a series of increasingly less polite requests until I eventually ‘lost it’ and used coercion (blatant threats) and switched off the house power supply.

So, I got the help I needed. However it was possibly worse than struggling alone. The sullen half hearted shoveling of aggregate into a cement mixer and the limp attempts at hammering nails were pitiful. This was good old malicious compliance at its worst with nothing hidden, nothing taken away. But I know the game!

Some of this was a deliberate attempt to provoke me into criticism which would legitimise the option of storming off in a “Dad is so grumpy and really difficult to work with” rage. So not ‘loosing it’(again) and ‘solid encouragement’ were the order of the day, and it sort of achieved the objective.

Work Lesson Learnt – What excites and motivates me doesn’t necessarily do the same for other people, not everyone loves chainsaws. It never occurred to me until recently that not everyone loves those ‘hands on’ practical team building activities that happen in work. Painting the community hall, might not be something everyone enjoys, even if it is a fantastic thing to do.

People tend to be more committed to something they have chosen to do rather than forced to do, so it’s better to let them choose the activity.  Failing to do this will probably generate malicious compliance which just defeats the point of the exercise.

Age and experience beats youth and enthusiasm. For round two with the kids I did actually find something that interested them.  Driving 8ft posts into the ground for the chicken run with a 16lb sledgehammer. Just the sort of thing a teenage gym monkey dreams about. Whacking a post with a 16lb lump of metal should be nothing for someone used to throwing around ten times that weight in the gym. My ‘pull theory’ was working, full engagement, excellent.

It all went wrong as it turned out, I “won” on the post sinking contest, by a mile, I am champion (of our back garden) on the sledgehammer.

Why did I succeed? Well it is apparently because “Dad’s had about 150 years of practice…..…and my hair was in my eyes”. Not strictly true, I did use a sledge hammer a fair bit in my youth and developed a little bit of expertise.  I might not as be as strong as the gym monkeys but experience it seems does count.

Lessons Learnt – Mastering a skill is important, which usually means putting in the hours. Even something as apparently straightforward as using a sledgehammer requires skill.  A lesson that has parallels in the workplace.

Malcolm Gladwell talks about the 10,000 hour rule in his book Outliers which might be the amount of time spent by the people who manually drilled the holes in this rock with a sledgehammer and cold steel chisel. I took this picture of a rock used in drilling competitions at Central Nevada Museum in Tonopah with the hope of inspiring the kids about what their ancestors did as miners. I’m still waiting to see if anything has registered.

Anyway we did finish a few jobs and rounded off one day with a genuine campfire and cooked some burgers. During this I got the most astonishing request:”Dad, can you move the fire closer to the house, I keep losing the WiFi signal on my phone”……..I despair.

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Take care in what you pick for motivational activities at team building activities (not everyone loves a chainsaw).
2. Better still, let people choose what they want to do. This should get better engagement and avoid malicious compliance.
3. Age and experience (and mastery of your tools) will beat youth and enthusiasm, but I would say that wouldn’t I!

The staff don’t understand, quick draw them a picture or something……..

You are engaged! www.delta7.com

Suspend reality and imagine this strange situation…….

• Boss: “The staff here are a huge problem. They just don’t get my latest initiative, what’s wrong with them?”
• Smithers: “Ah yes Sir. The words in your manifesto document are so beautifully crafted, truly inspirational, and it’s printed on the finest paper”
• Boss: “Well here’s something that might work. I’ve heard that some organisations are drawing pictures….. to dumb things down ……..so the staff get it”
• Smithers: “errrr…… perhaps you mean graphical representation Sir? A picture is drawn so that the  message can be understood and communicated at many levels, in a high impact way?”
• Boss: “Yes that’s the sort of thing. Right, I want you to knock up an oil painting or bronze sculpture of my fantastic ideas. Then they will understand and I shall achieve true greatness.  Make it happen Smithers!”

This (obviously) is a bit of a parody of a real life situation I heard about. Those involved represent a kind of staff engagement ‘anti-matter’. They were struggling to justify yet another failed initiative and ended up blaming the staff for their lack of cognitive ability. The failure (in their eyes) was on the part of the ‘dumb’ employees, to understand and implement the clever ideas that were being thrust upon them. The ‘draw a picture’ discussion was actually just a diversion to avoid confronting the real problem, a lack of engagement with staff around the ‘clever new initiative’.

This is a great shame as there are genuine benefits in using diagrams, pictures and graphics to communicate messages, understand ideas and generally make sense of the complexities of organisational life.

A good example the approach I’ve seen is archetype extraction used by Cognitive Edge. This is a process where common understandings will emerge out of discussions, workshops, focus groups or other social interactions. A cartoonist / graphic facilitator will capture these common understandings and present them as a cultural archetype. These archetypes are a physical picture of how a community views things; common behaviours, social conventions, rituals and beliefs, common language, role models, “the way things happen around here”, etc (archetypes).  According to Cognitive Edge; “Archetypes can then be used in various initiatives such as branding, communications or strategy. Archetypes that are extracted from the anecdotes told naturally in a community resonate: they have bite.”  Have a look at their website for more details.

Another good example I’ve seen of using pictures and cartoons is by Delta7. The graphic I have included in this post (you are engaged!) is one of many examples on their website. In a similar vein to the Cognitive Edge archetypes the example I’ve included here does look like a bit of an extreme version of what happens in organisations, or perhaps not? A bit like mentioned above, ‘it has bite’ and could be perceived as a bit uncomfortable for some people. It’s well worth having a look at the Delta7 website gallery for a few more examples of the pictures and archetypes they have created, I bet you will see a situation you recognise.

Coming back to the Boss and Smithers mentioned earlier. I don’t think these are the sort of pictures the Boss had in mind. It’s a case of being careful what you wish for. If all you want are simple graphical illustrations, that’s fine but you do run a huge risk of patronising people and seriously disengaging them by ‘dumbing’ things down. If you go for something that digs a bit deeper that engages people (which I think you should), be prepared to live with the results. The pictures might actually have ’bite’ and tell you how things actually do happen around here, possibly not what you wished for.

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Pictures, graphics and diagrams are a really effective way of communicating complicated messages, ideas or making sense of situations.

2. They are also a good way of engaging staff, particularly if they are involved in creating the image as something that is commonly understood in the organisation, an archetype.

3. Bosses be careful what you wish for here, some egos may not withstand the archetypes created, they can ‘bite’.

Picture source: http://www.delta7.com/you-are-engaged/

http://www.delta7.com/walking-the-talk/  another great one from Delta7.

@engagementindex on Twitter, @LondonMidland Trains customer service is fantastic …. Official!

Yesterday London Midland Trains tweeted that they were proud to have retained the top spot on the @engagementindex on Twitter. I’ve posted previously about how London Midland Trains use Twitter and how they provided  real time customer support trying to cross London during a time of rail disruption.

This tweet got me intrigued, so I had to take a look, and it led me to the trains report on the Engagement Index Engagement Index website.

Here is the graphic which is clear and easy to understand. Basically it is the ratio of direct tweets to an organisation that they have responded to, and those they have ignored. London Midland scores very highly as it responds to a high number of the tweets sent directly to them. The contrast is the train company at the bottom end that received  79 direct tweets and ignored them all, Arriva Trains Wales, oh dear.

During March 2012 London Midland Trains received 1022 direct tweets; they responded to 767 and ignored 255. That might seem a high rate, but having seen the London Midland twitter stream when things are busy, there is a lot of traffic, and you could forgive them for not responding to some of the more ‘jaunty’ tweets (there is an interesting post on the Engagement Index blog about how to deal with tweets that contain swearing). The only other organisation that seems to come close to the London Midland performance (apart from Greater Anglia Trains) is Halifax in the banking report

What I like about the Engagement Index approach (apart from it being free) is the fact that it is beautifully straightforward. I can’t do any better than to quote straight from their website:

Overview

The Engagement Index is a score on how well or badly a business is replying to messages aimed at them. It is a measure of their customer service performance on Twitter. More and more consumers / customers are turning to social media and in particular Twitter to engage, ask, complain to brands and businesses. Engagement Index measures how well or badly those companies are at replying to those messages.

What’s the aim?

To develop a simple scoring system with the aim of raising the customer service bar particularly in the UK. Sadly customer care in the UK to my mind is in the most part still very poor. Twitter is a game changer for businesses. Through Engagement Index I want businesses to be able to track themselves so that they can see how they are performing, see if the resources they have allocated are sufficient and aimed in the right places and so on.

A couple of posts from John Dell’Armi give a good perspective on why organisations need to treat social media and particularly Twitter like any other form of customer feedback.  This one talks about having  nothing to fear (if you do the right thing) and another one about train companies of all things, “if you are on twitter, you need to be on twitter”.

So what’s the PONT?

1. Customer (service user) engagement on Twitter is just like any other form of engagement, so don’t ignore it.
2. The Engagement Index is a powerful tool for measuring engagement. It  also allows benchmarking between and across sectors, and its free!
3. Public services could a useful area for the Engagement Index to focus its attention next.

Picture Source:  http://www.engagementindex.co.uk/reports?sector=trains