Television

  • Fake Data and the Death of Star Culture

    The recent rash of sexual misconduct accusations against prominent men provide a lens through which we can view the death of star culture. For generations, we have bestowed God-like status on so-called stars whether they’re politicians, chefs, entertainers, executives, athletes or show hosts. This exalted status makes “stars” believe they are special.

    The #metoo movement is a proxy for rejecting star culture. And now this cultural shift is manifesting in other ways. Viewership for last Sunday’s Grammy Awards dropped 24 percent compared with viewership for last year’s Grammy Awards. We’re tired of stars.

    If “stars” like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Mario Batali, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose, Steve Wynn and so many others get a pass on just about everything for being stars, our star culture is responsible for their transgressions. We elevate them to status so rarified that they may believe laws and standards of fairness and decency do not apply to them.

    Star culture reinforces the false notion that we achieve great feats by ourselves. Whether the so-called star is a movie producer, chef, tv host, actor or executive, the reality is that he or she succeeds because of others. Nobody achieves great feats entirely on their own. Behind the scenes, many people work to make the movie, the meal, the talk show, the team, the business a success regardless of the “star.”

    In The Culture of Collaboration book, I describe the Myth of the Single Cowboy. This is the notion that one self-suf­ficient, rugged individual can achieve smashing success without help from anybody. When we perpetuate this myth, we make so-called stars feel that they’re a breed apart and can conduct themselves without consequences.

    Star culture reinforced by the media and society at large also infects organizations. The result is that contributors who are not considered A-listers get sidelined. Their input and ideas are lost, and value creation suffers. Plus internal competition to become a star increases bad behavior such as sabotaging others and hoarding information.

    Our excuse for star culture and for tolerating transgressions is that stars supposedly create more revenue. There is evidence, though, that the financial performance of stars is often overstated. NBC’s Today Show picked up more viewers after the network fired Matt Lauer.

    Rejecting star culture is nothing short of a fundamental shift in our society. This shift will impact companies, universities, government agencies and organizations of all types. Smart organizations will get ahead of the curve and take the necessary steps to replace star culture with a collaborative culture

    People who become stars often cheat to achieve or keep their rarefied status. Social media is a case in point. One way we measure star power is to count the number of followers on social media. Did we really think that stars are so popular that millions of people read their posts and tweets? It turns out that “stars” and wannabe “stars” pay for fake followers which create fake data on which companies base advertising and endorsement decisions.

    A reporting team at the New York Times recently investigated a company named Devumi that sells Twitter followers and retweets. The company reportedly has at least 3.5 million automated accounts for rent. Customers include reality television “stars.”

    So it turns out that star culture is related to another unfortunate phenomenon that compromises collaboration: measurement mania and the tyranny of data. Fake data is by no means limited to social media. In command-and-control organizational cultures that foster internal competition and information hoarding, team members get the message that the goal is winning at all costs. In this type of culture, numbers get fudged and corners get cut.

    Fake data scandals cost these companies plenty. A recent glaring example is the fake bank account scandal at Wells Fargo. Companies that embrace fake data are often the same companies that promote “stars” and minimize the contributions of others.

    Many companies have yet to catch up with our evolving society. Successful organizations use real data and replace star culture with collaborative culture.

    Categories: , , , , , , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • The Much-Maligned Meeting and Collaboration

    The “M” word creates more outbursts of opinion than practically any other word in business.

     

    I’m referring to the word meeting. Almost everybody has a—usually negative—gut reaction to the notion of meetings. Plenty of people would prefer being stuck on a tarmac than stuck in a meeting. Even though water and snacks are often available at meetings, our time belongs to others. On the tarmac, there’s no guarantee of refreshments, but at least our time is our own. In fact, meeting-bashing has become welcome break-room conversation.

     

    Nevertheless, technology vendors have invested huge resources in meetings. So, it’s not just employers who want to load up our schedules with meetings. There are vendors with vested interests in making meetings even more integral to our work than they are now.

     

    Last night on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Larry asked Microsoft founder Bill Gates his opinion of the Apple iPad. Gates responded, “We’re all trying to get to something that you just have to take to a meeting and use.” He added, “It still isn’t the device that I would take to a meeting, because it just has no input.” You can view the video clip here. So, one way Bill gauges the effectiveness of the iPad and similar devices is whether we will want to take them to a meeting. Bill—and by inference, Microsoft—apparently remains focused on keeping us in meetings. In reality, it’s more important whether the iPad and any similar device fits into our lifestyles and work styles than whether we’ll want to bring it to meetings.

     

    Are meetings collaborative? There’s nothing inherently collaborative about an in-person or virtual meeting. That’s right. Using virtual meeting tools is no guarantee that we’re collaborating. Joining a web conference, using telepresence or IMing the day away creates little value unless these tools fit into collaborative organizational culture and practices.

     

    If we compete with colleagues and our teams and organizations reflect “star culture”, do the tools we use make us collaborative? No. It takes more than tools to make collaboration happen. If we fill our ranks with millennials and send them to meetings with devices loaded with collaborative capabilities, will those meetings automatically become collaborative? Don’t bet on it.

     

    The biggest beef about meetings is that they’re a waste of time. In other words, they fail to create value. If we come together as a group and we’re working together to create value, we’re collaborating. So, we’ve essentially transcended the notion of a meeting and instead we’re in a collaborative session. Organizations and vendors should seek to remake meetings as collaborative sessions.

     

    In the final chapter of The Culture of Collaboration book, I note that “Today we struggle to collaborate as effectively at a distance as we do in the same room. Tomorrow the challenge becomes the reverse.” As collaborating in the same room starts seeming awkward, that’s the new frontier. But organizations and technology vendors take note: it’s about creating more value through collaboration rather than better meetings.

    Categories: , , , , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • Reflection Enhances Collaboration

    Recently, I’ve grown concerned about the lack of reflection that can compromise collaboration. I define reflection as “pausing to think.” Reflection is increasingly lost in our interrupt and interact-driven culture. It may seem counter-intuitive in that reflection suggests working alone or in a vacuum. But there’s a difference.

     

    Some people think they do their best work by going off in a corner and making their mistakes in private. They prefer to interact with others only after they feel they got their part right on their own. Once their part is complete, they prefer to toss their work over the fence to the next person to do their part. This assembly-line approach to decision making, problem solving and product and service development compromises value.  This behavior clearly undermines collaboration.

     

    The other extreme is that in this Twitter-twitching, Facebook feeding, blog-obsessed culture, we feel compelled to constantly interact. Some health experts insist the fallout from these potentially obsessive behaviors includes everything from repetitive strain injuries to heart attacks, not to mention neglect of loved ones or divorce. Like endless face-to-face meetings, much of this online interaction is falsely labeled collaboration.

     

    In The Culture of Collaboration book, I define collaboration as “working together to create value while sharing virtual or physical space.” Also, value is one of the Ten Cultural Elements of Collaboration that I identify in the book. Creating value is critical to collaboration. In fact, it’s a useful acid test.

     

    Social networking includes a portfolio of tools and behaviors that can lead to collaboration, but it takes  more than a tweet, post, text or instant message to collaborate. Social networking and social media output can be much like cable television chatter. The difference is that social networking lets us participate, and we tend to dip in and out all day long. It’s easy to devote big chunks of time to chatter. And there’s nothing wrong with chatter, but it’s not necessarily collaboration.

     

    Constant interaction without reflection can compromise collaboration and value creation. Brainstorming, sharing ideas, and co-creation produces incredible value. When we pause to think, however, we can contribute more effectively when we’re collaborating. Reflection enhances value creation for collaborators.

     

    Using collaborative tools for chatter and fun helps instill behavior that sparks collaboration, but it’s easy to just keep chattering and never get around to creating value. Use value creation as an acid test for collaboration, and we derive greater satisfaction and real results from social networking and other collaborative tools. And reflection is part of that equation.

    Categories: , , , , , ,

  • Telepresence and Formality

    Cisco’s use of TelePresence last Monday to announce its Unified Computing System sparked an interesting reaction on the New York Times Bits blog. The Times republished the blog post in today’s print edition.

     

    Cisco Unified Computing Launch The post by Ashlee Vance takes aim at Cisco for the “scripted” feel of the 14-site TelePresence session for reporters and analysts. You can read the story here. Some reporters who showed up at Cisco headquarters for a news conference were apparently frustrated that Cisco CEO John Chambers was in another suite upstairs rather than in the same room with the media. Vance also writes that the question-and-answer session that followed the two-hour event also felt scripted in that Cisco apparently muted microphones and prevented follow-up questions.

     

    OK. It’s time for a discussion of formality and telepresence. First, let’s separate the event from the technology. I did not attend the event, so I can’t comment about its execution. However, I did participate in a launch event and news conference last October for Cisco’s public TelePresence suites. You can read about it in my October 15, 2008 post.

     

    Like last Monday’s Cisco event, executives at the October 15, 2008 event were in a separate TelePresence suite from reporters and analysts who were in the same building. This worked well, because the local group was relatively small, and each participant had a seat at the TelePresence table. Also, the approach was particularly appropriate in that the subject of the event was TelePresence itself. During the event, which linked about six sites, I had no problem asking follow up questions and engaging in an extended dialogue with Cisco senior leaders.

     

    In contrast, holding a 14-site news conference like the one last Monday certainly can increase logistical issues and reduce the question time per reporter. The benefit, though, of using TelePresence for the event is that it significantly increased media participation globally, so that a reporter in Asia could gain the same access as a Silicon Valley-based reporter for The New York Times—access to Cisco CEO John Chambers and other participating CEO’s including Paul Otellini of Intel, Joe Tucci of EMC, Paul Maritz of VMware, and Bill Green of Accenture.  

     

    Despite increased access for geographically-dispersed journalists, there was clearly a disconnect between Cisco and at least some reporters who showed up at Cisco headquarters expecting a same-room news conference. Here lies the problem. Some reporters may have felt that Cisco was insensitive to their needs, and these reporters failed to grasp the benefits and potential of TelePresence. Consider the potential power of this tool…people coming together regardless of level, role or region and interacting in an immersive virtual environment that approximates across-the-table, same-room interaction. Some reporters missed this, in part because of formality.

     

    This disconnect highlights the need to ensure that the use of telepresence mirrors in-person interaction and preserves in-person etiquette.  Reporters on deadline get restless and frustrated if they must wait two hours before asking questions, and they always want the option to ask follow-up questions. Otherwise, they feel controlled at best and muzzled at worst.

      

    It would be unfortunate, though, if New York Times readers confused any concerns about event execution with the technology itself. The greatest potential for telepresence and TelePresence (the spelling with capital letters is Cisco’s brand of the technology) is for informal, spontaneous interactions. Currently, telepresence is used primarily for scheduled meetings and events. The most collaborative organizations use real-time, interactive video for on-the-fly encounters. I profile some of these organizations and describe specific ways companies can create value through informal, spontaneous interactions in my current book, The Culture of Collaboration.

     

    Since the publication of my first book, Personal Videoconferencing (1996), my team and I have been conducting research on—among other aspects of collaboration— using visual communications for spontaneous, informal interactions. Recently, I formalized this research effort by establishing The Culture of CollaborationÒ Institute. My future books and derivatives will leverage the Institute’s research. If your organization is interested in supporting our work, let me know.

     

    Organizational culture, environment and business processes are key to enabling spontaneity and informality. Tools including telepresence—used effectively—are critical enablers in extending and enhancing an informal, spontaneous culture. I highlighted the role of informality in collaboration during an interview with CNBC’s Donnie Deutsch on the “Collaboration Now” primetime special. You can view a video clip here.

     

    Telepresence is a key element in collaborative enterprises and will soon become available at much lower price points for consumer use. Without informal, spontaneous uses of the tool, vendors run the risk that people will view telepresence as a tool only for formal, scheduled events and meetings. The real value of telepresence is enabling on-the-fly encounters, sort of a virtual water cooler.

    Categories: , , , ,

  • Collaboration Requires Systems that Talk

    Recently, I wanted to use some frequent flier miles for a trip on a U.S.-based airline’s international partner. When I called, the representative told me that to use my miles on the partner airline, he would need to enter my requested flights into the reservations system. Then he would need to send a message to the partner airline requesting confirmation that the seats were available using miles. The agent asked me to call back in 24 hours to learn whether the booking would be confirmed. In 24 hours, I called back and learned that there were no seats available. I then selected other dates, repeated the process and got the same result.

     

    After four tries, I decided to call the partner airline directly to find out available dates. The agent informed me that the dates I wanted had wide open availability for miles-based tickets. So, I tried calling the U.S.-based airline again to request those dates. Again, the result was “unconfirmed.” There was clearly a partner collaboration problem, and systems seemed like the likely culprit.

     

    I called senior leaders of the airline. When the partnership manager investigated, he determined there was indeed a systems-not-talking issue. Nobody using miles could book any flights on the partner airline. My call was the first indication to the airline that there was a collaboration issue involving systems. I didn’t send a bill, but I did get the seats.

     

    For that same trip, I submitted hold requests via the Web or automated phone systems for three daily newspapers and the U.S. mail delivered to my home. I entered a hold date one day before my travel date, so that I could make sure the papers and the mail would stop. Of those four requests, only The Wall Street Journal stopped delivery as requested. The other two newspapers plus the U.S. mail came despite my request.

     

    This was a security risk in that a pile of newspapers and mail overflowing from the letter slot is an invitation to burglars. In this case, the information I entered into systems was not reaching the newspaper delivery people and the letter carrier. These were internal collaboration issues involving systems, and the lack of collaboration was jeopardizing customer relationships. An easy way to lose a customer is to compromise the customer’s security.

     

    Collaboration involves breaking down barriers and silos. For this to happen, both people and systems must talk. Unnecessary manifestations of hierarchy, fear and formality create barriers that poison collaboration. I made that point on the first episode of CNBC’s “Collaboration Now.” You can view that video clip from the show here. Sometimes, though, we take the systems part for granted.  Highly-collaborative organizations get the culture part right, but they also make sure that the organization uses common systems and processes. Proprietary systems and processes accessible to a single function or business unit reinforce information hoarding, which inhibits collaboration.

     

    Within enterprises, common systems and processes are key to collaboration. Among enterprises, systems need to talk for collaboration to succeed.

    Categories: , ,

  • CNBC Featuring The Culture of Collaboration

    CNBC’s 5-part series on collaboration premieres this Sunday, October 12 at 8 p.m. Eastern time (5 p.m. Pacific time) and will re-air at 1 a.m. Eastern time (10 p.m. Pacific time). The series called “Collaboration Now,” sponsored by BT (British Telecom), will also air on CNBC Europe, CNBC Asia Pacific, and other affiliates. You can view the global air schedule here. I’m one of the guests in the first episode dubbed “Collaborating to Compete.” You can read about the episode here. 

     

    My participation is in episode one’s block or section about trust, one of the Ten Cultural Elements of Collaboration that I describe in The Culture of Collaboration book. During the trust block, CNBC airs a taped story on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which involves an incredible amount of collaboration and trust among Boeing and its global design partners. I put the 787 in perspective by explaining the significant shift in process between the 777 and the 787. The discussion touches on some other key aspects of trust and collaboration.

     

    You can watch this discussion after the first commercial.  It immediately follows the satellite interview with former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. I’m on set with host Donnie Deutsch; Chrystia Freeland, U.S. managing editor of the Financial Times; Richard Tait, former CEO of Cranium and Miles Everson, partner with Pricewaterhouse Coopers. The series features several highly-collaborative organizations featured in my book including Boeing, the Dow Chemical Company, and Mayo Clinic.

    Check out the show on Sunday or the archived video which will be posted here.

    Categories: , , ,

  • Negotiation vs. Collaboration

    During a taped television interview last week in New York, I was asked—among other things—about the difference between negotiation and collaboration. In the coming weeks, I’ll have more on the interview, the show and the upcoming air date.

     

    I summed up the difference between negotiation and collaboration this way:

    Negotiation is “I win, you lose” or “I win bigger than you win.”

    Collaboration is “win, win.”

     

    Also, negotiation usually involves suspicion and separate agendas. Collaboration requires trust and shared goals.

     

    With the increasing interest in collaboration and the race to become—or at least appear—collaborative, there is continued confusion over the meaning of collaboration. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I define collaboration as “working together to create value while sharing virtual or physical space.”

     

    To truly collaborate, we must move away from command-and-control, internally-competitive, star-oriented cultures to embrace cultures in which people across the enterprise gain access to the same data and information and provide input into process improvements, market creation, innovation and other key issues and decisions. In a collaborative culture, people feel their input counts regardless of their role in the organization.

     

    And there are plenty of misconceptions about collaboration including:

     

    Some believe that a strategic alliance is collaboration. Often a strategic alliance is nothing more than a joint news release!

     

    Some believe that partnering is collaboration. However, partnerships do not necessarily create value. Partnering can be a prelude to collaboration, but collaboration takes partnering to a new level. In

    The Culture of Collaboration book, I use the term global collaborative enterprise (GCE) to describe interdependent companies engaged in shared creation of value, often in real time. That value typically translates into products or services. And there are examples of collaborating competitors creating more value than partners!

     

    Business, the media, analysts and others are embracing collaboration as a buzz word. Let’s make sure we go beyond window dressing, understand the real value of collaboration, and unlock that value through the interplay of collaborative culture, tools and environment.

    Categories: , , , , ,

  • Star Culture Declining?

    NBC announced last week that it’s dropping Dateline anchor Stone Phillips as a cost-cutting measure. Pundits quickly sized up the move as representing the decline of network television news. This may be true, but there is a broader trend at play: it’s the beginning of the end of star culture.

    NBC has been willing to pay Phillips a fancy salary, because the network was convinced that Phillips’ star power attracted viewers at least as much as the investigative journalism Dateline provides. I know a former Dateline producer who frequently referred to Phillips as the star and had to make appointments with Phillips’ secretary to work with him on stories.

    And for years, local TV stations have promoted anchors as faces you can trust. However, that’s changing. One mid-sized NBC affiliate now rarely promotes its main anchor. I know this, because the anchor is a friend of mine. But other stations are promoting anchors less and instead making news promos about viewers and their interests.

    In The Culture of Collaboration book, I write about the Myth of the Single Cowboy and how many organizations embrace a star culture. You can read more about this in the book’s introduction. The point I make is that collaborative culture creates greater value than star culture. While star culture still pervades business, the media and our collective consciousness; we’re starting to see a chink in the armor.

    Categories: , ,

  • Instant Messaging Links TV with PC

    Gaming and business collaboration share many elements. Both link geographically-dispersed people in social networks. The business trend towards real-time, spontaneous collaboration has its roots in consumer instant messaging. It’s easier to integrate tools into our work styles that we already use in our lifestyles.  IM, which is currently becoming an IT-sanctioned enterprise tool, is taking off in workplaces because we are comfortable text chatting with family and friends.

    Microsoft, which is focused on both business and consumer collaboration, is enhancing social networks by bringing Windows Live Messenger to Xbox 360 game consoles. This announcement flings open the door so that Xbox users can interact with PC-based IM users, further linking the PC and TV platforms. Also, Windows Live Messenger users will see at a glance whether their friends have gamertags and therefore whether they’re available for gaming.

    Windows Live Messenger, the largest IM community, includes over 260 million active accounts. Xbox users can already engage in text messaging plus voice and video chat within the Xbox community. Later this year, published reports suggest that Microsoft will offer voice interaction between Xbox and PC-based Live Messenger users. This parallels the Microsoft Business Division’s moves (see my March 7 post) to enable text, voice and video chat from Microsoft Office and other applications.

    Ultimately, the relationships gamers develop may carry over into the workplace. Teenagers who bond because of common interests and form social networks using text, voice and video chat may nurture these relationships for years. Today’s consumer collaboration is tomorrow’s business collaboration.

    Categories: , , ,

  • KPIX-TV Story on Collaboration

    I’m surprised and pleased that KPIX-TV Channel 5, the CBS-owned station in San Francisco, has taken an interest in collaboration. Maybe the topic has wider interest than I thought.

    KPIX-TV is running a story on its web site about The Culture of Collaboration book. The KPIX-TV story is that two San Francisco Bay Area companies and one non-profit organization are among the collaborative companies included in my book. The story describes how Industrial Light & Magic, DreamWorks Animation (which has a division near San Francisco) and the Myelin Repair Foundation achieve impressive results through collaboration.

    I really admire the Myelin Repair Foundation for changing the culture of medical research. MRF is getting scientists who might normally compete for limited grant money to collaborate. MRF’s goal is on track to reduce the time-to-a-cure for multiple sclerosis from about twenty years to five. Talk about creating value through collaboration…

    Categories:

ABOUT

Email Me

CATEGORIES