Okay, I can’t keep up with the comments on the "Myth of Control" post. Thanks to everyone for the conversation! And thanks to Jeff, Maddie, and Lisa for posting about it on your own blogs. The dialogue in the comments is really great, so I encourage everyone to read it. But I’m already overwhelmed by the number of things to which I want to respond. Here’s the list so far:
- What does "ultimate accountability" of CEO and Board really mean?
- Are Web 2.0 advocates realistically assessing the down side or dangers?
- Are Web 2.0 advocates handling their conversations with people in power well?
- What would happen if more CEOs actually joined the conversation in the association blogosphere?
- How do you challenge the thinking of a CEO if you’ve never been a CEO? (And, by implication, How do you listen to non-CEOs when you are a CEO?)
- Why is Scott Briscoe so anti-Myers-Briggs? (Get ready, Scott, I’m going to be on the "pro" side here, with some caveats)
- Did Jeff De Cagna actually advocate for a middle ground?!
- How do you actually clarify your tolerance for risk?
- Is Web 2.0 a collection of tools, or does it represent a shift in the way business is/will be done?
I’m working on all those responses! But I will say one thing here. There is an important distinction between a conversation about how the association community is responding to Web 2.0 concepts, versus how your specific CEO is reacting to a Web 2.0 initiative. My initial comment was reflecting about the community level—a pattern of reactions that I perceive. I don’t mean to imply that any time a specific CEO raises a concern about risk, he or she should be painted as a fearful status quo advocate! You can’t apply generalizations to individuals.
Anyway, don’t let me intrude. On with the conversation!
Oh goody. A Meyers-Briggs duke-out! I’ll make the popcorn.
Jamie, we should probably blame you for everything (which isn’t an altogether bad idea), but rather I’d like to post one of your questions to see if there are any interested responders.
I find this fascinating: “Is Web 2.0 a collection of tools, or does it represent a shift in the way business is/will be done?”
What do folks think?
Virgil, I don’t think there is any question but that Web 2.0 is much more than a set of cool technologies. In fact, it is an entire continuum of possibilities for the creation of radical new value. At micro scale, Web 2.0 enables individuals to compete effectively with large enterprises in developing knowledge, building community and making meaning. At macro scale, Web 2.0 makes globally distributed, self-organized collaboration a reality in ways no traditional association ever has or ever will. At both ends of the continuum, and at all points in between, Web 2.0 has been the wellspring of considerable innovation, especially business model innovation.
As I wrote in my article on ungovernance, the economic framework associations have always used to create value is eroding rapidly because of what is happening online. Facebook, and other social networking sites, are re-defining the meaning and practice of being a member. As I travel around the country and the world, I see associations grappling with the same issues: declining membership, flat or declining revenue streams on previously profitable products, services and experiences and, perhaps most disquieting, no clear idea among leaders about how to reverse the trends. This situation isn’t accidental.
The World Wide Web is the most potent tool for radical value creation ever invented by man, and in the last few years, the rise of Web 2.0 tools and philosophies has intensified its impact and accelerated the pace at which traditional organizations must function just to keep up. We need to lift our game if we’re going to have any chance to be impact players in this new world.
Is Web 2.0 more than just a collection of cool technologies? Yes. Is it a shift in the way business is/will be done? Less clear. For more on the “myth of control”, revisit the last chapters of Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline which includes such gems as “The Illusion of ‘Being in Control'”. (Yes, Senge was writing mainly in terms of distribution of control within an organization and Web 2.0 goes significantly beyond that to realize that organization boundaries are artificial … but that’s just a somewhat obvious extension from the underlying systems thinking platform on which Senge’s argument is built. )
So to me, the message of how business gets done remains the same (rather than shifts) from Senge to Web 2.0 … leaders needs to get over the illusion of being in control. Then we can move onto the more interesting questions of how to foster leadership capacity at all levels, facilitate participation from multiple perspectives, and tackle the challenge of moving to action concurrent to ongoing conversation and learning.
It’s absolutely certain that Web 2.0 (a collection of Web tools that together create something bigger) will have a huge impact on associations, particularly related, as Greg says, to how we currently offer benefits-for-members resulting in revenues-to-the-association.
My question is, how do we education our association leaders about this change when (at least in my case) my Exec Dir doesn’t even know that edits can be made to an Excel spreadsheet by someone who didn’t create it in the first place?
It seems to me that not long ago a lot of Blogoclump entries were bemoaning the fact that associations woefully lack strong strategies — it’s certainly true that our struggles in this respect.
If we can’t clearly articulate our future options in general, how can we expect to do so when it comes to something like fitting Web 2.0 into the mix?
I’ve been trying to sell our association on what I think are some basic intra-member Web communication tools (since before “Web 2.0” came on the scene) and still get blank stares.
We can be sold on it, but how do we educate the decision-makers and the check-book holders?