Collaboration is the Ends, Social Networking is the Means
I've spent this morning at a wonderful Government 2.0 event produced by FedScoop.com at the Newseum in Washington, DC. One of the panel hosts, Chris Dorobek (@cdorobek), someone I like quite a lot, said something that I must comment on, somewhat negatively. That is, his notion that "social networking tools" connote them as too social or "fun" and that being social is not what people are truly doing (in the government) when they use them - they're collaborating. So, he's been using the term "collaboration tools" or similar. I disagree somewhat. I do think that collaboration is mainly what people hope to accomplish, but I think that collaboration is the end result of leveraging social networks. In other words, social networks are the means by which to accomplish an end - in this example, collaboration (there could be many other ends, like putting together an office softball team or something). One big thing I've been thinking about lately is "leveraging social networking to accomplish important stuff" and no one can deny that personal relationships can influence collaboration. How well you know someone, how much you identify with them, how much you trust them, their level of reliability or transparency - all of these are values derived from social networking that then, when leveraged, can influence collaboration or other ends. (I also think that there's nothing wrong with having a little fun at work. The general notion that having fun with social software shouldn't be allowed in serious workplaces is ridiculous. And of course, anyone who's ever celebrated a colleagues's birthday with a cake, or ended work at 4pm for an informal happy hour with the office would surely agree with me on this. Work can be fun, and be productive, too.) So, briefly, I think these are not necessarily collaboration tools. They are social software that allows social networks to be leveraged to accomplish important stuff. That might be collaboration on a National Intelligence Estimate, or arranging a carpool with people in your agency (getting to work, being more green), or finding a racquetball partner (staying healthy, living well) - all of which postitively influence the workplace, in government and in the private sector as well.
Comments (11)
Taxpayers don't want to think about those in government sitting around on twitter all day even thought that might be an effective way to collaborate. Perhaps calling them 'collaboration tools' helps brand the government use of these tools more officially.
Justin F - Of course collaboration is not a goal in itself. It is an end relative to social networking, though, which was my point.
Great post. We've been talking about the importance of "collaboration" and "knowledge networks" a lot at GovDelivery particularly as we've joined forces with GovLoop where there is a lot of knowledge sharing. This is a really good reminder that just getting to know and like people is a great foundation for working together more effectively.
My own experience really illustrates this. I have cut back travel a lot since my 2.5 year old was born. In theory, this was would make me less connected to my clients in DC (since I live in Minnesota), but around the same time, I decided to start "friending" the clients I know well through Facebook. Since then, I have become far more connected to my most important clients. They've learned more about me as a person and I've learned more about them. By understanding what makes each of us tick, we work better together and collaborate on work much more effectively.
I recently saw a diagram that showed a progression from Inform to Collaborate that showed "Connect" as the middle step. I like this progression. We all collaborate better with people we're connected to.
Thanks again for the great post.
-Scott
Right now, we are still figuring out what happens when we push one lever or the other and finding our way. Frankly, I don't care about the semantics except where it causes confusion. Like you, I don't think that "collaboration tools" is accurate, so until something better comes along "social networking" will do.
When there are real scenarios like the one Fred mentions above, you should be flexible enough to define the approach in a manner that makes the most sense for different audiences you may address.
