The Seven “C”s of Social Interaction

With all the hoopla around social media and software these days, I thought it might be useful to remember that there are some basic tenets that apply to social interaction, whether it occurs online or in a face-to-face setting. I’ll label those principles “The Seven “C”s of Social Interaction. They include:

Conversations: All social interaction is a conversation between two or more individuals. One person may dominate the conversation by speaking more than listening, but the most useful conversations generally occur between participants that are engaged in both modes. The conversation can be a one-to-one or one-to-many exchange.

Continuum: Social interaction takes place at a specific point along a continuum of time and information flow. Some conversations occur over an extended period of time, while others are brief, isolated exchanges. We are not part of all conversations in the continuum; we move in and out of specific conversations and the flow in general.

Container: Social interaction happens within a container. That may be a physical place such as a convention hall or a friend’s house. The conversation might take place in a digital space such as a threaded discussion area or an instant messaging application. The container might even digitize elements of physical interaction in a digital realm, such as in a virtual world.

Community: Social interaction most often takes place in context of a specific community. That might be a community of interest (e.g skiers, nuclear physicists) or one of purpose (i.e. project team, supporters of a charity). Communities may be pre-defined or self-forming. Communities may host scheduled events that serve as the locus of conversation or the dialog may be distributed over time but within a specific space (see Continuum and Container above.)

Currency: Most social interaction takes place because one participant desires something that another has. In order to obtain the desired object, information, feeling, or whatever, the participant that wants it has to trade some form of currency with its holder. That currency may be actual or promised information, action, recognition, or money. The type and amount of currency traded is negotiated during one or more conversations.

Credibility: The ability to get what one wants as a result of a conversation depends, in part, on the level of credibility previously established with the other participants (as well as the currency offered.) The more successful social interactions one has, in which promises are fulfilled and the other participants’ expectations are met, the more credible one becomes. Greater credibility leads to improved capability to achieve desired outcomes in future interactions.

Connectivity: One of the results of social interaction is that new contacts are made and existing relationships are refreshed. The more interactions in which we participate, the more connections we form, and the larger and stronger our network becomes. Being well-connected leads to an increased ability to deliver what someone else wants, improved currency with which to barter, and enhanced credibility. There is also an additional meaning in the context of online interactions; one must have access to a good physical communication network in order to participate in the conversation.

This list is my first attempt at codifying what I believe are the most important elements of social interaction — online or physical — into a simple framework. The ideas presented here are synthesized from many sources, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on any of the individual components. However, I can attest to the power of each based on the number and quality of the physical and online social interactions that I have participated in over the course of my life.

I will continue to refine and expand the framework, but wanted to publish it now to generate discussion and feedback. Please let me know what you think by leaving a comment. I will be grateful for your constructive criticism and suggestions for refinements.

The Zen of Enterprise 2.0

With this post, I am doing something I’ve never before seriously considered — featuring content from another person’s blog. Not that I’m against such an endorsement in principle. The truth is, I don’t recall ever reading someone else’s take on a subject that I didn’t want to reshape. Until now.

I was led to this powerful post by Frederic Baud via a tweet from someone I follow on Twitter. Frederic absolutely nails why large organizations are not likely to succeed if and when they attempt to adopt social software — they haven’t (and probably won’t) make the shift in mindset that is the hallmark of Enterprise 2.0.

Enterprise 2.0 — like it’s mother, Web 2.0 — is more of a philosophy than a thing (i.e. software). It is a way of being for an organization. Until established companies adopting social software understand that, they are likely to fail in those efforts. Newly formed organizations are more likely to embrace and successfully demonstrate the Enterprise 2.0 model, disrupting legacy companies that are unable to make the paradigm shift so eloquently described by Frederic.

If you’re in charge of an Enterprise 2.0 project, do yourself a favor. Read Frederic’s post today and more than once, if possible. Then take it to heart.

Why We Struggle With Social Software ROI

One of the prominent themes in any discussion of social software in the enterprise is Return on Investment (ROI). I opined in a previous post that all too often ROI is a hurdle put in place by opponents of a project to prevent it from happening or succeeding. I also said that organizations that have collaboration hardwired into their culture understand and accept the value of social software without a demonstration of ROI. Conversely, even a reasonable, positive ROI projection isn’t likely to get a proposed social software project approved in an organization that doesn’t “get” collaboration. I stand by those statements and have another observation to add:

The primary reason organizations are struggling with ROI in social software is because they have little or no idea what they want to accomplish by using it. There’s no link to business strategy and tactics.

To calculate ROI, one must define specific, measurable metrics, for which annual financial benefits can be projected out over 3-5 years. The rub is in developing the metrics. Defining appropriate metrics requires knowing what the organization wants to accomplish by making an investment. We all know this. Yet too many seem to forget this basic principle of ROI when contemplating an initial social software project. They get caught up in the hype of the newest fad and forget that technology must be deployed in support of a well-defined strategic goal or objective. They focus on the “soft” benefits of social software use that are widely communicated today instead of on how using social software in support of a specific business strategy or tactic can lead to revenue increases and cost reductions in the business.

Before you and your organization get too enamored with the shiny new toys presented by social software, or get caught up in the hype cycle, take a step back and ask questions like:

• What specific strategic imperative(s) could be enabled by social software?
• Where could social software help us increase revenue and/or reduce operating costs?
• Why are some of our employees using social software despite our reservations about it?
• Who might we be able to create new and valuable business relationships with by using social software?
• What differentiation for our company and it’s offering(s) could be built using social software?
• How could social software be used to increase trust inside and outside of our organization?

The answers provided by asking these kinds of questions will provide the purpose behind your social software project and investment. Knowing the purpose will make it possible to define metrics that can be quantified in dollars (or whatever currency your organization operates in) and demonstrate potential ROI.

Are you having trouble defining questions that reveal your organization’s purpose for investing in social software? Please contact me so we can discuss ways that I can help.