The Five Forces of Enterprise 2.0 Adoption

Nicely said.

You’re right, human behavior is not that simple. Nice list of motivators and reminds me of the motivotors I learned in mgmt classes: Recognition, Personal Growth, responsibility, status and achievement. I think from Frederick Herzberg.

What is too often left out of the picture is that people spend a lot of time trying to figure out what other people are doing, which is another reason why the rational investor model doesn’t work. You start delving into game theory where each trial is stochastic and recursive based on players’ past experiences.

Also need to remember there are three (prob. more) parts to the social systems: Sharing, connecting, and consuming. Each of these has differing motivations, sharing more Kumbaya, consuming info more gecko, connecting falls into both groups.

You can definitely get into differing motivations as far as what people are willing to share, but the basic motivation of gathering information (wanting to know what other people are thinking, status, consuming) eventually drives converts and viewers independent of their desire or motivation to share.

You’re right! Most individuals don’t think or care about personal productivity in their jobs (self-employed folks being the biggest exception.) They are motivated by the forces you mention.

Unfortunately, numbers 2 and 5 seem to be inseparable in most organizations. Compensation and advancement are largely based on documented results (impact). Compensation may also be affected by demonstrated learning, recognition, and peer recognition (camaraderie), but almost always to a far lesser degree than by impact to the bottom line.

In reality, there are two motivation systems at work in most organizations. One is the company’s (#2 largely determines #5), and the other is the employee’s (#s 1, 3, and 4 really matter and correlate strongly to employee satisfaction.)

My questions is this: If we are to increase adoption of e2.0 philosophy and technology, which system should we target? I’d love to get your perspective, as this seems to be a Gordian knot to me. Thanks!

Excellent article. I appreciate how you highlighted the motive polarization of these two archetypes and then distilled and shared the multifaceted needs we humans have in regards to our work.

I don’t see why you lump the kumbaya crowd together with the Geckos as believers in the antiquated profit-maximalization theory. Seems to me that most kumbayeros would agree with you that human motivations are complex and name some if not all of the items in your list.

Prentiss, I disagree. I’ve had more conversations than I can count with kumbayeros (great word!!) who wring their hands and complain about how their company doesn’t incentivize sharing and collaboration. They lay the blame on the organization rather than the individuals, but that still assumes that individuals are only motivated by personal incentives. My experience with all kinds of companies tells me they’re wrong. Human motivation is complex–not only in the pristine state of nature, but also in the belly of the corporate beast.

I’m with Prentiss!

As someone who (temporarily acquiescing to your journalistic polarization) would have to place myself in your “kumbayeros” crowd, my own basic assumptions, which I believe are shared by most of the people you’ve characterized as being in my camp, include the belief that humans are motivated, at least in part, by idealism/altruism/fairness/sustainability/whatever you want to call the motivation that reaches beyond individual benefit to the common good. So I don’t “get” the reasoning that sees Kumbayeros and Geckos both being motivated primarily by profit, or personal gain.

In my understanding, the humanist perspective that is behind the “kumbaya” crowd’s reasoning acknowledges the five human motivations you point out and adds the sixth – idealism. The motivation to address and serve the common good – they think human beings care about something beyond their individual paycheck (which doesn’t mean they don’t care about that, too), whether that be the good of their company, the evolution of their industry, the betterment of their community or country, or making a contribution to the whole of humanity. Idealism has been one of the greatest motivators throughout history – if you think we’ve somehow lost this motivation with our cultures’ dominant focus on the bottom line, I’d respond that addressing the “triple bottom line” (of people/environment/profit) is a movement gaining momentum and traction throughout the corporate world, and not a moment too soon.

So, with the addition of my 6th motivator, I like where you ended up in your argument and I agreed with almost everything you were saying, but I must admit I’m a little tired of the false polarization that got you there, which is altogether too commonly used in my opinion, and doesn’t elevate the good points you make in the end.

I agree that it’s not about a simple trade-off of selfishness v. altruism. However a value proposition that only addresses learning, impact, recognition, camaraderie, and compensation forgets in my view one key component: job preservation/security. Whatever you call it, this is about a very Maslowian, very primal need. Way more than leaning or impact. People, especially these days, are concerned about having a job, and are intent about doing whatever they can do keep it. If they see Enterprise 2.0 as a way to make this happen they will adopt it. If they see as a threat to their job, they will make sure it does not happen. My sense is that this specific motivation, because of the economic situation, and because of the rising unemployment (12%+ now in CA where I reside) is by far the #1 motivation. At least that’s what I see in the companies where I consult.