Appelle, Boni, Incentives, Motivationstrainings - es gibt viele Versuche, die Leistung von Menschen zu verbessern. Schon lange weiß die Psychologie, dass dies alles fragwürdige Methoden der Motivationsförderung sind. Die Hirnforschung sattelt noch eins drauf.

Big Ideas: Collaboration and creativity are big buzz words now but most businesses don’t really know how to collaborate or be creative. Collaborative efforts often produce mediocre results because ego gets in the way. A great team can produce amazing results, but finding those team members is not an easy task.

jaegerWM: Pütter: Work-Life-Balance verschwindet: Die 11 Arbeitertypen der Zukunft. @CIOredaktion, 04.04.2012 http://t.co/00BSPqj2 #studie

Alexander Stocker kommentiert und ich schließe mich an ;)

"Ich schließe mich grundsätzlich der Beziehungs-Sicht an. Dennoch sollten Technologien/Plattformen beide Arten von Beziehungen (stark & schwach) unterstützen.

Die E20-Diskussion um die Unterstützung schwacher Beziehungen ist grundsätzlich nicht neu. Sie resultiert (so vermute ich) auch daraus, dass starke Beziehungen ohnehin unterstützt werden, sowie aus der Sicht von Granovetter, dass es Sinn macht, schwache Beziehungen zu unterstützen. "

Theory #ftw :)

You’re absolutely right! Instant gratification has ruined the art of learning. It’s especially sad to see kids who are only interested in remembering enough to pass tests, rather than actually knowing something new and important.

some of the very shortcomings Google Wave started with.

Basic issues of connectivity – very few of our colleagues had Google Wave accounts.  We couldn’t trivially add them even if they were Gmail or Google Apps users already.

Basic issues of control – once someone was added to a Wave you couldn’t remove them.  And anyone could add someone.  That kind of permissiveness actually reduces sharing.

Minor issues of control – the Google Maps mashup was promising.  But I found you couldn’t control the location and sizing of the map presented – to show a specific region, at a specific zoom.  Pretty well defeats the purpose.

while we're moving from connecting people to information to connecting people to people .... social is also about noise-signal filtering, in our information environment. Social circles can add value only if we power them with our time and passion (since humans give back only on certain circumstances, while search engines give “one shot auto-learning fast answers”).

The tactical way in which you locate or engage with your advocates may vary based upon the type of community (employee, customer, product support, etc.), but the principles I’ll describe below can apply to either type of community.



What are Community Advocates?
What Advocates Do and Why You Need Them?
First, advocates can share in Community Work.
Second, advocates can increase your community reach and word of mouth promotion.
Third, advocates can be a powerful front line source of end user and member support.
Fourth, advocates can help you prune and curate community content.
Finally (although the list could go on!), your community advocates can be a trusted source of user feedback.
What’s the Bottom Line?

by Claire Flanagan

Maslow's model needs rewiring so it matches our brains. Belongingness is the driving force of human behavior, not a third tier activity. The system of human needs from bottom to top, shelter, safety,sex, leadership, community, competence and trust, are dependent on our ability to connect with others. Belonging to a community provides the sense of security and agency that makes our brains happy and helps keep us safe.

Taken from the point of view of these 3 motivators for intellectual activity, Google+ is a platform that allows you to use all of them in the most complete and holistic way.  I have read about many people that were not actively blogging or creating content before G+, and for which this platform has opened the doors of collective creation.

What has been your experience when creating content for G+? Do you consider that the factors delineated above are in-line with your motivations for posting?

Modell der emotionalen Achterbahnfahrt entwickelt. Andere sogenannte Change-Kurven-Modelle, die in der Literatur vorgestellt werden, konnten mich nicht überzeugen. Als Grundlage diente mir die Forschungsarbeit von Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, die mit ihren Untersuchungen der Reaktionen von Menschen auf den extremsten aller Wandel, den bevorstehenden Tod, zur Begründerin der Sterbeforschung wurde. Sie entwickelte ein Phasen-Modell, das unbewusste Strategien zur Bewältigung extrem schwieriger Lebenssituationen beschreibt. Ich habe dieses Modell erweitert, grafisch aufbereitet und die Konsequenzen für Sie als Führungskraft abgeleitet

Lediglich 13 Prozent der deutschen Arbeitnehmer verfügen aktuell über eine hohe emotionale Bindung zu ihrem Arbeitgeber und sind bereit, sich für ihn und dessen Ziele einzusetzen. Die große Mehrheit der Beschäftigten (66 Prozent) aber leistet nur noch Dienst nach Vorschrift. Weitere 21 Prozent sind sogar derart demotiviert, dass sie sich am Arbeitsplatz bereits destruktiv verhalten – so weit, dass dies schon zu Lasten der Leistungs- und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Unternehmen geht.

People who grow from change typically carry little, if any, negative baggage from their difficult and costly ordeal. If injustices were done to them along the way, they forgive and/or move on with the rest of their lives. If they made mistakes, they don’t indulge in a lot of guilt or self-incrimination, because they believe they were making the best decision they could at the time. People who grow from their trials and tribulations tend to be more grateful than resentful about the price they paid to achieve what they ultimately accomplish. They often report that everything they have experienced in their life, both good and bad, was necessary for them to be prepared to achieve and embrace the rewards they eventually enjoyed.

Of all modern management’s sins, one of the least recognized is its boredom and its neglect of beauty. After all, life was once viewed as beautiful, even though it’s hard to recall this when reading management books or looking at the working life of most people today. Wealth doesn’t seem to help. As the economy advances, the workplace doesn’t become less dreary, with its total focus on analysis, optimization, and the bottom line.

And this to me is the key: When you’ve brought your client, customer, or your community along with you, they feel like they’re a part of the process. They can contribute to it. They can have their voices heard. Ultimately they can play a prominent role in making your project a success because they've been with you along the way.

Calling Lindegaard an open innovation "expert" is like saying Apple (or Google or Amazon) invented open source. Here is someone who spends 200+ pages writing about open innovation, but nowhere mentions Henry Chesbrough, who invented open innovation.

Speaking about Capabilities (I think it's pp. 26-33), they separate relational capacity from engagement capacity; and that seems correct to me. This COP experience I mentioned involved the de-institutionalization of people with disabilities here in the US in the early 1990s. It was related to a sense of seeking justice for people and it was very easy for people to be highly engaged in that effort. This is also a theme of Umair Haque (His blog is here: http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/ ). He usually speaks of organizational engagement with customers as a 21st century imperative, but I believe these ideas are relevant to employee and COP engagement too! I think the core issue is for management to find the space for people to engage.

Career analyst Dan Pink examines the puzzle of motivation, starting with a fact that social scientists know but most managers don’t: Traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think. ...

To deepen our networks, we have to do a few things, and some of them aren’t exactly easy or simple to execute.

To Deepen Your Network

* Devote two hours a week to this effort. If, out of the 60 hours an average person works, you can’t find two for this, reconsider how you’re running your day.
* Pick small groups of like-minded people that you want to stay in touch with. List them in some way (in your contacts, on a spreadsheet, in a Twitter group – maybe all of those).
* Think the following whenever thinking about this group: “you are important. I care about you. I want to help you grow.”
* Reach out to these people once a week, if you can. Try not to make it about nothing, but do keep in touch, even if it’s in small clumps (I’m using Google Wave for that).

Very nice roundup on incentives.

Financial rewards only boost performance on mechanical. When cognitive skills are essential, the have negative influence.

[...] intrinsic rewards are far more effective than extrinsic rewards for motivating creative, innovative behavior. Of course anyone who has run a creative organization has always known this but what Dan will no doubt do is get through to the 99% of leaders running companies who still believe that the carrot and the stick is the right way to promote innovation

This post covers one of the biggest challenges we face as leaders, and I appreciate the points you made. I also think anniehu123's comment added value by pointing out so many other characteristics leaders need to have today.

You both covered so much that there is only one thing I'd like to add. People like to feel that they are part of something bigger then themselves, especially when the task is not glamorous. I find it motivating to explain the situation and challenge the group to step up to deal with the unpleasantness and excel. Follow up by celebrating the success and recognizing the effort and sacrifice.

So, we talked a bit about the concept of communities... about voluntary membership and participation... about the self-selecting nature of the membership itself... about the need for leaders to self-select from within the membership and identify their own topics. This is a typical flow of discussion, which, when given enough time and insight, eventually changes a person's entire outlook... from manager to gardener. Communities form and emerge naturally. They can be encouraged and facilitated; But they can't be engineered and determined.

Diese heiß/kalt-Metaphorik funktioniert immer nur im Medienvergleich, aber nie als absolute Größe. Meine Eselsbrücke ist die, dass das kältere das ist, was man durch intensivere Auseinandersetzung stärker aufwärmen muss – die Bedeutung ‘hot’ bezieht sich bei McLuhan allerdings mehr auf den kulturellen Einfluss, und das ist dann wieder eine andere Dimension.

Das "TAP" bei IBM steht allen IBM Kollegen, egal aus welcher Organisation, welche Tätigkeit oder aus welchem Land offen. Die Teilnahme ist rein freiwillig und erfolgt durch einfaches "einloggen" bzw. "registrieren". Die angebotenen Anwendungen oder Services dabei sind völlig unterschiedlich. Das reicht von Anwendungen im Entwicklungsstadium bis hin zu reinen Versuchsballons aber auch "fertigen" Lösungen, die jedoch noch nicht komplett "produktiv" gesetzt wurden.

Über "TAP" startete u.a. auch die Verbreitung von Sametime, Quickr und Connections innerhalb der IBM.

Der Erfolg spricht für sich, wobei die Freiwilligkeit sicher einer die wichtigsten Erfolgsfaktoren ist - kombiniert mit der Unterstützung durch das Management.

De Bono describes lateral thinking as ‘a habit of mind and an attitude of mind’ which can be fostered by practising specific lateral thinking techniques, such as:

* Challenging assumptions (e.g. by thinking outside the box)
* generating alternatives (even when you have an apparently satisfactory solution)
* suspended judgement
* brainstorming
* analogies
* random stimulation (e.g. by opening a dictionary to find a random word and apply it to the problem)

liegt aber schlicht an den persönlichen Erfahrungen, die ich dort gemacht habe. Und ich glaube, die braucht man auch, um Twitter gut zu finden.

Terrence Seamon writes that we are moving from Management 2.0 to Management 3.0:

* from focus on weaknesses to focus on strengths
* from appraisal to appreciation
* from "our way or the highway" to flexibility
* from "one size fits all" to customization
* from "command and control" to coach and engage

To fully move to Management 3.0 we are going to have to reverse the findings from Watson Wyatt's "WorkUSA 2006/2007" study that show only 49 percent of employees trust senior management, and only 36 percent believe top managers act with honesty and integrity. From Stgephen Covey's The Economics of Trust in CLO.

Nicht einmal die Finanzkrise trägt dazu bei, dass sich die Arbeitnehmer aus Sorge um den Arbeitsplatz stärker für ihr Unternehmen einsetzen. „Die Ursachen für den relativ geringen Anteil emotional hoch gebundener Arbeitnehmer in Deutschland sind hausgemacht und gehen auf Defizite in der Personalführung zurück.“

In this era of widespread telecommuting and geographically dispersed teams, more and more business leaders need to know how best to manage employees who are seldom in the company offices.

Topics covered include:

* What makes creative people tick
* Why motivation is crucial to creative success
* Why you can’t motivate anybody - but what you can do instead
* What Iggy Pop can teach you about management
* Why offering rewards can harm creative performance
* How to write 47 novels before breakfast
* Why some people seem so weird - and how to deal with them
* The positive side of peer pressure

Because recreational information-seeking often helps to fill in the gaps left by jobs in which we manipulate information without meaning. So we invest ourselves in more and more obscure topics in search of the meaning that’s missing from our working lives. We don’t have too much information, we have too many interests! We crave stimulation we aren’t getting from our work.

How Do Interpersonal Motivations Affect You?
Which forms of interpersonal motivation have affected you the most?
How much influence can a manager realistically have over interpersonal motivations?

Any other tips for facilitating interpersonal motivation?

leaders in the groups that we evolved from led small face to face groups, which (my interpretation) may help explain why leaders of large organizations fail so often -- it isn't something that humans as a species have much experience doing. The authors also make a compelling case that people who rose to leadership positions in such groups did so because of their ability to serve the needs of followers rather than their ability to intimidate and bully. Along related lines, they point out that another implication of an evolutionary perspective,is that people who study leaders typically devote too much attention to leaders and not enough to followers.

What's different, of course, is that Twitter isn't just a protocol. It's also a database. And that's the old secret of Web 2.0, Data is the Intel Inside. That means that they can let go of controlling the interface. The more other people build on Twitter, the better their position becomes.

Twitter is also great for true crowd-sourcing, as in the physical/virtual blend when you've got a group of tweeters in the same vicinity (like conferences and conventions).

I dare to say that humans are lazy by nature and that we are likely to use the method that requires the least effort when we look for information. We even tend to use less reliable information if it’s just easy to find and use. Instead of actively looking for information we prefer to passively monitor the flow of information in our environment. In fact, some say that actively looking for information is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. So, just being in an environment and becoming passively aware about things that happen in it is something we find very natural and convenient.

When I counsel organizations on the basic tenets of Knowledge Management (KM), the issue of corporate culture is often stressed. There is a tendency in many organizations just beginning to formalize their KM strategy to look at corporate culture and, not so much dismiss it, but to take a cursory view of it, admit that it important to their KM strategy, maybe even asses their current culture, but then feel the issue no longer has to be addressed.

Telecommuting has changed the pace of business dramatically, in less than 40 years. What we learn from considering this movement is that organizations must sometimes ride the tide of social change, adopting new practices and learning how to work differently in order to maintain positive relationships with employees.

So why do so many corporate mandated collaboration systems fail? There are a lot of reasons, but, what I’ve experienced is that the mandates are much too broad. Companies want their employees to collaborate because they read about the benefits of sharing & collaboration in Wikinomics or some trade paper and want that. Like little (or big) boys outside the Ferrari dealership. They don’t know what goes into obtaining and maintaining a system. They believe that if they build it, they will come.

It is amazing how many big initiatives in organisations large and small come to nothing. Change seems to be harder than we think; we may know change is inevitable and still do nothing about it, or we may deny it all together; but some how it still happens to us. People like Donald Schon and Edgar Schein pioneered thinking about how change happens and people like Peter Senge, Tudor Rickards, etc. have carried on the studies. They demonstrate that change is a complex activity with individual, group and organisational dynamics playing key roles in what is achieved and how it is achieved.

Most work involves teams of people - employees, customers, service providers, business partners - collaborating with each other in various combinations. Until recently we did not have the proper technologies to enhance such collaborative work. Now that we do, we can expect a whole new round of innovations designed to improve the productivity and quality of work well into the 21st century. ... "Social networks" and "collaboration" are human phenomena linked to our emotional need for contact and interaction with "each other". Technology can reduce the barriers of time, space, language which inhibit the contact and increase the amount of information exchanged during the interactions.

I believe "information" and its movement is well within the realm of IT technology. And, more folks are getting comfortable with personally obtaining information they are interested in.

I actually am very dissatisfied with the framework you presented, Tony. It seems too simplistic. There are many factors that come into PLN’s that are not as much “skills” as motivations, understanding of the community in which content is imbedded, and EQ. Like Kimberly, I found younger people have learned to network and even pick and choose what they want to learn. However, for PLN to be effective there needs to be a way that workers are able to prioritize and focus their learning for what they need (not just what they want).

if an organization is trying to get E2.0 in place among a bunch of free agents, free thinkers, renegades, or any other distinct and largely closed subculture, it might do well to concentrate on encouraging lateral communication, feedback, recognition, praise, etc. If instead it's trying to get E2.0 adopted 'in the mainstream' it's a good idea to include proportionally more vertical feedback recognition, etc.

and interact, communicate, collaborate

the use of enterprise 2.0 tools are very useful when it comes to transparency. If the firm is creating a new firm-wide policy, it is easy to post a draft policy and allow comments to the draft. The policy-maker is accessing the collective knowledge of t

Keeping Kanazawa’s principles in mind can help any organization to leverage the love that people already have for true, meaningful change – instead of working against that love and forcing their employees into a reactionary, self-defensive position.

That phrase "loyally subversive" is so delightful, so much cognitive complexity in this those two little words

A good list of strategies for gaining adoption of Enterprise 2.0. I'd also provide some incentive for workers to move some of their work into these platforms, such as tying it to performance reviews, etc

Knowledge is a voluntary act, if people trust each other they will share. If they work together and create interdependencies then they will share. If the context requires it even political rivals will share. Good management (including knowledge management

how to sustain and motivate KM Champions / Activists. The common ideas include setting target for KM Champions via Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), providing them support thru adequate KM training and getting management support.

Being snarky and cynical have become totally mainstream and it works well with Internet culture because it's fast, snappy and dismissive.

As a manager/engineer/geek, do you want to take on career assignments where you know up-front your chance of success is only 2.5% ?What works as a risk-mitigating portfolio for the company does not (...) work at the level of individual employees

Ja klar, auf die Mitarbeiter kommt es an. Aber was machen wir, wenn die Mitarbeiter uns jetzt beim Wort nehmen?

# Many employees did not believe their organisation or senior management were doing enough to help or keep them engaged.
# Just a fifth said they felt engaged in their work
# More than a third admitting to feeling partly or fully disengaged.

So here are some tips for dealing with these "anti-bodies" and convincing all levels of your organization to pursue excellence through creative thought and innovation management initiatives

* personal independence
* uniqueness
* competition
* personal achievement and success
* introspection
* emphasis on internal attributes rather than other people’s opinions and indications

Lessons from the Wikimania conference in Taipei: Why people contribute, how to resolve conflicts and how many editors is enough.

amen

some people blog, some people comment and contribute, while some just watch and others don’t engage at all