A social sense of productivity

Doubt over how social media improves productivity is a common question. Surely, dabbling around in social media doesn’t allow anyone to do any real work. As 2009 comes to an end, the year that will probably be remembered as the big bang of the social revolution, it’s a good time to think about a social sense of productivity.

Social productivity might mean a number of things from here on in. It might refer to the enormous potential to serve up the kind of aggregated information that connectivity can create, more information consumption pushed through bigger pipes.

That’s a kind of productivity, save for Michael Arrington’s prediction however, that ‘the rise of fast food content is upon us, and it’s going to get ugly’. This is the kind of productivity that can mean the death knell for hand crafted content, an age of what is, in effect, even more passive consumption fuelled by neurospin and a continuous conveyor belt of content.

However much this may be a possible productivity scenario, it’s not an appealing one, and it’s still very much a product of the factory mindset, that thing that arguably the social media revolution allows us to, and needs to, change.

So another question is can being social improve productivity by creating a contribution instead of a consumption economy, and value that comes through solving problems instead of consuming resources? As we shift from a preoccupation with factory structures to more seamlessly networked organizations, will the ability to lead, to build, to influence and resonate, with contributions made within a network help alter the lens which we use to define what productivity is?

2010 may well be the year of a great ‘attention crash’ to use Marshall Manson’s phrase. Think of 1929 but without the money. It may be a year of sense-making and lead to an active screening out of content, which is already happening, the like of which we’ve never seen before, bringing with it big implications for marketers. What way for productivity then?

The rise of Twitter has heralded a simple truth essentially that, long as there is the # hashtag, one’s state of mind will triumph over marketing. Hashtags allow people to collect around what matters to them more than how they identify themselves through brands. Hashtags make shared and common experiences sticky. So what does that mean in terms of productivity, when endlessly hurling output at a market ceases to be of value in the way it used to be because it can’t connect with that.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs set out a trajectory for the evolution of the human species that places self-actualization at its peak. It is a framework for enlightenment, enabled by ‘morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem-solving, lack of prejudice and acceptance of facts’. Free distribution gives greater access than ever before to self-actualization, it creates the opportunity to find and develop new forms of value.

And Theory U from The Presencing Institute suggests that to make something of the social potential that exists in 2010 means looking at productivity as a generative experience, and shifting from factory indices of productivity to a networked and social alternative.

Productivity is different in an age influenced by social media. Social communication is not about ‘driving the message’, it is permission-based. Neither is social productivity about pushing output. Social productivity rises exponentially when formative experiences and iterative, real-time learnings create a mutual and co-created value that comes from developing new insights and implementing the solutions that come from them collaboratively.

The premium that comes from social productivity is that generative listening and receptivity can create a real desire to contribute and to be present. Goodbye big marketing spend, this is what brands in 2010 can most benefit from. This is a new kind of productivity, a social productivity coming from iteration, reciprocity and interconnectedness. This is productivity that supercedes consumption and allows for self-actualization in all its stickiness as the most potent marketing proposition there is.

If your business is based on community (which one isn’t), maybe reframing it to be productive in a social sense is worth looking at. A social sense of productivity has enough potential to dominate the agenda of new marketing, as long as in 2010 we are productive enough to develop the skills to let it to happen.

Hat-tip to Mike Baldwin for co-creating the graph with me. Best wishes to you for a very productive and fulfilling new year.

  • http://farhanrehman.co.uk magitam

    Couldn't agree with you more..
    I think that 2010 will definitely force people to become really selective in their information sources, and the way the receive incoming messages, and communications, or force them to experience information 'bankruptcy'.

    All the trends and indications point to ever more volumes of data and information coming at people, and so the real solutions are inevitably going to be around those generators of content that provide engagement, enjoyment and satisfaction at a personal level, rather than just broadcasting out, and expecting the masses to flock at their broadcasts.

    It'll be interesting to see how this dynamic in the UK emerges, as I have a feeling the social media eco-system here is a little more evolved than in the US.. or is that just my biased view?

  • http://scottgould.me Scott Gould

    I very much agree with your statements Anne. When I think of Scoble who says “he dips into Google Reader”, I don't think that the early majority will react at all in the same way towards the masses of content currently available.

    Your ideas of social productivity is very interesting, and one that I am already exploring with some businesses I'm involved in. I'd like, however, to hear more on this, as I don't feel I have grasp of it after just this post.

    I'm intrigued by this graph – is there anyway you make a clearer explanation of what it's about?

  • Anne

    You sound as if you have some thoughts worthy of more exploration Scott about how the early majority will react and I'd be interested to hear more about that.

    I'll frame this in terms of relationships vs transcations, or cursory vs committed types of interactions, and say each have advantages and disadvantages based on fitness of purpose against the intended outcome.

    As an erstwhile marketer to my mind the smart intention has got to be to engender enduring relationships instead of transient ones, and increasingly so as the idea of social memberships become more prevalent.

    Social connectivity affords a greater, more pervasive sense of group identities, Seth Godin's Tribes concept if you will, that will increasingly and intrinsically supplement individual identities. What generates community identity, connections that matter to people, a sense of belonging, all come via transformative relationships and formative experiences, deep understandings, and journeys traveled together.

    There's both an art and a science to that as well as spiritual and pragmatic angles. The graph is inspired as I've mentioned by the work of Otto C. Sharmer, Theory U which came originally out of MIT and work being done by Otto within The Presencing Institute which he runs. I'm a part of that community. The productivity overlay has been added by me and Mike Bladwin to challenge the existing terms of reference surrounding productivity, and a preoccupation with factory thinking, as systemically it is arguably an outmoded frame of reference and it precludes all of the above.

  • http://scottgould.me Scott Gould

    I'm going to have to take this away and think about it some more – some of your language is always well above my understanding!

    Thanks for pointing out Theory U to me – I'll have a good read to get my mind around it

  • http://twitter.com/socialtechno SocialTechno

    I think Marshall Manson probably picked up the phrase “attention crash” from Steve Rubel, who coined it in 2007 (and has been predicting it since). My position then, as well as now, was that “information overload” has been hyped excessively as a social problem, but it is most definitely bad news for marketing and PR companies. (Rubel's latest blog post – http://www.steverubel.com/video-engaging-employ… – acknowledges that Edelman are having major problems just getting the attention of their own people.)

    Howard Rheingold has written about the new 'literacies' that people need to thrive in a world of pervasive access to information, but since you seem to be focusing on the productivity of advertising and PR, I'll focus my own comments in that area. First, I want to single out the word “compelling” – people in agencies are always talking about “compelling content” , but people do not want to be compelled. The mindset from broadcast TV, that the greatest communications skill is stopping the audience from changing the channel, has got to go. Second, there needs to be more listening; people talk back, and among the messages brands can pick up (if they listen) is who's in the mood to buy, and who isn't, and why.

    Thirdly, you have to respect people's right to filter your messages; the flip-side of filtering is that people are integrating you and what they know about you into their hierarchy of needs. (Fingers crossed, you fit.) Fourthly, advertising and PR don't have to be a waste of people's time, but we are culturally conditioned to see them that way. But as Jeff Bezos said, that's the price you pay for having an unremarkable product.

  • Anne

    You're right, I checked with Marshall, and Steve, and thanks for mentioning it.

    So, about 'compelling' which you mention. If the leverage is from without, I think that qualifies as coercion, and at the very least cajolling, but what about being compelled from within?

    That's the 'compelling' I'm interested in, the groundswell around ideas that are just too irresistible to not want to get up and dance to them, the inner complusions we have a right to connect with that are self actualizing. When companies can respond to that it turns everything all around. That's what Visceral Business is all about.

    I completely agree with your final points, very well made, and thanks a great deal for the input.