The connected versus the not

I’ve found there are two types of people in organisations. Firstly, there are those who are connected and therefore have a bit of a clue what is going on. And secondly, there are those who aren’t, who parrot what they’ve heard from the connected.

Although this stratification seems to work across interest-boundaries, it seems most pronounced for technologists. I suppose that’s because things tend to move so fast in that industry.

Anyway, the connected always have a good grasp on the latest trends, the latest thinking, and the latest work going on in their specific area. They get so up to date because they have built networks of like-minded people with whom they are constantly in touch. This network acts like a big net, filtering an ocean of data and providing them with highly targeted, relevant items for absorption.

Building such a network is a big time commitment, because you have to contribute to the network as well as suck from it. Then, too, there is the initial effort of building it in the first place, and the time spent keeping it active after. For technologists, this tends to manifest itself in constant communication (probably on multiple devices), membership in multiple social networks, and never-ending content-creation using, for example, blogs and twitter.

When you work with the connected in your particular interest area, there is almost never any need to explain fundamentals, and its reasonable to assume that everyone will know everything that’s current at present. Consequently, discussion immediately moves to applications, to what can be done with the current state of the art.

When dealing with the connected, things just happen more quickly. They need to, because with all that connection going on, the pace of change is fast, fast, fast.

I’d contrast that experience with what you get when you involve someone who doesn’t do connection. These are people locked firmly in the dark ages of the spoon-fed. They digest analyst reports, use Google to read what companies and (sometimes) other thought leaders have said, and, based on this, will likely parrot some amalgamated view of the current state of play. You get a synthesis of what everyone else was thinking yesterday.

You almost never get originality from those without connection. They don’t have time you see, to be up to date enough to be original.

Now, of course, there is a finite upper limit to how much of this connecting stuff you can do before you have no time for anything else, such as your actual job. Or your home life.  I’ve previously written about this, actually, when I posted on declining returns in social media.

But my frustration comes when you have senior people, whose jobs it is to know the current state of play, who fail to invest some of their time in getting right at the front and centre of the current state of the art. For example, I hate it when someone puts a Gartner report in front of me and says “this is what we should do now”.

What would Gartner (or any analysts firm, to be fair) know anyway? Their analysts rarely have the kinds of real world experience that comes from recent doing. Of course, if what you want is reporting of what other people are doing, by all means call an analyst. But wouldn’t it be better to have the leading players in your network in the first place so you can just ask direct?

No, give me a strategist, or an innovator, or an architect that’s connected any day. Sometimes, you don’t get the safe answer when you ask the question, but what you do get is original thinking.

And we should all be clear about this: anyone can do research. What commands a premium these days is the quality of your original output. Research, and any one of the thousands of other commodity tasks routinely done by those without connection, can almost always be done cheaper and quicker by someone else.

Comments

[Gordon Rae]

A great account of how networks improve knowledge, as well as transmitting it. Also, why publishing is dying. By the time something gets into a report, it's stale.

[Jon Ayre (The Enterprising Architect)]

Good post and generally I'd agree (although I am a fairly late adopter, and of course there are many ways of getting connected). However I'd like to contribute some additional thoughts:

"You almost never get originality from those without connection" - True, but the almost is key here. It is always worth having access to at least one unconnected (but free thinking) individual who is free from pre-conditioning or crowd thinking and might just come up with something truly new and innovative. One danger of overconnectivity is the hive mentality.

"I hate it when someone puts a Gartner report in front of me and says “this is what we should do now”." - ditto, but I have to admit having a Gartner report (or equivalent) that backs up your position or initiative can prove highly influencial with those who are still using this as their primary form of connection.

"Sometimes, you don’t get the safe answer when you ask the question, but what you do get is original thinking." - True again, but there is also the downside that the original thinking is often swamped by a large quantity of unoriginal but consistent opinion. (In science it is often the one "crank" voice amongst the many that is truly innovative).

One thing is certain - the role of the pure researcher is dying. Modern techniques allow people to access the information they require far more quickly and cheaply than any consultancy can achieve. That information has to be processed and turned into directional thinking if any genuine value is to be provided.

In essence (and I think this comes to the core of your post) - it is very much about who you are connected to, rather than how you connect, and for that you need to be wherever the connection is taking place.

[Annalie Killian]

Ah....its the curse of the risk-averse...instead of experimenting and learning first-hand, they follow the herd long after the competitive advantage of being an early mover has evaporated. The biggest value of networks - even for the hyper-connected-don't come from the like-minded but from the serendipity of weak links- those at the edge of your own peripheral vision. And yes, when one is that far ahead of the pack, its as challenging to bring messages from the frontiers to the rest of the pack - you have to build bridges for them too....they can't leap to where you are no matter how right you may be....you have to run up and down this little path from the edge to the centre REPEATEDLY till its well-worn and becomes clear to them.
I spoke yesterday at a conference about some of the work my team has been doing over the past 9 years. NINE YEARS!!! Since 2001- and 50% of the delegates, professionals in charge of corporate communication for large international companies, respond that its OUT THERE! Now you know my own feelings about how much further I would like our company to be with the adoption of edgy things- we are about 5 years lagging - so by all accounts, these other companies must be lagging by around 15 plus years! So- what have I learnt from the experience? Gratitude! I work in an organisation where one person with an idea CAN make a difference. So many of the people I met yesterday and today have simply given up. Its too hard.

[Steve Ellis]

Great post. Two thoughts:

You are being a bit hard on the value of Gartner and other analysts. Not everyone, or every business, enjoys the luxury of someone with innovation in their job title who is able to look beyond the immediate horizon. And other analysts - Jeremiah Owyang being an obvious example - do very much report from the edge (with the risks that entails).

Agree with your point on frustration with 'senior management'. But surely it is inevitable. Most successful management careers in large corporation are founded on knowing and working the inside of the business, less so on following external changes and influences. Hence corporates reach out for the Bain's and McKinsey's. I'd reckon your externally focused (and networked?) people, the one's who try and read external changes, are a breed more often described as entrepreneurs, and (mostly) working outside corporate environment.

[Sandra]

Interesting post, but I think you largely ignore what constitutes the essential role of an analyst. That is, to survey the landscape and to provide perspective on what any one entity (insert strategist, innovator, architect) is doing.

Without wider context, it would be difficult to ascertain the significance, and indeed, originality, of any single industry development.

[Leon Benjamin]

The future of an organisation is less about the nature of its issues, and more about its capacity to create social structures able to solve them.