The Great Reset
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want. TIME partnered with the World Economic Forum to ask leading thinkers to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want. TIME partnered with the World Economic Forum to ask leading thinkers to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.
When a large percentage of the workforce adopts an enforced new way of working, the organisations that have the technology in place, are quick to adapt their methods of communication, and understand the impact of such a drastic change on their workforce are better placed to weather the external disruption to their business by minimising the internal disruption.
Working from home would not be possible without internet-connected digital tools and platforms that allow workers to connect, communicate and collaborate. These Enterprise 2.0 technologies are networked through internet connections and contain ‘social’ or collaborative layer functionality such as sharing documents with other workers, communicating in faster, less formal ways through instant messaging, and finding information across a wider pool of sources.
Enterprise 2.0 technologies are defined by their characteristic collaborative layer that increases workers productivity through fostering connected, collaborative ways of working.
The technologies include:
Video conferencing, social networking and collaborative document editing are the most adopted of the various types of technologies. These are all internal working tools, perhaps suggesting that companies haven’t yet fully realised the benefits of using these technologies to create more permeable boundaries between the organisation and its customers, suppliers, other organisations, etc., in order to increase openness and drive innovation.
During a time of global crisis organisations might consider the ability to continue to operate to be a sufficient benefit from having implemented Enterprise 2.0 technologies, but there are also additional longer term benefits. Andrew McAffe says that Enterprise 2.0 “offers significant improvements, not just incremental ones, in areas such as generating, capturing, and sharing knowledge” (McAfee, 2009).
The top five measurable benefits from technology adoption are (McKinsey, 2013):
Enterprise 2.0 technologies grew rapidly between 2006 and 2013 (McKinsey, 2013) with 61% of companies reporting using video conferencing in 2013. The growth of these collaborative tools had plateaued (McKinsey 2015) but it is not inconceivable to assume that during the lockdown far more companies are utilising the benefits of technology to undertake almost every business task. The lockdown may serve as an accelerator for better utilisation of collaborative working technologies and achieve greater and previously unrealised benefits than if organisations had not been forced to adopt them.
The emergence of Enterprise 2.0 as a new form of interaction (rather than purely a technological phenomenon) between workers has enabled those who had to work from home during the lockdown to continue to communicate effectively with colleagues. The new communication methods required acceptance of the reconceptualisation of how information flows in Enterprise 2.0.
Traditional enterprise communication followed the lines of organisational hierarchy whereas Enterprise 2.0 communication follows the paths of a network and so flows more quickly and efficiently.
Steven Johnson (2010) suggests that individuals perform better when they belong to more networks as they can benefit from information shared by other people. The more nurturing a network, the more information openly shared, the more innovative ideas that can emerge.
Enterprise 2.0 enables the creation and growth of collaborative communities; groups of people that leverage technology and communication networks to organise themselves around different principles to the traditional hierarchical organisation, in order to have a collective means to participate and collaborate. This means of organising, foregoing the authority of traditional means, would have enabled employees to quickly mobilise to figure out new ways of responding to the challenges they faced during the lockdown.
A collaborative community could include the following characteristics (Savalle et al, 2010):
Collaborative communities emerge bottom up when people see the value of their contribution. In this there are network effects occurring as the more people contribute to the community, more people experience a benefit and so contribute more.
Companies benefit from providing the technologies and allowing this type of organisation to prosper as information sharing and crowd thinking can solve problems that traditional siloed team structures cannot, it supports new ideas to emerge, and strengthens social ties.
Different types of organisational structure require different ways of collaborating, especially in a crisis situation such as lockdown. Allowing collaborative ways of working to emerge through communities takes more time than companies may have to enable effective working from home, and so considering the ways in which collaboration can be initiated and supported can speed up adoption among a distributed workforce.
Pisano and Verganti (2008) proposed a model of governance and participation that whilst describing how companies can approach innovation with partners could also be a valid model for describing how innovative ways of collaborative working could be understood. This model provides some understanding of how bottom up communities and top down hierarchies may interact in collaborative ways to develop innovative solutions to problems, such as the pressing problem facing companies at the start of the lockdown of how to begin working collaboratively.
Introducing Enterprise 2.0 technologies and ways of working to an organisation carries with it a considerable impact for its employees, especially if undertaken during a crisis such as lockdown. Understanding the social ties between individuals, how they develop social capital, and what motivates them to adopt the new technologies and ways of working can provide some insight into how the shift to Enterprise 2.0 can be more successful.
McAfee (2009) described four types of ties people have with others. The ties can be weak, strong, potential or none. Strong ties exist between people who know each other and work together, but it is weak ties that are important for connecting people who don’t know each other very well in order to spread information (Gravonetter, 1973). Enterprise 2.0 enables more weak ties to form across an organisation and so encourage information to flow that might have otherwise if it was reliant on the hierarchical structure.
Social capital exists in the relations between individuals in a group. Faraj and Wasko (2001) refer to it as a “collective orientation”, a social system that develops because of “closure, shared history, goal interdependence, and frequent interactions”. When those interactions happen online whilst using Enterprise 2.0 technologies the norms of acceptable behaviour become even more paramount, and the opportunities for sharing information and resources are increased.
Achieving adoption of Enterprise 2.0 technologies and ways of working requires an appreciation of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of the employees, even more so at a time of crisis where they may have additional pressures outside of the workplace. If workers are intrinsically motivated to be successful in the roles, and they understand how new technologies can help with this, they would seem to be more likely to adopt and adapt to the change.
For some businesses the coronavirus lockdown will serve as an accelerator for the adoption of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, new ways of working, and new ways of unlocking value within the organisation. This enforced innovation that is making the organisational boundaries more permeable, spreading knowledge and new ways of collaborating, and enabling employees to make the most of the shift to Enterprise 2.0 has the potential to support businesses to be more innovative and successful.
The tragedy of the commons is a moral reasoning scenario that questions the right actions of individuals in using collective resources. Individuals can choose to act in their own best interests and consume whatever resources they need at the expense of everyone else who also relies on those same resources, or they can choose to limit their consumption so that there are more resources for everyone to use. The first option gives them a better chance of success, whereas the second option gives everyone a better chance, but relies on everyone taking the same approach. The tragedy occurs when someone breaks from the collective approach and negatively impacts everyone else.
In a complex modern society with lots of people with different values, of course both options are taken. Those who believe in the greater good support the collective approach of sharing resources, and tackling inequality through making more resources available to those that have less. And those with an individualistic approach do what they consider best for themselves, consuming and hoarding resources with the belief that everyone can, should and will behave in the same way. Both sides believe they are right, and so conflict arises.
The coronavirus pandemic gives a very visible stage for the tragedy of the commons to play out in very real ways that affect people’s lives. Our ideas about how does or should society function become far more polarised and distinct because individuals and society as a whole have far less cognitive capacity during a crisis. Its in crises like this that the tragedy becomes very apparent as the conflicts between the individualist and collective parts of society are more easily recognisable and real, and interestingly in our current situation, less so about consuming resources as the usual moral scenario goes, but more about contributing to them.
So, we now see a situation where the resources available to everyone are not sufficient for everyone to get what they need. I think we can say that there are some very practical factors that led us here; an increased demand because of the crisis, compounded by a lack of investment over time in those resources, but from the point of view of the moral reasoning scenario we can say that we’re experiencing that tragedy of the commons. The question now is, who is responsible for contributing to those resources?
In a lucky moment if synchronicity, two tweets with interesting opinions about our current tragedy of the commons appeared next to each in my timeline.
Nikki, a well-respected expert in fundraising for charities, tweeted about how the recent history of things like the media contributing to undermining trust in charities has led to a drop fundraising income, and how under-funding the NHS has created a situation where the essential services that are available aren’t sufficient to meet the needs. Her point of how asking the general public to contribute financially to fix the issue created by decisions made by institutions like the government and media industry reflects the tragedy of the commons conundrum of the collective contributing to collective resources.
Commercial organisations have a direct funding model whereby those benefiting from the products and services they provide also pay for them, and organisations such as the NHS Trusts are funded through central government via taxes. Charities have a different funding model. They are funded by third parties who are usually not the beneficiaries of the services provided by the charity. These funds can be from contracts with local authorities, trusts and foundations, and of course, donations from individuals. This is a core aspect of the business model of a charity, and one that is often presented as a positive thing because it allows charities to remain impartial and not swayed by government policies.
In a time of crisis more so because the demand is higher, but in actual fact at all times, charities provide essential services to society. That is worth repeating. The services provided by all sorts of charities to all different groups within society, are essential. There is no other means for people to get those services.
The funding model for charities could be considered to let the government off the hook. If the essential services provided by charities had to be provided, and so funded, in the same way other essential services are, it seems likely they would not be available.
So one of the questions here is, if society considers those services provided by charities to be essential, should they be funded through central government? Whilst they aren’t, the charity funding model of lots of small contributions from a lots of people is being pushed as a means of funding the core essential services provided by the NHS. The question here, and back to Nikki’s point, is, is it right to make it the responsibility of the collective to do this?
Kirsten, digital product developer and humanist thinker, tweeted about how the situation needs a collective response but how can we rely on this approach when so many factors in our society push the individualist approach?
Inequality drives the individualistic approach because people who don’t have much and don’t have confidence that they will get much, feel justified in protecting the limited resources they do have. Elitism drives the individualistic approach because it works as a means of accumulating resources and so becomes self-reinforcing.
So perhaps the question here is that even if we do consider it the responsibility of the collective to contribute to collective resources, would we have confidence that sufficient numbers of people could act in service of the greater good when so many factors, both historic and situational, suggest that they shouldn’t?
As I mentioned earlier, in our complex society there are some people who believe in the greater good and will contribute to the collective. There are those that believe in the greater good of doing what’s right for the collective but don’t agree that asking the collective to fix the issues caused by the more individualistic parts of society is indeed right. And there are those individualists who believe that asking the collective to solve collective problems is right because it is the collective that benefits. I don’t think there is a single easy answer.
I see an interesting overlap between Nikki’s and Kirsten’s tweets. I see questions about how the tragedy of the commons plays out in our society given our current situation. No one has answers to the complex realities we face, but perhaps the lens of a moral reasoning scenario can help us position these questions and consider the overlaps of understanding we can create.