As collaborative work environments proliferate, so does the potential for irony and dark-humor grow. Levels of patience AND accountability will be tested and determined to be in short supply, most likely. Collaboration is about change. And collaboration may be one of the most upsetting, unsettling, innovative changes to sweep through organizations, new and old.
Collaboration's sweep through old-guard, mainstream media may be the most painful, awkward and...public wave of change through any existing industry.
A few weeks ago, I posted How Instant Messaging Brings Relief to the Office. In the post, I blithely linked to an article in the Wall Street Journal about collaborative work environments. The article was titled Instant Messaging Invades the Office. (You'll see the URL for this link ends with 'free'. Key term for open collaboration...More on that later) And it describes how IM is changing, reducing really, many of the stodgy hierarchical org charts of big and stodgy corporations. It's empowering everyone in a corporation for faster, more nimble interaction and with greater accountability. Org charts become meaningless when anyone can ping a CEO directly, and vice versa, immediately.
A couple of days later, I found a comment at the end of the article by the very articulate, passionate, accountable, dedicated publisher an author could find: Katherine Hirzel of Red Ape Publishing. ( Using a tired old cliche'...you'd want someone like Katherine with you in a firefight of any sort.) She shared with me some of the background of the story both on the phone and in her comments at the end of the post.
And in this conversation, a few ironies became painfully obvious.
Irony Number 1: The news organization that carried the article. The irony of the article's placement was lost on me in my haste to post that day. The article was placed in the WSJ. Wall Street Journal. WSJ's online content is behind-the-wall of paid subscription. Online access to the WSJ is available only for paid subscribers*. (That's not the issue. I support profitable operations; paying subscribers sure help accomplish that goal and the goal of positive cash-flows. Creating exclusive content and and building commu nities around it is one business model, a great business model, even. My point, is the irony of a company whose business model's success stems in large part from creating a closed-community and dashing collaboration as a matter of taste having the audacity to write an article on open collaboration when it's anathema to their very being. )
They don't use IM. WSJ doesn't use IM.
If they do, they conveniently overlooked the opportunity to profile their use of this collaborative, hierarchy-busting tool within this venerable institution. And what a disservice that would have been to their readers...So, we can assume they don't use IM.
And IM is one of the easiest collaboration resources to incorporate. Certainly, it's one of the cheapest. It's free for us; we use Skype.
Irony Number 2. WSJ's community. The community of readers for WSJ didn't suggest the article on IM and collaboration. The idea of the article seemingly didn't arise from within the hallowed towers of WSJ and their respected business reporters.
Irony number 3: WSJ, once it understood this IM thing... as a story source, needed expert with head-nodding credentials acceptable to its readers. Hence, 2 tier-1 b-school professors who consult with Fortune 500 corporations. And talk a bit about collaboration on the side, practicing some of it themselves. It's kinda like hearing your over the hill rockers talk at your backyard barbecue about how they do rap, too. And then busta move...Yeah, huh. Interesting. Honey, is that pork ready?
And the funny part is, WSJ preferred these experts, with their creds pre-certified and pre-approved by the traditions and hierarchy of this closed community of subscribers, over the experts who prove their creds every day by implementing and using the collaborative resources and going onsite to clients large and small who've seen the future and it's collaboration, baby.
The last irony, the punchline if you will in a dark way, is the author of the book, the Culture of Collaboration, whose work and thoughts have been referenced by journals embracing technology and innovation and collaboration, wasn't mentioned or quoted in the article. This, even though author Evan Rosen proposed the story to the WSJ based on the ideas in his book, provided four of the five corporate IM user examples included in the article, had numerous conversations with a WSJ editor, and was interviewed over lunch by the WSJ reporter. After publisher Katherine Hirzel protested that the WSJ failed to attribute Rosen's ideas, WSJ blithely allowed him to respond by letter and published his letter in the WSJ...in its closed-community site. Get it? A leading expert on collaboration wasn't included in their article on collaboration and they published his letter behind the gates of their closed community. Funny.
Who said WSJ doesn't have comics?
Updates. I noticed that the article that started this dialogue, Instant Messaging Invades the Office, has links at the bottom for related articles. No links to my original post are there. No links to the letter in reply, either.
*WSJ does offer some free content. And they do do promote this free content to bloggers in effect enlisting bloggers as summer interns helping to market the parent company's paid-content. I posted about it here: I'm an intern for WSJ.