Ross Mayfield's Weblog

2009 Recession: Corporate Alumni Network offer

With record layoffs in the 2009 Recession, more former coworkers are turning to each other to get jobs and start new businesses. In less turbulent times, large employers would invest in hosting Corporate Alumni Networks for sharing connections, knowledge and expertise. Unfortunately, just when corporate alumni need to leverage these networks to find jobs and start new companies, HR departments find such projects stalled.

Almost four years ago PeopleSoft employees experienced a massive layoff similar to what is happening today (Yahoo began laying off 1,500 workers; Sony plans to lay off 8,000 workers in its electronics business worldwide. Bank of America may cut 35,000 starting in the beginning 2009. Google has been quietly laying off staff and up to 10,000 jobs could be at risk for layoff).

A grass-roots PeopleSoft Alumni Network was formed by former employees, both on LinkedIn and Socialtext. Community leaders used Socialtext to share job information, get organized and collaborate on events. They later gained permission to call their newly formed non-profit organization the PeopleSoft Alumni Network. To this day, over 800 recruiters tap the network of over 3,000 members.

I asked PeopleSoft Alumni Network organizer Steve Tennant to comment on his experience:

"Socialtext was an invaluable technology for team collaboration at a time of need. With Socialtext's Recession 2009 offer, I'm looking forward to sharing best practices from our experiences in getting organized, helping people find jobs or start new companies and staying connected."

Today, Socialtext is meeting this latent need with a free Corporate Social Network offer for the 2009 Recession. Any former employee and HR director of a company that reduced its workforce by 5% or more in the last year can create a private Corporate Social Network for free by applying here. Please note that this offer does not include free user support. We ask for an HR contact to be involved to encourage a constructive tone, enable the HR department to share informational resources and so the company can leverage the network over time for connections, knowledge and expertise. However, as was our experience with the PeopleSoft Alumni Network, the energy and participation will likely be driven by the grass-roots.

Socialtext is also building out a public resource for sharing Alumni Network best practices at http://socialtext.net/alumni-network. The site will also serve as a public directory of private Alumni Networks as they are established, with instructions on how to join them.

My hope is that this Corporate Alumni Network offer for the 2009 Recession helps people come together to help each other:

• Share job leads
• Share and collaborate on resumes
• Share and create events
• Share and document corporate history
• Share new business opportunities for the company and alumni

Please spread the word.

Asymmetrical Follow and Privacy

James Governor is right to highlight Asymmetrical Follow as a core social software design pattern.

Asymmetric Follow is a core pattern for Web 2.0, in which a social network user can have many people following them without a need for reciprocity. Asymmetric Follow is unlike email for example, which tends to be within small groups, with all users knowing each other (newsletters are a clear exception here). If you see a social network where someone has 5000 followers and only follows 150 back - that’s Asymmetric Follow.

His post explores the concept I've described as pull attention management vs. push (email), and gets enterprisey with @jobsworth:

...The technical approach that is most appropriate to support Asymmetrical Follow is well known in the world of high scale enterprise messaging- its called Publish And Subscribe.

But Publish and Subscribe also talks to the social aspects of Asymmetrical Follow. As @Jobsworth puts it:

“I think we would be far better off considering Twitter as neither Pull nor Push, but instead as Pub-Sub, as Publish-Subscribe. The first and most beautiful thing about Twitter, as far as I am concerned, is that I only see the tweets of people I follow, people whose tweets I subscribe to. It is up to me to decide how many people I can follow. For some people this may be a Dunbar number, stabilising around 150, perhaps finding a Twitter adjustment to that number and raising it. Others may be Scoblesque in their reach, dissatisfied unless they push the 5000 limit (as in Facebook; I must admit I have no idea what the Twitter limit is).

So one way of avoiding increasing noise levels is to avoid increasing the network beyond one’s capacity. I can choose to “follow” (or subscribe to tweets from) just as many people as I am able to cope with. This is not something you can do easily with BlackBerry or with e-mail in general.”

James explored further in his next post, getting Matt Biddulph to comment on if this pattern arose in Dopplr.

This graph shows the distribution of how many people share with more people than share with them, or vice versa. The hump is slightly higher on the right, indicating that there’s a bias towards sharing with more people than share back.

The peak is centred on zero, indicating that the average traveller shares with about the same number of people that share with them.

I think the hump is on the right because Dopplr is private by default, while Twitter is public by default. Defaults matter for social dynamics than any other designer intent.

With a default-private network, you share as a gesture, perhaps in hopes of getting sharing back to form a confirmed tie.  With a default-public network, you share by default, and you follow as a commitment of attention. With default-public, the hump is on the left, in the form of a power law. Both networks follow the Asymmetric Follow pattern, but they have different defaults reflecting the nature of the objects shared and how people socialized around them.

Socialtext also employs Asymmetric Follow, where people follow other people's Update Feeds to subscribe to events like edits, posts, comments and tags.  I actually think Asymmetric Follow emerged as a pattern designed for adoption, when you consider the alternative -- requiring a confirmed tie before sharing information.

One thing I've found fascinating about how this pattern works out in an organization, with its pre-existing social network and context, is what you can learn about someone from how attention is spent by them and to them.

To the right is how this feature shows up on a Profile in Socialtext People. Unlike Twitter, we needed to make it visually easy to discover who is following who (Adina would describe the design decisions better than me). What I can say is one of the greatest values is on-boarding new employees.  Being a new employee is joining a new social network and the greatest challenge is understanding how information actually flows and how work actually gets done.  By having a default-public network like this in place, on-boarding is accelerated and the strength of weak ties is leveraged.

Side note: yes, this should have been two blog posts

Breaking the Glass Silo

Establishing ties and communication across silos is a goal of many of my customers.  Unfortunately, most companies have information flowing up and command flowing down with only executives coordinating across departments.  Communication (and Coordination?) in a Modern, Complex Organization, a new HBS working paper by Adam M. Kleinbaum, Toby E. Stuart, and  Michael L. Tushman combs through millions of emails, calendar entries and teleconferences in a large enterprise to reveal some patterns of working across organizational, spatial and geographic boundaries:

• Communication is heavily constrained by formal organizational structure: the vast majority of communication occurs within business unit and functional boundaries, not across them. This points to the importance of drawing the right organizational boundaries.
• Women, mid- to high-level executives, and members of the executive management, sales, and marketing functions are most likely to participate in cross-group communications.
• These individuals provide a bridge for distant groups in a company's social structure.

At the Enterprise 2.0 Open sessions a frequent question was if there were any gender differences to be considered for implementation and adoption.  This research indicates that women are more apt to bridge. 

Some of our better champions are women that work across these boundaries.  And even better, its our job to help them succeed and get promoted.

Networks don't have people. People have networks.

"Networks don't have people.  People have networks." - Demian Entrekin

Christopher Carfi shared this quote, which really resonates with me, not just 'cause its made of people.  He goes on to make this point:

The right point of integration is around the individual.  Each of us is the center of our own universe.

Here's some related Soylent Green.

LinkedIn Company Profiles: Group Identity Gone Wild

LinkedIn launched Company Profiles today, something I've been looking forward to for some time.  This could not only be a great research tool for users, but I think is a sign of things to come. 

We haven't seen great expressions of group identities within social networking.  With this example you can see the potential of aggregating individual activity, profiles and external sources around a group identity.  Hack the URL's number to discover others until the full release.

Recall that Reed's Law of Group forming says that the value of the network is the number of groups (2 to the Nth), because of all the combinatorial connection potential between members of those groups.  Providing a group identity and exposing individuals for potential connection accelerates weak tie discovery and group forming.

We may get an new PR issue to explore with this.  The profiles are trademarked brands that have been created not by the company, but by individuals.  In part by employees, in part by past employees.  Brand Managers will have to get used to the role employees have in brand definition. 

Features like New Hires and Promotions and Changes bring new transparency to HR that may be as shocking to certain corporate mindsets as when Facebook introduced Mini Feeds.  I've always said that while social software may get you laid, enterprise social software helps you get promoted.  Now it tells the world if you or your colleague does.

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Social Software

Gartner Research released the first Magic Quadrant report on the Enterprise Social Software market this week.

This is a pretty big milestone in the development of the Enterprise 2.0 category at-large.  Just a few years ago, the only analysts covering the space were blogalysts.  Now, perhaps the most rigorous and influential vendor analyst reports in enterprise software says it really is enterprise software. The analysis rightly says we all have work to do.

It also says that Socialtext is the most visionary provider and behind only Microsoft, BEA and IBM in execution.  This tells me that if we want to be the leader we need to demonstrate better execution (mind you, I'm not taking out IBM next year, but it is good feedback).  SuiteTwo, of which we are a core component, also scored well in vision but has a way to go in execution.

Social Networking Spam & Privacy

If you are like the many people getting Quechup invitation spam, consider how it relates to the serious privacy problems with Social Networking.  Quechup automatically imports your Gmail contacts and spams them when you register for their YASNS.  If Bob signs up for it, he is opting into the graph, but he doesn't opt in to spamming Sally.  Sally is included in the graph, whether she opts in to register or not.  Over time, even if Sally resists, she is modeled as a node in the graph. 

At first, this doesn't seem to matter.  But if Bob adds relationship details like they are dating, and then her husband John opts into the graph and adds the detail they are married, you get the idea.  But it is far worse, when the value of the network isn't the relationships, but simply the contact information.  This is the case with enterprise social networking, particularly for sales.  Many don't realize that Jigsaw actually pays people for submitting business cards of people they have met.  Yes, there are financial incentives for people to register you into graphs without your knowledge.  I'm seriously considering copywriting my contact information (Stowe Boyd suggested via twitter when I was exploring other ways of suing evil social networks).

The fundamental privacy problem is that social networks grow virally by adding you to a graph without asking you to opt in.  Once you are in the graph, it may be hard for you to know you are in, let alone opt out (Spoke, you may recall, did this purposely).  You are modeled without your control over social context, and identity and relationship data can be layered on top of you as a node.  Not all data may be available to users, but more will to developers and all will to the social network service providers.  Providers come in all stripes and you not only have to concern yourself with their ethical business practices, but the basic of security.  Opening the graph to third party developers based on open standards is a laudable effort to solve one social graph problem.  But the privacy concern of governance and oversight over those third party developers who have access to more data than users is uncharted.

Now, we have a very loose definition of privacy, particularly in the US.  And the odds of a constitutional amendment are slim.  But this is a new and increasingly popular risk to your right to privacy that unfortunately is not popular in understanding.

UPDATE: Someone pointed me to this Rapleaf public profile which I never opted into.  Rapleaf has a decent privacy policy, but it is unclear if by emailing them to opt-out I become a user.  And if I register to manage my public profile I certainly become a user "We use this information to process registrations, contact our users, and to provide our services."  Auren Hoffman is behind Rapleaf, is very conscious of these issues and will probably clarify.  But there is an interesting facet about public profiles people don't opt into.  Great for SEO marketing and extortion signups.

UPDATE: Facebook opens to public profile search.  Guess I'll change my profile picture from the one of me partying like a rock star.  Also, copyrighting my contact info is a no go, perhaps I'll trademark it and me.

UPDATE: danah says:

I'm also befuddled by the slippery slope of Facebook. Today, they announced public search listings on Facebook. I'm utterly fascinated by how people talk about Facebook as being more private, more secure than MySpace. By default, people's FB profiles are only available to their network. Join a City network and your profile is far more open than you realize. Accept the default search listings and you're findable on Google. The default is far beyond friends-only and locking a FB profile down to friends-only takes dozens of clicks in numerous different locations. Plus, you never can really tell because if you join a new network, everything is by-default open to that network (including your IM and phone number). To make matters weirder, if you install an App, you give the creator access to all of your profile data (no one reads those checkboxes anyhow). Most people never touch the defaults, meaning that they are far more exposed on Facebook than they realize. zrven a college network is not that secure. MySpace on the other hand is rather simple: public or friends-only. Friends-only is far more secure than the defaults on Facebook. And public is well-understood to mean anyone could access it (and often this is the goal). But I know all too well that privacy has nothing to do with reality - it's all about perception. And Facebook *feels* more secure than MySpace, even if it's not. Still, I can't wait to see how a generation of college students feel about their FB profile appearing at the top of Google searches. That outta make them feel good about socializing there. Not.

It seems odd to me that Facebook is doing all sorts of things to go against what gave them such strength: group support for people who wanted to gather around a particular activity, tightly controlled privacy defaults, and simple/clean profiles (which have been made utterly gaudy by Apps). I think I'm missing the logic here. ::scratching forehead::

UPDATE: Auren Hoffman, in comments:

Ross -- thanks for the shout-out on Rapleaf. Anyone can opt-out of Rapleaf (and you do not become a user). We do have a bunch of people that opt-out every day. We also have many people that choose to only display some of their information (like just hiding their age or gender). There are many public profiles about people on the Internet (ZoomInfo, Spock, Wink, Rapleaf, and others) … at Rapleaf, our goal is give people the opportunity to manage their privacy and numerous online profiles and control what people see about them. Of course, we're a start-up (and thus not perfect) … so we really welcome your suggestions on how to improve.

Social Technographics and a Power Law of Participation

Charlene Li at Forrester just came out with a report on Social Technographics that surveyed user engagement.  The framework is very similar to my Power Law of Participation, but it is an entirely different thing to have some data behind it.

I haven't seen the report itself, but Steve Rubel says "this is the first report I have seen that really delves into what drives and motivates people to engage with the web."  I'll get a copy of it and see.

But I still contend that a more ideal community is scale free in structure.  What I wonder is if you could benchmark these levels of engagement against a power law -- not just to test Forrester's findings, but to help a given company realize -- "we are under-weighted in critics!"

UPDATE: I got a copy of the report, which is a pragmatic approach that starts by valuing different kinds of participation.  A given site could survey its users to understand existing psychodemographic profiles, then review participation points.  It may discover latent potential in the Creator category and create a participation point for them.  How the profiles vary by age is interesting:

• Teenagers create more than any other generation. Youth between 12 and 17 years old are avid
  users of Social Computing technologies, with more than one-third engaging as Creators. But
  this is a fairly self-centered age group ― while very likely to create their own content, they are
  less likely than Gen Yers to be Critics and Collectors...
• Joiners dominate Gen Yers. While this age group has higher percentages in each category than
  every other age group (except for youth Creators), it’s their sky-high participation in social
  networks that stands out. In fact, there are slightly more Joiners than Spectators ― meaning
  that Gen Yers are less likely to passively read, watch, or listen to social media, even when it’s
  created by their peers...
• Gen X Spectators form the foundation for future participation. While signi?cantly fewer
  members of Gen X are at the top of the participation ladder, that four out of 10 are already
  using social media as Spectators means that they are well positioned to take the next step...

Also note that Creators self-identify themselves as leaders (38% say "I am a natural leader") than any other group, and those who participate in social software are greater influencers (Active categories range from 52-56% saying "I often tell my friends about products that interest me, compared to 33% for Inactives).

UPDATE: Phil Wolff's remix is seriously funny:

Widgets are the battering ram for social networking sandcastles

When on a social networking panel last week I said something that can be seen as stupid or insightful.  Widgets are the battering ram for social networking sandcastles.

Since inception, social networking services have been islands amidst the web.  Early calls for interop and identity ownership didn't lead to results, even with Marc Canter barking "FOAF" at every event.  Meta-networks make sense in theory, but not as a business like many things meta.  Trending towards P2P or personal ownership through client or service is even more ideal, but such decentralization never took root.

Perhaps something is happening now.  With the rise to traffic and time prominence of MySpace, entrepreneurs and hackers worked their way into the system, because, well, there is no thing as a closed system.  Widgets started to appear.  Most notably, the YouTube widget made its way enough to build a $1B business, depending on how you measure, before MySpace caught on to the video opportunity they were giving away.  But the next YouTube wont be video, and stuff comes from all angles when users are empowered to paste Javascript.  Smaller players will make this even easier, with wizards to add widgets.  And the blogosphere from which all this independently froths will keep driving the widget economy. 

This is the walled garden under siege by gophers.  No, not those gophers, but the ones that tunnel in a thousand directions and drive Bill Murray nuts. People will discover new services wherever the traffic and time is. Some services may overlay social networking as a service, like MyBlogLog does with a degree of execution. Attention follows. Value shifts to networks that provide both the right attention, openness and composition. My bet is a derivative of blogs.

The Wikinomics Playbook

UPDATE: An interesting related project by Penguin Books is A Million Penguins, letting anyone edit a book to be published.  The wiki is down at the moment, but PaidContent notes it began with “It had snowed, and was now raining. Gritty slush covered the pavement. Sharp crystals of snow decorated grass.”  Reuters notes the challenge is finding “believable fictional voice” within the mass collaboration.  This was a big challenge for group editing of the Wired Wiki story.

The last chapter of Don Tapscott's new book, Wikinomics, invites readers to write it: “Join us in peer producing the definitive guide to the twenty-first-century corporation on www.wikinomics.com.”  Today we launched a Socialtext wiki for the Wikinomics Playbook, where people can not only learn about the power of mass collaboration, but participate in it.  The book is already one of the fastest selling business titles and is an excellent primer on how models of collaboration are unfolding from open source to blogging to wikis in the enterprise to enable people to participate in the economy like never before.

The second to last chapter is about enterprise wikis.  Half of it discusses how Best Buy is using a wiki knowledge-base for the Geek Squad.  The other half is an interview with yours truly and shares some of Socialtext's success stories. The first chapter is available online as a pdf.

 

This is a great example of how a book can be augmented with a wiki, as most books are out of date by the time they are published, never quite finished and have the potential for participation. Last month we helped Larry Lessig share the entire Code 2.0 book in a wiki.  I expect that soon such commons-peer production, a wiki for every book, will be common.