</object>
Have a great Christmas!
Today's biggest human challenge isn't leading broken organizations slightly better. It's building better organizations in the first place. It isn't about leadership: it's about "buildership".
Umair Haque has made a new manifesto "The Builders": http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/12/the_builders_manifesto.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness%2Fhaque+%28Umair+Haque+on+HarvardBusiness.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
He goes on to list ten principles to become one:
Ten principles of Constructivism (contrasted with these principles of leadership).
- The boss drives group members; the leader coaches them. The Builder learns from them.
- The boss depends upon authority; the leader on good will. The Builder depends on good.
- The boss inspires fear; the leader inspires enthusiasm. The Builder is inspired — by changing the world.
- The boss says "I"; the leader says "we". The Builder says "all" — people, communities, and society.
- The boss assigns the task, the leader sets the pace. The Builder sees the outcome.
- The boss says, "Get there on time;" the leader gets there ahead of time. The Builder makes sure "getting there" matters.
- The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown; the leader fixes the breakdown. The Builder prevents the breakdown.
- The boss knows how; the leader shows how. The Builder shows why.
- The boss makes work a drudgery; the leader makes work a game. The Builder organizes love, not work.
- The boss says, "Go;" the leader says, "Let's go." The Builder says: "come."
“An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way.
An artist says a hard thing in a simple way.”
- Charles Bukowski
PS. Thanks to my friend Jonathan S-B for the quote, made my day.
I am a fan of John W Willshires analogy about fireworks and bonfires. Here´s a presentation about measuring social projects.
<div style="width:425px;text-align:left" id="__ss_2689586">Bonfires, Sid Meier, Ice Cube & The Wire
</object><div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more presentations from John V Willshire.</div></div>
I am a fan of John W Willshires analogy about fireworks and bonfires. Here´s a presentation about measuring social projects.
<div style="width:425px;text-align:left" id="__ss_2689586">Bonfires, Sid Meier, Ice Cube & The Wire
</object><div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more presentations from John V Willshire.</div></div>
Psychologists at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University found that professional artists and poets have about twice as many sexual partners as other people. I wonder how this relates to people in relationships?
An interesting post about Facebook Fan Pages on Techcrunch. Numbers from Sysomos. The question that the post raised for me was: How can you update a Facebook Fan page only once every 16 days? If you want to succeed with a Facebook fan page you need to continuously engage with valuable content/posts that people want and wants to spread to their friends or new friends. That´s how you grow a database that´s immensely valuable for your ongoing strategy. And it´s best when kickstarted with your paid media placement. Key numbers of Facebook Fan Pages: 77% have under 1.000 fans
95% have more than 100 fans
23% have more than 1.000 fans
4% have more than 10.000 fans Categories are evenly distributed. Vin Diesel has 7 million fans vs Ashton Kutcher has 4 million followers on twitter. Obama has 6.9 million fans vs 2.75 followers on twitter.
"It´s not easy being popluar on Facebook" http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/28/facebook-fan-pages-77-percent/
95% have more than 100 fans
23% have more than 1.000 fans
4% have more than 10.000 fans Categories are evenly distributed. Vin Diesel has 7 million fans vs Ashton Kutcher has 4 million followers on twitter. Obama has 6.9 million fans vs 2.75 followers on twitter.
"It´s not easy being popluar on Facebook" http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/28/facebook-fan-pages-77-percent/
I started to ask on Twitter: Is personas(scenarios) of any worth today? @daria and @bodamgaard responded that we still do, but need to fit the shift from the transaction to the engagement economy. Whereas I replied that in the attention economy, where content of the real-time web is people. Why not use buzz search instead of personas? @johanhal replied that he failed to se how buzz search replaces peronas.
@daria thinks buzz is one puzzle in the person picture/life.
Thinking out loud here. Communication is key. What people communicate to their friends, families and new friends. So if you as a brand want to launch something, you would want to either increase their ability to communicate with each other or give them something of value that enables them to strengthen their existing relationships or build new ones. When you have the ability, to some extent, to get a picture of who, where and what with whom people are communicating. What do you need abstract personas for when creating a product? Why not launch in alpha together with the people you try to engage, based on the insights from your buzz search? Design it together with their input? In my head this seems to be a much better way of ensuring success of a product. Perhaps personas harms the prioritizing of features. Why limit it to 10 people when you can do it continuously with your community? Perhaps personas is too much depending of who create them. Is Personas supposed to be a tool for communicating user research findings? I see that Personas can be great for aiding in the development of a concept before starting producing. But a buzz search can give you many valuable answers that can help prevent costly mistakes. And maybe a prototype/sketch would be better? Sure Personas can give you some a-ha experiences, but I am just thinking that 10 people, that´s just not sufficient. What´s your opinion? How would you use Personas?
@daria thinks buzz is one puzzle in the person picture/life.
Thinking out loud here. Communication is key. What people communicate to their friends, families and new friends. So if you as a brand want to launch something, you would want to either increase their ability to communicate with each other or give them something of value that enables them to strengthen their existing relationships or build new ones. When you have the ability, to some extent, to get a picture of who, where and what with whom people are communicating. What do you need abstract personas for when creating a product? Why not launch in alpha together with the people you try to engage, based on the insights from your buzz search? Design it together with their input? In my head this seems to be a much better way of ensuring success of a product. Perhaps personas harms the prioritizing of features. Why limit it to 10 people when you can do it continuously with your community? Perhaps personas is too much depending of who create them. Is Personas supposed to be a tool for communicating user research findings? I see that Personas can be great for aiding in the development of a concept before starting producing. But a buzz search can give you many valuable answers that can help prevent costly mistakes. And maybe a prototype/sketch would be better? Sure Personas can give you some a-ha experiences, but I am just thinking that 10 people, that´s just not sufficient. What´s your opinion? How would you use Personas?
By empowering individuals to access and control their identity across any site or service, through standards that enable data portability and open Web inter-operability.
Real-time "access" to someone's identity matters most, and it's no longer about data "capture."
Read more about it in Alisa Leonard-Hansen´s article on ReadWriteWeb;
The Future Is All About Context
My previous post about The Future For Brands On The Social Web: http://aresonance.posterous.com/the-future-for-brands-on-the-social-web-respo-0