« Too Much Information | Main | The Big Conversation »

March 05, 2008


Rex Lee

Passion is such a critical concept. I am big fan of Jim Collin's work. In "Good to Great" he explains that the role of leadership is NOT to motivate people. That if you have the right people with the right opportunity, they are self-motivated. Leadership is therefore about finding the right people and not letting them get de-motivated. My own personal experiences echo this ten-fold. In a conversation I had with my CIO, I expressed how working on one of our first large-scale social computing applications had to be one of the best experiences I've ever had. He asked why that was. And after some pondering, I explained because everyone that was on the team (which by the way were all volunteers) were there because they wanted to be there. It made those late 7PM meetings on a Friday night fun. This actually was the basis for some of the work we've now done in changing organizational structure and borrowing concepts of web 2.0 self-organization and applying it to enterprise 2.0.

If you're interested in it, you can read about that at my blog.


Dennis McDonald

Another important component is being able to share the passion with others on the team; this is certainly true in non-IT situations as well, I would think. This post has some related concepts: http://www.ddmcd.com/defining.html


interesting comments

the heart rises with sun over still and peaceful waters.

Be thou blessed.

Sean  ODriscoll

Can you forecast the "passion population" to know how you're doing? In external communities, we see about .005% of the unique population make up the most disproportionately passionate group of community contributors.

I know your work is focused on internal communities, so the comparitive math got me curious. 20-30 bloggers would suggest you have about 4000 - 6000 uniques thus far in your internal communities.

Does this math jive with your experiences inside the firewall. I don't think at this stage any firm conclusion could be taken from a yes or no, but curious how this normalizes over time. And of course blogging is only one type of contribution - at a mature stage, you could argue the "thin" contributors who are rating and ranking (filtering) all the UG content are as valuable if not more valuable than the "thick" contributors blogging and answering forum questions.

I've never seen a behavioral analysis of participation data that looks at inside the firewall community vs outside the firewall - it would be interesting to better look at this to become more predictive of expected impact of implementing recommended practices.


Sean  ODriscoll

of course now I just read your previous post that says you have about 3000 uniques - which with my math would suggest that you'd have 15 or so top notch bloggers. So you are either ahead of the curve with your internal push or yet to normalize as higher probability passionates are a slightly larger population of the first 3000 or so users. I don't know, but I am curious about this. Thanks for the posts, sorry I read backwards:)


Chuck Hollis

Now that you mention it, the ratios seem about right. Actually, we have more like 100+ bloggers (not all of the good bloggers), but maybe 20-30 who are good and have acquired audiences.

sean o'driscoll

thanks for looping that back. Interesting. Sounds like we might get to catch up in early April. Look forward to meeting.


Stuart G Hall

Be interested to know how you use software and comms tools to ensure 'the community' provides positive feedback to top contributors to help sustain their contributive passion?

HP Labs wrote a report on the importance of top contributors recently, which I've blogged: http://tinyurl.com/lrabcs


The comments to this entry are closed.