drawing the line

networking is all the rage these days. it seems like it doesn't really matter what you can do on your own, as long as you have a powerful "network," you' re all set. of course this isn't entirely true, but there is some merit behind the thought.

as the networking movement has become so strong, companies are now looking to leverage the networks of their employees to help the organization as a whole. previously the most valuable feature of a network outside your own company was the ability to find another job, but now it is more of an internal business asset. companies are relying on these networks to generate sales leads and suddenly everyone from r&d to accounting is a part of the sales force.

in a small organization where there is a lot of interaction between co-workers, these networks may be easily exposed, but in large companies, co-workers sometime have no idea about their resources. my favorite comparison was the needle in a haystack. the sales lead was obviously the needle and all the other employees were the haystack.

now technology has been developed to find the needle. the biggest obstacle is whether or not employees are willing to submit to this technology. do they want to share their network of resources? the overriding theme is that, sooner or later, they won't really have much of a choice and corporations will milk them for every ounce of their worth beyond their actual job functions.

as a leader, i think it is necessary to be able to use the resources of your employees. it can obviously make the difference between negotiating a successful deal or coming up just short. as the subordinate, however, i would be more reluctant to share in some cases. these are connections that you made and if you are cut out as the kind of middle man in the whole process, your value to the business has decreased greatly.

i guess the key is to continue making connections and show that your network is large enough that you will always be an asset to the business.

it all comes down to...

everybody is on a team these days. everything is accomplished with collaboration. those sound like great ideas. and they really can be.
anyways, now the debate shifts not on whether or not to work on teams, but how to work on teams.

business has demanded collaborative online technology. it can make existing processes more efficient and highlight new collaborations that were cost prohibitive before. how can we make these virtual teams a winner? the answer is by making them as technologically advanced as possible, but at the same time, trying to keep as many elements of a real life team meeting as possible.

to win over those reluctant to go virtual, they need to be convinced there are many positives and few drawbacks. that is--virtual teams are cheaper and can lead to better ideas by exploiting new relationships. these are a new type of relationships though. they are all business. it is an environment where only the most productive will thrive and only the most efficient methods of communication are embraced.

and to those concerned about less face-to-face time, you can meet some co-workers outside of work at a nice restaurant because you will have saved time and increased the bottom line. oh, you say you won't because you didn't actually like those people in the first place? exactly.
change can be tough, but it must be embraced. those who are the most successful are simply the most adaptable.

digg this

so this post is a little late, and honestly, i wasn't even going to write it until last night something really got me thinking.
i am a huge sports fan. i'm a lot more interested in the score of some obscure football or basketball game than some new website technology. as i was reading through things about digg and other sites like it, i felt really taken aback. i had heard of digg, but i had no idea how to use it or no idea there were so many even more advanced sites similar to it. i felt like i really was missing out on something big. then, last night i sat down to watch my beloved buffalo bills take on the cowboys for our first home monday night football game in 13 years.
the bills lost the game 25-24. sure anyone could see those numbers posted on one of a million websites this morning. they could use RSS readers and all kinds of other things to check out articles and blog posts about the game from around the world. but for those three plus hours that the game was on, people like me watching were taken on an unmatched emotional rollercoaster ride. there was jubilation, disappointment, shock, awe, sadness and elation. the range of human emotion was stretched to the limit and then pulled a few more inches.
no matter how much you read about it or how many highlights you watched, there is no substitute for being a part of that experience while it happened. i guess it's almost hypocritical for me to say that because i only watched the game on TV. the 74,000+ actually at the game got the true feeling. you do forge some powerful connections with those watching the game with you so i must say. i always feel connected to everyone watching actually. but anyways, the point is, the most exciting parts of life are things that can be felt. raw emotion. it can be awesome, it can be heartbreaking. often times it's a bit of both. this is what makes us human. those numb to this are really missing out. so, in conclusion, technology is great. it makes the impossible possible so many times it seems, but the bottom line is, there is simply so substitute for the human experience and connecting with others in a head-on collision of feelings and emotion.

my mentor is 3-D dog...

first off, i applaud those who made real fortunes playing second life. obviously these are the minority and most people just tossed in some money for the chance to feel like real estate moguls. or i guess fake estate moguls. anyways, i think it's a great idea and i totally support people playing the game. i like the entrepreneurial spirit it promotes and the constant quest to find new ways to make money. the chance to earn actual money on a lower-risk basis because of the exchange rate also makes it more appealing and more accessible.

that being said, i think it is best-suited for individuals. companies get involved because of the obvious profit and promotion opportunities, but i don't see the involvement having large-scale effectiveness. sure, the 'islands' or online stores could work for some, but most just are not the right fit for SL (as evidenced by abandonment of several corporate SL ventures).
this is because i don't think many people would want to spend real money on something that they could realistically purchase in the physical world...like American Apparel clothes for instance. the real appeal is in building houses or trying to work interesting jobs...escapes from reality.

finally, the idea of using secondlife as a learning tool makes me sick. maybe it's because IBM is a technology company and things are run a little different than I may be accustomed to, but if upon getting a job i was told to create a secondlife account to learn about the way the company works I would not handle it well. like I said, i have no problem with secondlife as a competitve, money-making game, but it should not be a substitute for real life experience. come on guys.