Jan 30, 2013
There are three people who are pretty commonly in my car. They will go unnamed. One of them is pretty similar to me. She always knows where she is, which way is north, and can get around pretty well. The second has an idea, but has a tendency to say “left” when she really means “right.” The last, has no idea where she is at any point in time, and when her opinion is offered, everyone else chuckles and goes in the exact opposite direction. Basically, with passenger 1, you follow directions, passenger 2 you’d still be in the same state of doubt before and after the direction, and passenger 3 you know exactly where to go because that person is wrong 100% of the time. (She really is that bad by the way.)
When we’re interacting with social enterprise tools at work, it’s quite impossible to decide who to trust. In general, we’re dealing with hundreds or thousands of people that may be posting content to a particular group, and many of those are people we’ve never met. There are a couple of things we have to count on. The first is simply people we do know and have a degree of confidence in. The second is what I’ll call “authority.”
In most social enterprise tools, we can follow, buddy or otherwise mark certain people. The hope is that when these people interact with the social tool, we’ll automatically see the content they are creating. However, if we counted on this alone, we’d miss an awful lot of content that might be genuinely helpful to us. After all, if there are 300 people in a social group about Talent Management Process and you only know 25 people personally, then you’d be missing out on 90% of the content unless you go read everything daily.
So we get into authority. Let’s say that everyone in that group of 300 people post on an equal basis (same number of posts and post frequency over time). We’d have to have some way of measuring which contributors have the most useful things to say. The way we measure this is by “likes” and comments back. Basically if all 300 people each have 100 posts or comments, but only 10 people have 1000 “likes” or more, those 10 people should have a higher authority than the other 990. Let’s also say that a different 10 people had over 1000 comments on their content. Those 10 authors should also have more authority than the others.
If people’s content is “liked” then we assume some amount of value to that post. Similarly, if someone’s content is highly commented, then we assume there was a value to the discussion it generated. While the following rule is always true, we could think that likes infer that the person creates insight while comments infer a person who might be a data hub (or other similar hypothesis). Either way, the combination of these and other factors gives us an overall authority rating.
At the end of the day, trust, authority and who is contributing to the knowledge of the business is all about employee talent management. What we are actually identifying is who are the network hubs that allow people to find other people with information, and evaluating the information that is provided. What we are also doing is incentivising the sharing of information so that nobody is a knowledge “hoarder.” The reason social intelligence is so important to HR is it is one of the best ways of identifying the actual amounts of knowledge each person has. Thus, the equation adds a quantification of knowledge to their skills capabilities.
Unlike in my car where I know everyone, this gives me an idea in social tools who I should trust and who not to. At the end of the day, what it means is that the pure volume of content generated is not enough. You really have to prove the value of your content through the interaction with your peers in the community. Hopefully you don’t have people who chuckle at you and do the opposite.