For those who have read my about page or one of my previous posts, you’ll know that I dislike hierarchy. Thus, it would be a good bet that I prefer grass-roots activities as opposed to top-down actions. Notwithstanding your bet, I think that for the majority of current companies, a top-down approach to the promotion of social software is preferred. Does this sound paradoxical? I have heard that social software applications like wikis are creeping into companies via grass-roots efforts. Typically, you hear that a few geeks at the company adopt wiki or blogging software, then, with momentum, the applications begin to be used by others in the organization. This is great. Grass-roots rocks. I’d much rather see things get done this way than from a management directive. However, most companies have strong hierarchies. Its the status quo. So I question how effective grass-roots can be. Sure, perhaps an organization will decide to roll-out blogging company wide after a successful pilot by a small group of devotees, but will the other workers use it? I have a feeling that most company-wide investments in anarchic technologies fail to achieve significant adoption by users. I know that in my own organization this is glaringly the case. Would not user adoption be more likely if management gave some incentives (whether these motivations be carrots or sticks or both)? My practical nature tells me that in this instance, top-down is OK.
Practicality aside, I think that management promotion of social apps has a certain appeal, albeit an ironic one. How great would it be to see the people in power promoting something that presumably weakens their power? I love to see people sacrifice their power. Indeed, I would argue that sacrificing power is one of the most beautiful types of human action.
