In an earlier post I mentioned that Jonathan Burns and myself were given permission to blog about a web 2.0 value disruption project that is currently underway.  This post is number three in a series that is expected to run until mid May.

Previous value-disruption project posts

1. Introduction
2. Project Scope

We often hear about the generational divide that exists when discussing web 2.0.  Those under 35 or so, live social networking and therefore get it.  Many of  those over 35 find social networking strange and don’t understand where and why it’s useful.

With that in mind Jonathan and I have been watching the reaction of the participants in this project to determine the degree to which this phenomenon is playing itself out.

After 60 days my assessment is that this phenomenon is somewhat valid, but with other more important drivers at play.

It’s been true that older generations struggle with what this web 2.0 project is all about.  For example:

• Older participants, especially outside the core team in the wiki collaboration project are not participating in the 3 wiki trials with the same vigor as younger participants.
• We are using a project wiki ourselves to manage the project.  Some of the older participants need more hand-holding to get them up and running.
• When discussing potential applications the younger generation is able to forecast how they and others can use it quickly.  The older ones, not so much.

On the other hand, there are participants in their 50s and older who are right in there.   They are engaged, enthusiastic, and running experiments such as trial blogs, mini collaboration projects, or notification groups with micro-blogging.  And they can forecast how it will benefit them as good or better than some younger folks.  Furthermore there are employees in their 20s who are showing no interest whatsoever.

So what gives?  What really distinguishes between those who are engaged and those who are not.  Is it really age that drives engagement with Web 2.0?

My take on the generation divide

While it has some validity I don’t think that’s the key driver.  From watching this diverse group of employees I believe two others drivers are just as important in determining who is engaged and who is not.

1. Their level of curiosity
2. They see a personal return

Level of Curiosity

You know these kinds of folks.  They are always curious.  They are the ones that watch documentaries and provide historical anecdotes in conversations at parties.  So when something new comes along it provides them a way to feed their curiosity.  That’s why there are great-grandmothers out there in their late 80′s in local community centers teaching Microsoft Word and PowerPoint  to recently retired executives (my mother).  I’ve noticed this characteristic is prevalent in those with high levels of engagement in this project.  Curious people are just more comfortable dealing with the ambiguities and uncertainty of a value-disruption project.  However, curiosity only partially predicts engagement.

See a Personal Return

Curiosity by itself  isn’t enough.  People who are deeply engaged also see a personal return.  They perceive that what they are working on will directly impact them and provide them some kind of personal work-benefit.  For example, greater recognition, faster access to experts, easier tracking of documents, whatever.  When a team member sees a direct correlation between what they are working on and how it will benefit their specific situation, engagement goes up.

So, my take is that curiosity and personal returns are far more predictive than age in determining who will be attracted to web 2.0 in the workplace.

Implications

Here are four implications I see.

1. When populating your innovation team, whether web 2.0 or other, make sure you have a good mixture of curious people.
2. Screen the team to ensure they have a  personal stake in success.  Explicitly uncover what will it mean to them.
3. Extending that idea further, share the personal returns amongst team members.  When John understands why Jeanille is attracted to the project he can make subtle changes to his team interactions and deliverables to support what Jeanille is looking for, and vice versa.
4. On a consistent basis during reviews ask people to share their greatest learning, even if it doesn’t directly support the project deliverables.   This sharing of learning will reinforce their drive for curiosity and indirectly, their engagement.

Your thoughts

• What is your experience on web 2.0 and the age divide?
• What effects of curiosity and personal return have you seen on your projects?

Thanks you for visiting http://www.ennova.ca