A Converted Skeptic is a Powerful Thing

Pre-S: I am at training this week for my firm.  I hope to post daily, but I unfortunately can’t make any promises.

I would think that most people who have actively fought the social-software-in-the-enterprise battle will tell you that we are really in the business of evangelizing.  It’s sad to say, but really what we are doing is akin to building a religion, winning over one convert at a time.

So last might, I heard a motivational speaker-type and he said something that caught my ear: A converted skeptic is a powerful thing.  And I don’t think that this applies to anything in business more than it does for social software in the enterprise.  As a trainer/blogger, I like to think that part of my job is to win converts; and yes, I often get people in my trainings that are just there because they are told to show up, not because they want to learn or perhaps change the way they work.  However, and I think many will agree, if you can manage to convince just 1 in 10 or so of these folks that social software is worth a shot, I believe that I’ve had a successful session.

So, I suppose Lipkin did his job.  I’m now motivated to take these people on in a conscious way.  Bring on the skeptics and I’ll try to send you away an enthusiastic believer.  Nobody tells a better story than the guy who can start, “Now I’m a major convert and I thought this stuff was all crap”.  Because in the end, I’m not going to be able to talk to everybody about social software (and since probably only about 10 people read this blog, none of which are in my organization), so I need to train an army of social software believers to do the evangelizing for me.

Training is Unimportant

A colleague of mine recently posed the question to the broader group at the social software conference I’m currently attending: “Why do we think training is so important?” His basic point was that, as a social software trainer, he’s lucky if 10% of users he trains actually touch the tool again.  Having trained a large number of users in social software as well, I am unfortunately and unhappily going to have to agree.

I’ll caveat this statement by saying that yes, it is totally possible that I am just not a good teacher.  I am not trained as an instructor, but I am one of the two foremost authorities on wikis in my company, so the role falls on me.  (That last sentence, especially the last half, scares me a bit).

ANYWAY, why are we in the enterprise convinced that training is so damn important when it comes to socializing and implementing Web 2.0?  There is no Wikipedia training class for new users to take before they start to contribute to articles.  Nobody ever taught Anil Dash or JP how to blog. So why is it that we have to teach Joe Consultant or Jill Manager how to do these things?

Well I think the answer is two fold.  One, I think it’s because we are stuck in the traditional integration mindset, where software training is a key component of unveiling a new capability to the enterprise.  Two, I think it’s because we actually do need training, but training of an entirely different kind.  It’s really about awareness: awareness of the tool, awareness of the benefits, and awareness of the change required to work in the new social software environment. Over the last few trainings that I’ve run, I’ve tried to adjust my training style/focus away from coding in the wiki towards talking about the benefits and such.

I tend to think that the benefits of social software are evident, when in actuality, they are not always clear.  Especially in the case of new implementations, where the content in these environments is really lacking and the value may be limited.  So where I see value in being able to connect what I’m thinking if I’m working in a wiki alone, others aren’t likely to do so without a clear demonstration of value.