In my post “Institutionalizing Enteprise2.0”, I asked:
If one believes that you can lead from the bottom (ala emergence/SIP), then why is it the many people suggest that "getting management support" is a key to success to an emergent model?
“Getting management support”, in my opinion, is a tip of the hat to the standard, hierarchical model which has built in mechanisms to drive usage and awareness. For emergence practitioners to be successful, it is in their best interest to stimulate rapid usage and maximum awareness as a means for users to accept the benefits that the practitioners know to exist. It also is a means to get some level of agreement that the vision of the practitioners serves business goals. And, it can be looked at as getting an okay to lead from the bottom, or as a means to avoid negative management support that could easily kill or stall the initiative over the long run
It appears to me that the management support of an emergence model is a hybrid collaborative approach that is an agreement between practitioners in two different models. When an emergent model is coupled with management support, one gains benefit of both models, that together, offers the best chance of success.
The request recognizes that there are benefits that exist in the standard model that can be leveraged to introduce a SIP or MIP model. The request may also recognize that there are built in organizational barriers to viral spreading that could limit the reach of deployment.
Lastly, I believe that leading from the top does not necessarily lead to success, and that leading from the bottom is more likely to result in success, since participation is a choice, not a directive. In short, “It’s mine.”
For a related content, check out the previous post “Is Management the Problem? “
Comments