A done-list; it’s not a to-do list.

I have recently come to the realisation that to-do lists are the status-quo. All my life people have been encouraging me to use them.

Problem: I have always rejected the idea of a to-do list.

To-do lists are like an urban legend; write down all the stuff you want to do and you will magically become more organised, more productive and more motivated.

I don’t deny that to-do lists work for some people. The most tangible benefit that I can see is the structure they create around a person’s day.

In attempt not to deny myself of this obvious benefit I have tried many times to keep a to-do list; in spite of this I cannot escape the feeling I get when I see one; which is kind of like seeing capital letters in a text message; a to-do list makes me feel like someone is YELLING AT ME, TELLING ME TO DO STUFF.

So, what is the alternative? I have started keeping a done-list.

Forget writing down a list of the things to-do; which, apart from being overwhelming, can bring about the feeling of under-accomplishment if not complete at the end of the specified time period.

Done-lists are completely different; writing things down are attached to the feeling of achievement and satisfaction. They are also more efficient; instead of writing a list and going back to it later to cross things off, you only have to write things down once; when they’re done!

Rather than compiling a list of New Year’s resolutions; keep a done list of accomplishments throughout the year. I’m tipping that the end of 2010 will be a lot more about celebrating achievements.

Kaleidoscope thinking.

Every situation, concept, relationship, business, purpose etc is interpreted differently based on the perception of the person observing it.

What you see is different to what I see; even if we are looking at the same thing.

I am a strong believer that discussion, debate and exposure to multiple perceptions enhances and refines thinking. However I have also noted that when two people’s perceptions are not aligned, an obvious disconnect occurs and very quickly there can become a hurdle or bottle neck in decision making and progression.

A term I have introduced into my vocabulary and dialogue with others is: kaleidoscope thinking.

Kaleidoscope thinking is a thinking process that refers to the understanding that situations, words, meanings, definitions etc look different to everybody and therefore you endeavor to perceive things through a kaleidoscopic lens.

The word kaleidoscope is borrowed from its traditional form that Google define says is: a complex pattern of constantly changing colors and shapes.

Kaleidoscope thinking is a diversion away from the words “they don’t get it”, encouraging people to perceive things from multiple view points and refine the way they communicate their perception.

Kaleidoscope thinking is colorful; patterns form, evolve, merge and they’re multi-dimensional.

There is no right or wrong. Everything just is.

Networks & communities; how they organise and the differences between them.

I have been thinking a lot recently about networks and communities, how they organise and the differences between them.

A community is a group of people who cluster together over a shared commonality, where a network is more an interconnected system.

Because communities cluster together over something common, like-mindedness occurs, rather than spending time explaining to others reasons why they believe and behave the way they do, people will start to communicate more frequently within rather than between communities.

Over time the community start to develop inside lingo, slang and eventually a whole set of complex symbols and behaviour that create gaps in the communication flow and connectedness between their community and others.

A network is the virtual infrastructure (or interconnected system) that bridges the emergent gaps in communication flow and connectedness between communities.

Communities are insular, networks connect them; allowing access to alternate opinions and behaviours, meaning broader initiative and synthesis of new ideas.

Communities happen; networks are developed and maintained.

Social Employer Branding.

It is not uncommon to visit the “about us” section of a company’s website and see a thread of words, typically put together by an executive team, dictating what the company is like to work for and its culture.

Social media and in particular, the conversations that people have online about work, adds another dimension to employer branding.  A company is no longer the value and culture set by the senior level in a corporate hierarchy; it is a collective of the personal brands of its employees.

Organisations are full of talented people. Social media creates a space where they have an opportunity to demonstrate their skill, explore areas of interests and share ideas and thoughts- all things that are tagged with passion, enthusiasm and authenticity.

Companies that empower the voice of their people through embracing social media have the best employer branding strategy; their company values and culture are organically projected through the personal brands of their employees in a way that is authentic.

I often hear of organisations concern around the lack of control of Social Media. To that, I say control breeds frustration.

White Stuff, a page on The White Agency’s website, is an awesome example of clever employer branding, it aggregates the twitter, delicious, flickr and blog streams of all of their employees.

Some examples of personal brands I follow are: Marek Wolski (MARK) on marketing, Ben Arnott (Suncorp) on collaboration and leadership and Ross Hill (Deloitte) on technology and the future of communities.

Celebrating the people inside an organisation is an authentic and self-organising approach to employer branding. Companies should embrace Social Media and in doing so empower the voice of their employees.

iPhone micropatronage; 38 days later.

I posted the chipin widget for my iphone on the 25^th October, exactly 38 days ago.

In that time there has been much micropatronage discussion, most of which is captured in an epic blog post by Zaana and the comments that follow.

The tension seems not-so-much around micropatronage as a model, but more so around my application of it; to support buying an iphone.

38 days on- this is what it looks like:

• 28% of total amount raised.
• $245 raised, $611 to go.
• 15 contributors in total.
• Highest contribution = $30.
• Lowest contribution = $5.
• Average contribution = $16.333.

What could happen next:

• Google analytics tells me that my blog has had 1093 hits (on average 27.32 / day) between the 25th October & today. 640 of those visitors are absolute unique visitors. On average, people spend 15:35 min on here, which suggests a high level of engagement. 640 visitors, minus 15 (assuming the 15 people that have already contributed have visited my blog), is 625

• I have 526 followers on twitter. 526 followers, minus 15 (assuming the 15 people that have already contributed follow me), is 511.

• I have 884 friends on facebook. 884 friends, minus 15 (assuming the 15 people that have already contributed are friends), is 869.

• If the average contribution dropped to $5 and the amount needed to reach the total is $611. 123 more people would need to contribute.

What I can’t wait for:

To be able to tell people that the world bought me an iphone.

If you would like to make a contribution, you can chipin here

Invitation to come & play on Yammer.

When I meet with people from companies and chat about how to use Social Media in business, I find myself talking a lot about Yammer.

Yammer is an internal company network and I am not in a company, so even though I refer to it, I’ve not had an opportunity to play with it.

I was pretty keen to get access to Yammer and have a play as I like to be fully across the tools that I am chatting to people about, which led me to the thought that I was likely not the only person working in Social Media that hasn’t had an opportunity to use Yammer. So I set up a Yammer network.

I bought my domain name through google apps and have up to 50 email addressees I can give away. The way Yammer works is that all users have to have an email address with the same domain e.g. joanne@joannepain.com, user2@joannespain.com, user3@joannespain.com (I can use up to 50).

About 12 people are signed up to the network so far.

If you are interested in coming to have a play on Yammer, or know of anybody who might be, email me.

Connectedness & functionality.

Connectedness is empowering. Being connected means having better access to information. Better access to information equals: quicker learning, through the ability to self-teach and multiple information sources rather than just one or two.

Social Media is the champion of connectedness.

What if we are limited by having 50% ownership of our connectedness? how does that effect functionality?

Consider the difference between facebook and twitter.

On facebook, you have 50% control of who you’re connected to. Once a friend request has been sent, the responsibility of connecting is transferred to the receiver, it’s then up to them to decide whether or not you will not be connected.

The difference with twitter (assuming that profiles are public) is that connections are one way. Each user has 100% ownership over who they are follow. This type of one-way connection is functional, it allows for us to very easily plug in and out of information as required.

Twitter is an information super-highway, it unlikely that you would ever be interested in (or could keep up with) all the information that is shared, so to filter that, you follow the people who share the information most relevant to you.

As your needs change- perhaps you change jobs, your interests evolve, or you change geographical location- the information you want access to will also change, the people you’re following will start to turnover, because you’re plugging out of what is no longer relevant and plugging into what is new.

One way connectedness is about functionality, it means being empowered to opt-in or out of information depending on its relevancy and interest to you.

If you took the twitter concept and applied the facebook 50%-ownership-over-connectedness model its function as an information super-highway would lose value. It would be constrained by two people needing to be mutually interested in each other’s information.

A few blog posts have popped up on this topic. My friend- Samantha Bell- wrote one recently called, “The “I can’t DM you cos you’re not following me anymore” problem” and a while back, Ross Hill, cleverly wrote about “Mob Mentality on Twitter”.

My point is: Connectedness and functionality. Consider the purpose of each- connectedness is great but having ownership over who you’re connected to makes it functional.

Innovation, business & social media.

Innovation comes from being social.

If great ideas are locked up in one persons mind, they are limited to that person’s sphere of thought. If they are opened up and socialised, then magic happens.

It is in conversation that great ideas are challenged, limitations that have not yet been considered are realised and collaboratively, great ideas are enhanced.

Social media is the perfect playground for innovation to happen.

There is so much discussion around about the marketing case for Social Media- engage with customers, listen to customer sentiment, build brand loyalty through authenticity etc.

What about the business case?

Allowing employees access to platforms such as twitter is like opening the door to global conversation. There are obvious benefits- a more engaged workforce, increased productivity etc- but even they are boring compared to the greatness that comes from collaboration, knowledge sharing and developing ideas with passionate people all over the world.

Be social. Let the conversation flow. Watch innovation happen.