SMUG | Social Media University, Global (SMUG)

SMUG’s Basketball Team

In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, which I reviewed here, Patrick Lencioni highlights five characteristics of groups that have not become true teams. I said my next post would turn those dysfunctions upside down, and positively highlight characteristics of one of the most effective teams I’ve had the pleasure to observe.

In Lencioni’s leadership fable, his protagonist Katherine relates the story of her husband, a basketball coach, who benched a talented player who was focused on personal statistics instead of team results. Yet (or maybe therefore) his teams consistently had winning seasons, because of the synergy that comes from teamwork.

One way we keep the costs down for Social Media University, Global is by not having any athletic teams. Also, unlike our online university colleagues at the University of Phoenix, we haven’t paid millions for the naming rights to a football stadium.

But clearly, sports can be powerful for marketing. That’s why a major retailer paid $18.75 million in 1990 for the naming rights to the facility where SMUG’s adopted team will be playing its first-round game in the Minnesota State High School girls’ basketball tournament.

You see, your Chancellor has a daughter on the Austin, Minn. team. Rebekah Aase is a 6′ 1″ junior center for the Packers, who enter the state tournament with a 20-7 record. But she’s not the star of her team. There is no star for her team. This is not a team that relies on one player for a major portion of its points. Nine girls see regular action in every game, and six or seven of them have led the team in scoring in at least one game.

A gimmick defense like a box and one or a triangle and two is completely worthless against the Packers. A different player steps up each time to take the scoring load, as Jenny Fisher, Rebekah Aase and Kristina Vorpahl led the team in scoring in the Packers’ three tournament games. Brittney Gibson sank the three-point buzzer beater that clinched the state tournament berth after being scoreless for the first 33:58 of the game. And part of being a team is understanding that scoring isn’t the only way to contribute; for example, senior co-captain Tana Lukes had seven steals in the section semifinal win.

So here’s how the Packers have done it, and how they positively demonstrate the opposite of Lencioni’s dysfunctions.

Trust – When team members know that every other member has their best interests at heart, and a single overriding goal, they have freedom to fail and therefore freedom excel. The Austin girls know that they can step up to take a big shot without worrying that their teammates will criticize them if they miss. Coach Gary Peterson says this is the closest team he’s ever had. The girls all genuinely love their teammates.
Constructive Conflict – On a sports team, this probably pertains more to the coaches than to the players, but development of a winning game plan requires the coaching staff to brainstorm all the options and debate the best approach to use against a given opponent. As the plan is being implemented in practice, the players need to ask questions to be sure they are clear on how things should be done. And in the heat of the game, they can talk about what’s working and what isn’t, so the coaches benefit from their perspective. The leader, the head coach, needs to make the final decision, after weighing all of the input.
Commitment – Once a game plan has been created, everyone needs to be fully committed to execution. Even if it wasn’t what they would have decided individually, the only way a team can work effectively together is to completely commit. If anyone holds back and second-guesses, the plan won’t work.
Accountability – Team members and leaders need to hold each other accountable for keeping their commitments. When Rebekah is fronting the post, for instance, she needs to know she’ll have help on the back side defending the lob pass. And when the guards are aggressively pressuring the point guard, they need to know she’ll be patrolling the lane if the point penetrates.
Focus on Results – The Packers’ balanced scoring speaks for itself, that no one is putting individual results ahead of team success. As a result, they’ve reached a goal together that wouldn’t have been possible without exceptional teamwork.

Here are the video highlights (including Brittney’s Buzzer Beater) from the section title game:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B–7ygf_rA]

To see more about the Packers and an application of social media (specifically Facebook) as a sports booster club, visit the Packers’ fan group and read about why Facebook groups beat blogs for this purpose.

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: Book Review

Patrick Lencioni is now one of my favorite authors of business-related books. I previously reviewed his Silos, Politics and Turf Wars, and in the comments Val Sanford said The Five Dysfunctions of a Team had “transformed the leadership team in my previous company.” So I put it high on my Audible download list, for when my monthly credits became available.

In this leadership fable and the 40-minute theory discussion that follows, Lencioni outlines his model for what makes teams dysfunctional. In my next post, I will approach his five elements from a positive perspective, as they are exemplified by one of the best and truest teams I have every had the joy of observing.

Absence of of Trust. “This occurs when team members are reluctant to be vulnerable with one another and are unwilling to admit their mistakes, weaknesses or needs for help. Without a certain comfort level among team members, a foundation of trust is impossible. ” When team members are concerned that others will pounce on their weaknesses or mistakes, the trust needed for working together effectively is undermined.
Fear of Conflict. “Teams that are lacking on trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate about key issues, causing situations where team conflict can easily turn into veiled discussions and back channel comments. In a work setting where team members do not openly air their opinions, inferior decisions are the result.”
Lack of Commitment. “Without conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions, creating an environment where ambiguity prevails. Lack of direction and commitment can make employees, particularly star employees, disgruntled.”
Avoidance of Accountability. “When teams don’t commit to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven individuals hesitate to call their peers on actions and behaviors that may seem counterproductive to the overall good of the team.”
Inattention to Results. “Team members naturally tend to put their own needs (ego, career development, recognition, etc.) ahead of the collective goals of the team when individuals aren’t held accountable. If a team has lost sight of the need for achievement, the business ultimately suffers.”

This book is part of the core curriculum for Social Media University, Global not because it directly deals with social media, but because SMUG is about making practical business use of social media, because teamwork is essential to business success and because social media tools can greatly enhance teamwork and collaboration.

The social media tools themselves aren’t magic, though, and they’re not able to fix dysfunctional interpersonal relationships.

So, SMUG students, get this book! It’s well worth buying, but in keeping with our “everything is free” policy, you can check it out from a local library. And if you’re not yet a SMUG student, enroll now.

Engaging Key Stakeholders through Social Media

Today I had the pleasure of giving a presentation to MHSCN, the Minnesota Health Strategy and Communications Network. This also provided me an opportunity to try Slideshare.net, a service that is like YouTube for presentation decks, so that I can share the slides with those who attended (and anyone else.)

This was a great group, highly engaged and interested in the subject matter, which was using social media to engage employees and to communicate with outside stakeholders. It was a fun opportunity to offer a SMUG Extension Class. I hope lots of the MHSCN members will decide to enroll.

For those who attended, I would appreciate any feedback on the presentation, and would be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

Facebook 203: Security and Applications

Late last week I got a message from someone who wants to be known as “The Harmony Guy,” saying he had devised a method that could have been successful (eventually) in meeting the terms of the SMUG $100 Facebook Hacker Challenge. Harmony Guy is a social hacker of the “white hat” variety, as you’ll see in his blog, where he publicly exposes security flaws from social networking sites and urges the companies to fix them.

I learned a lot about Facebook security through my interaction with him, and if you click the (more) link, you will, too. Here’s what he said:

Continue reading “Facebook 203: Security and Applications”

“Free” and Higher Education = SMUG

Two recent blog posts that are required reading for SMUG students come from Chris Anderson and Jeff Jarvis. They explain why an institution like Social Media University, Global can exist (and much of what makes the rest of the Web work.)

Anderson (Editor-in-Chief of Wired and author of The Long Tail) has a link to his cover story in the current issue of the magazine. It’s called “Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business” and here’s an excerpt:

What does this mean for the notion of free? Well, just take one example. Last year, Yahoo announced that Yahoo Mail, its free webmail service, would provide unlimited storage. Just in case that wasn’t totally clear, that’s “unlimited” as in “infinite.” So the market price of online storage, at least for email, has now fallen to zero (see “Webmail Windfall”). And the stunning thing is that nobody was surprised; many had assumed infinite free storage was already the case.
For good reason: It’s now clear that practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis, at least as far as we consumers are concerned. Storage now joins bandwidth (YouTube: free) and processing power (Google: free) in the race to the bottom. Basic economics tells us that in a competitive market, price falls to the marginal cost. There’s never been a more competitive market than the Internet, and every day the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing.

Anderson’s article explains the proliferation of blogging tools like WordPress.com offering 3 gigabytes of storage, and unlimited bandwidth, for $0.00. As technology prices fall, the marginal cost of adding another user to the server farm becomes so close to zero as to become negligible.

From the consumer’s perspective, though, there is a huge difference between cheap and free. Give a product away and it can go viral. Charge a single cent for it and you’re in an entirely different business, one of clawing and scratching for every customer. The psychology of “free” is powerful indeed, as any marketer will tell you.

I’ve definitely found that to be the case as I talk to people about blogging, or joining Facebook or trying other social media tools. When I can tell them they can do anything they see on my blog without spending a penny, it takes away their excuses for inaction.

I can’t wait to get Anderson’s book when it’s published next year. I understand he’s working with the publisher on a method to make it available at no charge.

In his post from this afternoon, Google U, Jarvis explains the essence of Social Media University, Global:

Once you put all this together, students can self-organize with teachers and fellow students to learn what they want how and where they want. My hope is that this could finally lead to the lifelong education we keep nattering about but do little to actually support. And why don’t we? Because it doesn’t fit into the degree structure. And because self-organizing classes and education could cut academic institutions out of the their exclusive role in education.

So what if the degree structure is outmoded? What does a bachelor’s of arts really say you’re ready to do? Once you get a medical degree, if you practice, you’re required to take refreshers as the science changes. Shouldn’t we be offering journalists updates as new tools and opportunities emerge in their craft? (Short answer: yes.) And while on the example of journalists, what if it were easy for them to take a course in, say, accounting when they get assigned to the business section, or science when given the environmental beat? So rather than signing on for a one-time degree, what if I subscribe to education for life? Or what if the culture simply expects me to bone up because it’s so damned easy to (and I don’t have to go through tests and admissions and all that)?

This sounds a lot like what I said in my Message from the Chancellor. Credentialed learning certainly has its place. But SMUG is an institution for lifelong learners to get this refresher education Jarvis describes. He is focused on journalism, but I believe this kind of training being available on-line is absolutely essential for professionals working in communications, PR or marketing to keep their skills relevant.

As Anderson says, what makes this all possible is that the marginal cost for each additional user (or student) is practically zero. We’re up to 50 SMUG students now; if you’re interested in hands-on, practical training in social media, why not audit a few classes?