Q: How do we define Social Dynamics?

Thoughts: Social dynamics is the ability of a group of people, be it a society, a culture, an organization, a family or a team (at work), to successfully adapt to the nature of change in their system of function, purpose and governance.

What is very clear in the study of work is that the nature of performing work today has less “independence” in the activities leading to business results than in the past.  People need other people to complete their work, either from the standpoint of transactional work or creative thinking work.  The task delivery process of work (make this widget or fill this order) has been rebalanced with creative problem solving work process (solve this unique problem or create this unique solution).  Isn’t it telling that two of the most common work behaviors used to define work today are ‘collaboration’ and ‘innovation’?  Innovation can be, and is often, achieved by an individual working alone.  However, with the pace of change and the demands for results, innovation can be increased when exemplified within the social dynamics of a TEAM at work.  Collaboration and innovation involve superior levels of social dynamics, accentuating the need of a group of people to respond successfully to the nature of change to solve problems and create solutions.

Q: How do we measure the impact of Social Dynamics in our workplace?

Thoughts: Simply put, are people delivering results in their work with each other?  The interesting complexity of measuring results is that there are standard business limits for measuring success:

• ‘Money’: how much will it cost / how much profit will it make?
• ‘Time’: how long will it take?
• ‘Widgets’: what objects are produce?

These HARD measures do not fulfill measuring the impact of social dynamics in our current work models and workplaces.  What is needed to fulfill measuring the impact of social dynamics in our workplaces is a paradigm shift toward accepting the value of SOFT business measures:

• ‘People’: culture, brand, engagement in teamwork
• ‘Work Process’:  behaviors, complexity, dynamics of team interaction
• ‘Quality’:  risk taking, idea making, variability of results created

Often these soft measures are suggested to be “happiness” measures; “Are people happy in their work?”  Business falls short of actively embracing the impact of happiness in the social engagement of people at work.  Business language struggles with the intuitive nature of emotional measurement such as happiness. Yet there are inroads in business measuring the value of ‘individual engagement’ at work.  Engagement is equally as subjective a measure as happiness.  Since it is people who drive measurement, such as the CEO, the Board, the Shareholder, management, people may learn to care about the soft measures and react intuitively toward them. Only then can it be proven that measures of people, work process, and quality directly impact the quantitative measures of time and money.

To measure the impact of social dynamics in our workplace requires a paradigm shift in business language, and this shift is toward a rebalance of the soft measures of business with the quantitative measures of time, money and widgets.  Qualitative measures of the condition of being human can result in obtaining a fuller measure of the impact of social dynamics on the results of work.

We have much ground to cover to realize the ideas of qualitative business measures such as social dynamics.

Tags: people, quality, work process
Posted in People, Workplace