{"id":938,"date":"2024-03-20T18:00:15","date_gmt":"2024-03-20T17:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tulipemedia.com\/?p=938"},"modified":"2024-04-06T16:03:05","modified_gmt":"2024-04-06T14:03:05","slug":"digitalize-brand-culture-structure-sales-marketing-hr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tulipemedia.com\/en\/digitaliser-marque-culture-structure-ventes-marketing-rh\/","title":{"rendered":"Structure and culture of innovation: how to digitalize an organization?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Once you have learned the basic techniques for communicate on social networks<\/a>, we are likely to find ourselves facing another problem. That of not being able to apply his ideas <\/strong>within a rigid organization which does not (yet) allow innovation by <\/strong>trial and error.<\/p>\n

In fact, it is necessary to have revolutionized the internal structure of the company, and to provide it with an internal culture allowing it to really try out social networks. This goes through various stages, which I will try to list for you here.<\/p>\n

Note: This chapter is the 8th in a series of course on Social Media, the summary of which can be found here<\/a><\/strong>, as well as of an Introduction to Management 2.0 course, the summary of which can be found here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Paradigm: tools for personal use have revolutionized the professional world<\/h2>\n

The starting point of the reflection (which has since been overused, we will come back to it) is the following: recognize that unlike a time when the computer or messaging were first invented by and for scientific or professional organizations before 'be implemented in individuals, today many tools that revolutionized businesses were first created for individuals<\/strong>. This subtlety must be understood by top management when we want to digitalize an organization.<\/p>\n

\"1946:
1946: ENIAC, the first computer ordered in 1942 by the American army, to carry out ballistic calculations.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Facebook is the most obvious example.\u00a0<\/span>Social networks focused on entertainment<\/strong> have for example inspired business social networks<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Personal Twitter accounts and Facebook profiles have pushed companies to create professional profiles for external communication.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the company must carry out monitoring what is emerging in terms of personal uses<\/strong>. This starting point leads to another reflection: that of recognizing that innovation can come from nowhere<\/strong>, without necessarily having been ordered or financed.<\/p>\n

Second postulate: not evolving is disappearing<\/h2>\n

New markets, new technologies, new challenges\u2026 many reasons push companies to evolve, whether through successive layers or through real revolutions. Not accepting the idea of change, or being afraid of it for reasons of stability, it is to be led to decrease<\/strong>, sooner or later.<\/p>\n

There is more than one obstacle that can push us not to begin a process of change. We must convince employees, decision-makers, customers, shareholders, stakeholders, public authorities, etc. In short, everything is done to discourage us from evolving<\/strong>, especially since change requires a cost that is energy-intensive, it is not necessarily something intuitive, especially when this change is initiated programmatically and not linked to survival. But the price to pay, represented by the effort to be made, can have unexpected benefits in terms of growth, profits, and efficiency.<\/p>\n

\"Darwin's
The Darwinist theory of "natural selection", which opposed Lamarck's "transformism"<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

We will therefore start from the postulate that an organization that wishes to implement a Social Media strategy<\/strong> and communicating on social networks is a business who must agree to innovate<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Be careful however, you must not simply innovate for the sake of innovation, but\u00a0meet a defined objective<\/strong>\u00a0(competitiveness, modernization, growth, conquering a new target, etc.). Innovation must respond to a defined strategy, just as it pushes us to define new strategies!<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. \u00bb<\/strong><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The external battle is first won internally<\/h2>\n

Become a social and digital brand<\/strong> does not just happen through stupid and mean communication on social platforms. The process must integrate a real (r)evolution<\/strong> in structure and culture internal<\/strong> of the company so that the magic takes place.<\/p>\n

There digitalization of points of sale<\/strong> or the customer relationship<\/strong> first go through an internal audit of the company culture and its structure, in order to find out if the organization can support digitalization. Because for it to be able to support projects, it must have integrated the interest of digital and to have taken a liking to it<\/strong>. Let us first look at the theoretical path that a typically hierarchical company should follow to adapt its organization to current managerial methods.<\/p>\n

From a mechanistic bureaucracy to a Mintzberg-style adhocracy<\/h3>\n

Henry Mintzberg<\/strong>, born in 1939, engineer by training, is a professor at McGill University in Montreal. He is the main representative of the school of contingency<\/strong>, which is a current attached to the organization theory<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The contingency school attempts to explain the influence that variables linked to the environment have on the organization. The structure of the organization would therefore depend on the nature of the environment<\/strong>. Furthermore, Henri Mintzberg explains that the organization also results from goals that leaders set for themselves<\/strong>. In other words, in the contingency school, the organization is the product of external and internal forces.<\/p>\n

\"bureaucracy-mechanist-mintzberg\"
Mechanistic bureaucracy according to Mintzberg.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

The first step in leading change is recognizing that it is necessary debureaucratize the organization<\/strong>. Whether it is mechanistic or professional, the idea is to admit that it must tend towards an adhocracy structure.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"adhocracy-structure\"
Adhocracy<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The adhocracy structure (ad hoc, responding to a need) is similar, according to Wikipedia, to an organization \u201cwhich mobilizes, in a context of unstable and complex environments, multidisciplinary and transversal skills, to carry out specific missions (search for efficiency, launch of a new product, etc.)\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

According to Mintzberg, these are its specific characteristics:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n