Case study dealing with a LinkedIn-discussion in "The Future of Work"

1. Dialogue Mapping for
Collaborative Problem
Solving in Distributed Teams

2. The case
• A multi-stakeholder discussion on „The Future of
Work“ which has taken place on LinkedIn in
August, 2013.
• The discussion was triggered by an inital post on
the topic, suggesting some future developments
• This presentation demonstrates how
reconstructing the discussion with a dialogue-
map can lead to better group communcation and
decisionmaking

3. http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130820132131-758147-the-future-of-work

4. The Starting Point
• More than 80 comments without hardly any
structure (just chronological order and post directly
answering to each other)
• Redundancy: Many posts repeating things that
already had been stated
• Implicit cross-references single claims within the
discussion
• No clear focus: Direction and goal of the
collaborative effort are not well defined

6. Dialogue mapping: The basic structure
We chunked the information provided by the
participants of the discussion accordingly to this
scheme:

7. The initial question/statement
This is how the starter of the discussion translated into a dialogue map:

8. Some re-arrangements
The initial statement lists „What will the future
be like“ and „How should we respond“ as two
different issues. But in fact, answers to the first
question will deliver criteria for answering the
second one! As there are many different and
maybe contradictory claims about what the
future will be like to be considered, the whole
situation is easily getting complex. A dialogue
will clarify the issue.

9. The original structure

10. After re-arrangement

11. The result: One map listing claims about the future of work...

12. And a second, larger map,
nested into the first one. The
second map deals with
proposal for action which are
following upon the claim
„The firm as an organization...
is ... not necessary any more.“

13. Analysis (1): Dominant Topic
There seems to be emerging one topic as the focus
point of the discussion: the rise of the freelancer
and the end of the firm as it used to be. This is
hardly surprising, given that the discussion is taken
place on LinkedIn (a place where especially
freelancers are seeking for contacts and customers).
The focus on the ‚virtual company‘ can be seen as a
common point interest – or as a certain bias in the
discussion.

14. Analysis (2): Open questions
The look at maps reveals:
• Those elements that have provoked the most
reactions (most further elements attached to
them)
• Those claims or proposals are debated
(followed by „Pro“ as well as „Con“)
• Those claims or proposals lacking any backup
through further evidence
• Open questions

15. Analysis (3): Stakeholder
Also, one cann attach different stakeholders to the
elements of the map.
• Some of the questions and proposals are of relevance
for someone running a company („Rethink how to
create effective organizations“.
• Others for indivual workers or freelancers (gaining
necessary experiences outside the firm) .
• Still other questions might be of interest for
organizations dealing with policy issues and collective
interests of a certain group (Secure some social safety
for workers / freelancers (secure their retirement
without putting the burden on governments).

16. Analysis (3): Stakeholder (cont.)
• „Securing intellectual assets“ could be of interest
for someone providing services in the field of
knowledge managment or internal
communications
• “Ensure consistency and security, protect IP and
company network” could be of interest for
software companies
• “The Internet has unlocked new dimensions of
transparency and trust outside the firm”: This is
highly relevant for providers of (public) social
networks and agencies like “Odesk”

17. With the help of tags, the relevant elements can be marked and shown on the map
(here: elements pertaining to „managmenet“).

18. Follow-up
For clients who work with us, we offer several
possibilities to continue the process:
• Survey: Ask team-members on their opinion about
open issues, relevance of elements within the
discussion and suitability of action proposals
• Assign research concerning open issues
• Comission a report summarizing the discussion
• Continue the discussion/start a new discussion centred
on some chosen topics within the map
• Use maps for team collaboration. (Maps can be
converted in different software-formats for various
uses.)

19. If your are interested in seeing the whole map –
here it is (PDF):
http://www.explorat.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/20130827b_futureofwork.pdf
Contact:
groetker<at>explorat.de