Collaboration in the Enterprise Report (free) - Summer 2010

Provided free to the community 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Collaboration in the Enterprise 
Summer 2010 ‐ Web Survey 
Summary of Data and Commentary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
”Building Collaborative Enterprises” 
http://e20pros.com 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Jeff Wilfong

2 
 
 
Introduction 
 
This report provides an overview and gives recommendations based on research collected from over 
500 participants during June and July, 2010.  These individuals come from a diverse range of 
companies and industries, from small to extremely large enterprises.  The goal is to better 
understand the interplay of technology, collaborative work cultures and leadership.  
 
First, we cover Enterprise 2.0 adoption, and examine the collaboration tools and technologies that 
are used in today’s American businesses.  We all have heard and possibly experienced the web 2.0 
revolution, now this movement is readily occurring in companies.  This reports highlights how well 
businesses integrate Enterprise Collaboration Technologies (ECT), whether social media policies are in 
place and how workers perceive collaboration and its impacts.  We ask participants to list tools which 
they officially use for work, and tools they informally utilize to get their job tasks done.  
 
Second, we cover collaborative work cultures and provide an assessment of “The State of 
Collaboration” in American enterprises.  Unlike typical press about the powers of technology, this 
report grounds the reader in understanding the larger system collaboration issues. Different 
psychological and social variables are covered.  
 
Finally, leadership issues are discussed, including organizational structure, decision‐making, and an 
exploration of Mission, Vision and Values.  Thus, when the Triple pyramid of collaboration 
(Technology, Culture, and Leadership) is optimized, true collaborative cultures may emerge.  
 
Definitions, data handling, disclaimers, and more are found in later sections.  All summary figures and 
graphs are available in the appendix. 
 
By reading this report, decision makers will better understand many collaboration issues in deploying 
Enterprise technologies, making sure that they focus not only on technological issues, but people and 
leadership issues as well.  
 
Here at E2.0 Pros, we specialize in developing collaborative enterprises.  We thank all participants 
who took part in this research.  
 

”Building Collaborative Enterprises” ‐ http://e20pros.com

3 
 
Summary of results and recommendations 
 
Demographics:   Out of 517 total participants, 372 finished every question in the survey (an attrition 
level of 30%).  It was anticipated that the survey would take about 25‐30 minutes to complete.  An 
attrition level of 30% is fairly consistent with projections of web surveys of this length.  For this 
summary report, all data will be explored, despite the attrition.   
 
74% of respondents were male, and 26% were female (Figure 1).  The average age was 43 years old 
(Figure 2), with a majority of participants having earned a college degree or higher (Figure 3). Hi‐Tech, 
Telecommunications, Financial services, and Retail were the top primary work industries, however, all 
sixteen industries were represented (Figure 4).  All levels of employees and managers took part, with 
employees and line‐managers most represented (Figure 5).  Most worked in Information Technology, 
Business Operations, Customer / Client Services, or Sales, however all eleven departments were 
represented (Figure 6).  The average size of company was in the range of 501 to 1,000 employees, 
however all company sizes were represented (Figure 7).  Finally, the average length of employment in 
the current company was 1 to 2 years for individuals, with a gradual decline towards longer lengths of 
employment (Figure 8).  Over 95% of respondents lived in the United States, with 65% living in 
California, and 20% living in the East Coast. Thus, the demographics represent a large and diverse 
sample, mostly of American business professionals. 
 
SECTION 1: Enterprise Collaboration Technology (ECT) 
 
Enterprise adoption:  In July 2010, most companies are still “Planning” or “Trying” Enterprise 
Collaboration Technologies (Figure 11), with 30% of companies in “Going ahead” or “Full‐speed 
ahead” modes.   
 

 
Figure 11: Overall organization adoption of ECT. n=498 
 
When examining departmental ECT strategies, the percentages generally were higher (see Figure 10).  


4 
 
Officially‐sanctioned ECT:  Figure 12 shows the most popular Enterprise Collaboration Technologies 
at work, with Social Calendars, Shared files, Project Management tools, Blogs and Wikis most 
frequently used.  Some technologies not often mentioned were Virtual Presence Technologies, 
Prediction Markets, and Instant Messaging software.   
 

 
Figure 12: List of “officially sanctioned” ECT technologies in the enterprise. n= 498 
 
The effectiveness of officially‐sanctioned ECT fell in the range of “neither effective nor ineffective” 
(Figure 14).  With respects to the perceived collaboration effectiveness of official ECT, most 
individuals report “neither effective nor ineffective” (Figure 15).  Individuals were split, half and half 
whether official tools were integrated well or not (Figure 16).  Finally, officially‐sanctioned tools were 
found to take ‘excessive’ or ‘much time’ for workers to complete their work tasks (Figure 17).  
 


5 
 
Unofficial ECT use:  Participants utilized other software in addition to what their employers provided 
them.  Figure 13 provides businesses a helpful list of the most popular technologies used by 
employees. The most popular technologies used at work, unofficially, were: microblogs (such as 
Twitter), social networks (such as LinkedIn), instant messaging clients, RSS / feeds, and even video or 
audio‐conferencing tools (Figure 13).   
 

 
Figure 13: List of “unofficial” ECT used on the job. n=486 
 
 
 
 
 


6 
 
 
 
The effectiveness of unofficial ECT was “very effective” (Figure 18).  With respects to the perceived 
collaboration effectiveness of unofficial ECT, most individuals report “effective” (Figure 19).  
Individuals were split, half and half whether unofficial ECT were integrated well or not (Figure 20).  
Finally, unofficial ECT was reported to take ‘not much time at all’ or ‘an average amount of time’ for 
workers to complete job tasks (Figure 21). 
 

 
Figure 18. Overall effectiveness of “Unofficial” ECT. n=479 
 
Policies and Training:  In Figure 22, participants report either no formal ECT / social media policies, or 
that they are ‘unclear’ or ‘very unclear.’  Respondents report ‘good’ or ‘very good’ expertise level in 
tools (Figure 23), with most companies not formally training users (Figure 24).   
 

 
Figure 22. Clearity and consistency of ECT / social media policies 
n = 472, trend towards no policies or unclear policies 


7 
 
Top reasons to deploy ECT (participants’ view):  Respondents mentioned that increased productivity, 
ability to find people, cost savings, less travel expenses, and increased innovation of products / 
services were among the top reasons ECT is helpful to organizations (Figure 35).  
 

 
Figure 35. Please select the five best reasons why you think ECT is helpful for your organization: n = 405 
 
 

 
 
 


8 
 
ECT Recommendations:  
 
For overall adoption efforts, 30% of companies comprise the “early adopters.”  Certain industries 
may have reduced need for ECT efforts, and some companies may be simply trying out technologies 
to stay ahead.  Understanding from ECT use may occur simply by trying, so it is advisable that 
companies start early rather than too late.  Competitors are fierce in today’s business climate.  
 
Officially‐sanctioned ECT often resulted in slow and poor performance.  Many companies have 
trouble integrating ECT with work processes, while some are experts at this.  It may be better to 
utilize other solutions, which may be simpler to use for employees.  Figure 12 shows that many useful 
tools which have yet to be utilized by businesses.  
 
Participants were very positive towards Unofficial ECT, which is to be expected.  These tools were 
shown to be effective and fast, however unintegrated. Figure 13 provides businesses a helpful list of 
the most popular technologies used unofficially by employees.  Surprisingly, many companies still do 
not have adequate audio/video/web conferencing solutions.  
 
Generally it is leaders, often IT managers, who decide which tools and technologies will be available 
at work.  As this report shows, workers demand a diverse assortment of technology.  It would be 
desirable to focus on the needs of employees and possibly find free or low‐cost solutions if capability 
or funds are unavailable.  Surprisingly, many companies still do not have social media or ECT policies.  
This will be a detriment in the near term and something companies will want to work on.  Again, 
leaders can “provide them what they want” within the “structure that makes it safe.”  
 
Quality trainings are needed in Official ECT so that workers can become genuine experts, not just 
report being an expert. These may not need to be conducted in‐person, but trainings may utilize 
webinars or even PowerPoint presentations.  Mentors from different departments can be utilized to 
not only provide organizational openness, but to provide cross‐training.  
 
Participants in the survey rate the potential benefits of collaboration consistently to many other 
surveys and research.  Workers understand the value of collaboration, even though all may not work 
for “Collaborative Enterprises.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


9 
 
SECTION 2: Workplace Culture: Collaboration 
 
The State of Collaboration:  Summarizing data from 46 variables, comprising 14 categories of work 
culture believed to be important in collaboration (see Figure 32), Figure 33 shows the overall state of 
collaboration in the enterprise.  
 

 
Figure 33. The state of Collaborative Work Cultures – Overall study 
Note: Averages from all reporting participants (2 to ‐2), with positive values considered helpful to collaboration. 
 
Positive supports for collaboration included: 
  •  Relationships 
  •  Sharing 
  •  Participation / Knowledge creation 
  •  Creativity / Innovation 
•  Trust 
 
Negative supports for collaboration included: 
  •  Limited collaborative vision 
  •  Limited Collaboration Measurement / Reward 
  •  Internal competition 
  •  Control 
  •  Poor decision‐making 
  •  Poor mentorship or training 
  •  Reduced work/life balance 
 
Neutral supports: 
  •  Organizational openness 
  •  Risk taking 


10 
 
According to these workplace culture and management variables, most companies are not 
“Collaborative Enterprises.”  
 
Collaboration rewards:  Respondents reported that most often non‐financial rewards were offered, 
such as recognition in meetings (in‐person or via ECT) and praise (Figure 34).  Surprisingly, almost 20% 
report receiving no rewards for collaborating.  Financial reward was one of the least likely offerings to 
employees.  
 
Collaborative Culture Recommendations:  
 
First, companies need to have a strategic “Collaborative Vision.”  To do this, leaders need to explore 
and communicate a systematic definition of collaboration (see “Definitions” section).  Management 
then needs to help nurture necessary supports.  For example, a sizable Enterprise Collaboration 
Technology (ECT) budget is vital, even in this downturn, as well as hiring the best managers, 
consultant / researchers, and support people such as Community managers.  Companies cannot 
afford to become behind in the 2.0 collaboration revolution.  Visions require making sacrifices.  
 
Next, collaboration must be measured (even though this may be difficult) and rewarded, so that 
workers are incentivized to truly collaborate. The fourteen categories of collaboration provide one 
such rubric to measure collaboration.  Financial reward was one of the least likely offerings to 
employees, although many people struggle financially in this economy.  It is important to note that 
various generations in the workplace may desire different rewards, as do people with varying 
motivations.  The key is to understand your workforce.  One person may require more money due to 
personal and family issues and another may be more inclined towards recognition. 
 
Internal competition is often seen as a benefit to an organization, and it can be.  Competition can be 
fun, encouraging the workforce with potential for innovation as individuals thirst for the challenge.  
However, destructive, sometimes selfish behavior in the workplace, can hinder growth and may 
sacrifice the entire organization.  If individuals are rewarded, not teams, then collaboration may not 
be incentivized.  Leaders should take care to develop methods to measure and reward collaboration 
as to ensure success of the enterprise. 
 
Workers need to be able to form relationships with whomever they need to be able to collaborate 
and get their jobs done.  If going up the chain‐of‐command takes too long, people will become 
frustrated.  Managers can help to introduce employees to each other, especially between teams and 
departments.  Events can be helpful to foster relationship‐building.  People also need to know who 
the experts are in the organization to be most effective in their jobs.  
 
Today, many organizations struggle with openness.  If rigid hierarchy is maintained, openness will be 
difficult to come by.  Leaders can encourage managers and employees to share, work together, and 
be a team. Trust will be increased as members behave honestly, and are held accountable and 
rewarded for their team efforts.  
 


11 
 
Individuals believed themselves to be controlled by their organizations, rather than feeling “free” (to 
innovate, collaborate, etc). When people have reduced ability to act, everyone loses, especially the 
customer.  Better to encourage independence, rather than micromanagement.  
 
Many organizations are doing well in participation. However, by utilizing ECT effectively, knowledge 
generation will only increase.  Additionally, creativity is fruitful in many organizations, however, 
through work on other cultural variables, creativity can shoot through the roof.  
 
Decision‐making is adequate in most companies, not stellar.  Often, leaders may not have all the 
information they need to make decisions, and some may struggle to find the time.  Decision‐making 
should be methodical (not necessarily slow), fair, strategic and examine strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities and threats.  More than anything, employees within the organization need to be 
consulted.  Large‐scale decisions can be vetted using crowd‐sourcing techniques. Truly, the power of 
the 2.0 revolution provides ability for new methods of leadership.  
 
Collaboration and innovation requires a certain degree of risk‐taking.  Leaders will have to encourage 
hope, rather than fear, creativity, rather than control, experimentation, rather than routine 
automation of processes.  The potential of ECT far outweighs the legal risk.  Traditional leaders or 
those in more policy‐oriented cultures can experiment with a few technologies to encourage risk‐
taking.  
 
Training is necessary for ECT, especially for individuals to become genuine.  Training can be offered 
in‐person to those that like this format, or electronically to those more technically savvy.   
 
Finally, a work‐life balance is necessary for fresh ideas (i.e. innovation) and reduced stress on the job. 
When people cannot focus due to fatigue or stress, the whole enterprise loses.  As many experts have 
found: most innovations happen when people are having fun, being creative, walking along a stream, 
or at the beach.  Routine meetings provide too much formality for genuine insights to occur, although 
they can.  Leaders can examine the workplace to create physical spaces conducive of collaboration 
(such as comfortable seating areas, white boards, collaboration equipment) and allow workers some 
downtime every week to creatively explore ideas together.  Workers also should be able to restore 
themselves at home and with friends and family, not being contacted to frequently. Pushing someone 
too hard usually results in substandard work or them leaving.  In the knowledge economy, the 
greatest asset to the organization are employees.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


12 
 
SECTION 3: Organization strategy, structure and leadership  
 
Mission, Vision, and Values:  Figures 41 through 43, describe participants’ familiarity with their 
company’s Mission, Vision, and Values.  Participants were generally familiar with Mission, and Values. 
Regarding Vision, most reported ‘neither familiar nor unfamiliar.’  In each case, at least 20% of 
respondents were unfamiliar with Mission, Vision, or Values.   
 
“The Deciders”:  The decision makers for overall business strategy were found to be the Executive 
managers, CEO, and the Board of Directors (Figure 36), in this order. Typically, it is expected this 
order to be reversed for the traditional hierarchical organization.   The decision makers for 
departmental strategy were Department mangers, CEO, Middle Managers and the Executive 
managers (Figure 37), in this order.  This scenario seems fairly conventional.  Next, the decision 
makers for team strategy were found to be Middle managers, Department managers, CEO, and 
‘everyone having a fair say’ (Figure 38), in this order.  Yet, again, this scenario is fairly typical.  Lastly,  
with respect to ‘who’ has most say in how individual employees do their jobs, participants reported 
Direct supervisor, “I do,” Department managers, and Middle managers (Figure 39), in this order. Thus, 
the data shows most organizations follow a hierarchical or bureaucratic organization structure. 
 
Organization Structure:  Figure 40 shows how organizations are structured. Respondents were 
allowed to select more than one choice.  As is expected, Very hierarchical, Moderately hierarchical, 
Project Driven, and Matrix were most reported.  Interestingly, about 25% of participants reported 
Minimal hierarchy / Flat as describing their company. 
 
 

 
Figure 40. Organization structure. n=375 
 
 


13 
 
Satisfaction in the workplace: Overall, participants ‘neither agree nor disagree’ that they would 
recommend others to work at their company (Figure 44), however the trend is to disagree.  
 
 

 
Figure 43. Would I recommend my company to others? 
n = 416, Average = ‐0.1808, when using (‐2,‐1,1,2), “Neither agree nor disagree” 
 
Leadership and structure recommendations:  
 
Decision‐making is a complex issue in organizations.  In governmental agencies, it is necessary to 
craft policies, focus on security and safety, and pride efforts so that work processes are repeatable 
and consistent.  Governmental organizations necessitate a different sort of decision‐making than 
what is typical in the technically‐innovative companies such those located in Silicon Valley.  The retail 
industry has different goals and tasks, than does the aerospace industry. Depending on the industry, 
customers, products, and stage of company (examples: start‐up, institutionalized company, multi‐
national conglomerate), leaders will have to think critically about the chaotic, fast‐paced marketplace 
of today and reflect on the ever‐important task of decision making.  For starters, many companies are 
addressing Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 in some form or another.  Is your business or organization?  
Leaders need to develop strategy in ECT, collaborative work culture, and leadership.  A choice needs 
to be made. Whether to simply develop an ECT / Social Media Policy and disallow the use of tools at 
work, or to formally state preference (and develop capacity) so that workers utilize these new 
collaborative technologies in intelligent ways, strategy is needed. 
  
It is generally understood that individuals involved in job processes or services make better decisions 
for themselves and their jobs, than do leaders twice removed.  Overall strategy (which requires broad 
vision and insight) is up to leaders, and not an easy task.  However, “micro‐managing” work processes 
in today’s knowledge‐worker economy tends to stifle efficiency, reduce potential for worker growth, 
and may waste unnecessary time and human capital.  Control is detrimental to innovation and 
collaboration, however, both require structure, leadership and supports.  Therefore, it is up to 
leaders to strategize, and do so with consideration of the above ideal workplace culture variables, 
and craft decision‐making accordingly.  For example, in flat, innovative start‐up companies, 


14 
 
employees are often creating strategies and guiding the growth of the company.  However, in 
institutionalized cultures, this innovative environment may be hard to come by as decision‐making 
moves higher in the chain‐of‐command.  Often simple measures such as 360‐degree assessments can 
prove a management philosophy effective or not.  It is recommended to hire a good consultant / 
researcher to have an independent take on work culture and leadership strengths and weaknesses. 
 
Similarly, it is thought that the structure of an organization often has profound impacts on workplace 
culture, collaboration, performance, and the ability to meet basic operational demands of the 
enterprise. If the goal is collaboration, or even innovation, the large, dispersed, highly bureaucratic 
organization may have a difficult time creating new services or products, and may waste much time in 
communication which is closed to those involved (e.x. e‐mail).  
 
Keep in mind that the typical bureaucratic work structure found today was designed as the result of 
Frederick Taylor’s “Scientific Management” of the early 1900s and many subsequent management 
philosophers. The philosophies of old do not always stand in today’s environment. In the early 1900s, 
people narrowly performed work roles such as on an assembly line.  It was thought, in “Scientific 
Management” to reduce the job task in a way to promote individual experts who were highly efficient 
and productive. In today’s knowledge‐worker environment, workers need to know much about 
everything (and if to be able to communicate openly with those who do).  The purpose of the 
organization is bring together the wisdom of the group, adding more to the efforts than what 
individuals could do separately (i.e. emergence).   
 
Looking at the fact that 20‐25% of individuals were unfamiliar with Mission, Vision, and Values, it is 
logical to assume that these ideas are not broadly communicated by leaders in these companies. 
Leaders should note that this is a very important.  After all, if employees do not know where they are 
going, then they can get lost.  Consistent values, which are strategically created, are necessary for the 
high‐performing, highly innovative company to reinforce and guide a company’s Mission and Vision 
and performance for core competencies.  Therefore, the M and two Vs relate to work culture quite 
strongly.  Leaders may become guides, facilitators, visionaries, but caution is given to those who 
become too managerial.  
 
It is also important to note, that leaders may take great strides in communicating Mission, Vision and 
Values and workers are overwhelmed to be able to listen and retain these messages.  Utilizing ECT, 
leaders can “rebrand” and market their messages in innovative and repeatable ways.  
 
Regarding workplace satisfaction, it is difficult to determine causes for these mixed results.  It has 
been previously found that increasing levels of communication and collaboration (with all of its 
associated variables) may help to bolster workplace satisfaction.  Examining reward and 
measurement structures and making sure they are fair to employees may also help.  Truly, each 
company is unique and requires separate analysis to determine limits and potential.  Different 
generations have differing needs, as do women and men.  
 
 


15 
 
Conclusion 
  
By reading this report, decision makers now understand many collaboration related issues in 
deploying Enterprise technologies, making sure that they know to focus on technology, culture and 
leadership to be most effective.  
 
When in doubt, it is advisable to hire consultants to study culture and leadership issues, because so 
often it is difficult to get the whole picture, when we are inside it. 
 
E2.0 Pros thanks all participants for taking part in this research, and for the readers to consider merits 
written within.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


16 
 
Definitions 
 
Web 2.0:  According to technology and web expert Tim O’Reilly, Web 2.0 is “the business revolution 
in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to 
understand the rules for success on that new platform.  Chief among those rules is this:  Build 
applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.  (This is what I've 
elsewhere called "harnessing collective intelligence.)”  
 
In general, the tools and technologies associated with Web 2.0 are:  blogs, RSS / subscription,  
discussion boards, wikis, instant messaging (IM), microblogs, mashups, podcast, vodcast, crowd‐
sourcing, prediction markets, social bookmarking, tagging, conferencing tools, document repositories, 
presence tools, dashboards, social networks, profiles, directories, team platforms, and all‐in‐one 
platforms.  
 
Enterprise 2.0 :  A simple definition of Enterprise 2.0 (or E2.0) is the business use of Web 2.0.  Andrew 
McAfee wrote: “Enterprise 2.0 offers significant improvements, not just incremental ones, in areas 
such as generating, capturing, and sharing knowledge; letting people find helpful colleagues; tapping 
into new sources of innovation and expertise; and harnessing the ‘wisdom of crowds’” (p. 15). 
 
Some typical business areas in which E2.0 may be utilized are: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), 
Enterprise Content Management (ECM), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Business 
Process Management (BPM) and Electronic Records Management to name a few.  Also, large‐scale 
software solutions such as Microsoft’s SharePoint or IBM’s Lotus software, Cisco’s Enterprise Social 
Software are included in this category. 
 
Enterprise Collaboration Technology (ECT):  The use of any electronic, software, or other similar 
technology for purposes of working together optimally in today’s large and multifaceted 
organizations.  For this paper, the focus was collaborative and participative forms of this technology 
(see Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0).  This category contains “Enterprise collaboration software,” 
“Enterprise social software” and other similar terms.   
 
Officially‐sanctioned technologies:  Technologies which are installed on the workplace server, portal, 
website or the worker’s computer, which may be technically integrated with other such official 
technologies, or those hardware solutions which are physically available for work, which allow a 
worker to complete job‐related tasks. 
 
Unofficially‐sanctioned technologies:  Technologies used by workers, apart from those offered by 
their employers, to complete job‐related tasks or for personal purposes.  
 
Collaboration:  Gray (1989) stated that collaboration is a process to implement a shared vision, using 
collective decision‐making, sharing responsibility and accountability, all within a culture of which 
managers and leaders distribute rewards and benefits effectively and fairly.  Collaboration is 
associated with long‐term results (Mattessich, Murray‐Close, & Monsey, 2001), enhances 


17 
 
relationships as people act for mutual benefit (Himmelman, 1992), all while working towards value in 
a shared physical or virtual space (Rosen, 2007).  
 
Generally, collaboration falls into two categories. The first category involves activities in which people 
work together for purposes of innovation (which may include new product development, models or 
business processes, and the second, which involves the activities executing business processes 
(McReary, 2009).  Stated in a different way, Harney (2007) wrote:  
 
"Collaboration‐while certainly a collection of technologies like virtual project spaces, reporting, and 
Web conferencing (all designed to help people work together better) ‐ is also both a practice and a 
process.  The practice, it can help workers improvise through informal practices and technologies as 
diverse as blogs and wiki's.  As a process, collaboration helps users conform to formal business 
processes via document ‐ centric process management tools like process modeling/routing and 
document check in/check out in version control" (p. 30).  
 
Business collaboration can be measured by effectiveness and efficiency (McReary, 2009). 
Effectiveness measures the overall end‐results of collaboration, while efficiency measures the 
processes that lead to the goal.  Execution includes all the processes that operate on a given day, 
which are strategic in nature.  Therefore, collaboration effects key performance indicators (“KPIs”) 
and can be measured by determining the success of a given process.  Harney (2007) compiled a list of 
the potential benefits of collaboration:  
 
• Improves operational efficiency by eliminating redundant and inefficient older technologies 
• Permits a virtual work 
• Accelerates project completion time and fosters better project management  
• Cuts costs due to reduced travel  
• Teams are more productive, because collaboration enables interaction among individuals cross 
departments, business processes, applications, and organizations 
• Increases organizational agility as decisions are made faster and with greater thought 
• Allows companies to build more customer intimacy and solidify relationships 
 
Workplace culture:  Schein (2004) defined the culture of an organization as a pattern of shared basic 
assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal 
integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new 
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 17). 
According to him, culture is one of the most difficult elements to change in a given organization.  
 
Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) defined organizational culture as “the collective programming of the 
mind that distinguishes the members of one organization from another” (p. 286).  The culture of an 
organization consists of the shared values, beliefs, and assumptions of an organization on how it 
should behave (Quinn & Cameron, 2006; Yukl, 2006).  The culture of an organization establishes its 
character; it spurs work towards the development of specific kinds of resources and the instillation of 
values (Quinn & Cameron, 1983; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).  The output of an organization culture, 
its products or services, is a direct reflection of the culture itself (Alvesson, 2002). 


18 
 
 
Company’s Mission, Vision, and Values: A company’s Mission is its overall purpose for existing. A 
company’s Vision is a description, picture, or metaphor of what or how the company may look like 
after its strategy is implemented and it attains its goals for future development.  Company’s Values 
are beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and mental models encouraged by leadership or the work culture for 
entering and current employees.   
 
Data handling 
 
All data was utilized for this report, regardless if every individual completed the question or not.  
When a question had distinct and separate levels for a variable, a weight was associated to each 
level. The chosen system was {2,1,‐1,2}.  For example, the values {2,1,‐1,2} were assigned to “Strongly 
agree (2),” “Agree (1),” “Neither agree nor disagree,” “Disagree (‐1),” and “Strongly disagree (‐2).”  
When people declined to respond to a question (i.e. “N/A”), they were not counted.  Averages were 
calculated from these {2,1,‐1,2} assigned values, however, if a question had a “no / negative” 
statement provided, averages were not calculated (example Figure 24).  For Figures 17 and 21, a 
system of {3,2,1,0} was used.  For collaborative work culture variables (Figures 25 through 31), the 
scores for negatively collaborative statements were flipped (‐1 < > 1,  ‐2 < > 2), as to align with 
corresponding positive questions in the category.  Therefore, positive values for categories associate 
with positive collaboration support.  Finally, written statements provided by participants were not  
included for simplicity of report and time.  
 
Limitations / Disclaimers 
 
This survey/study was available for about 45 days on the web.  Therefore, those individuals who were 
unaware of this survey or had difficulty accessing a web‐based survey were not sampled.  
 
The selection of participants was not random.  First, a financial incentive ($25 VISA gift cards) was 
offered to up to ten (10) randomly sampled participants, one reward given for every 50 “complete 
surveys.”  Thus, seven random participants (n=372) were provided this reward.  It is unclear if these 
financial incentives skewed the data in any way.  Second, it is expected that only those familiar with 
Enterprise Collaboration Technology (ECT) and actively used Web 2.0 took part in this survey.  For 
example, the survey was advertised/offered using such methods as the E2.0 Pros Website / Blog, 
LinkedIn groups and connections, Twitter, and personal networks via e‐mail.  So, figures may actually 
be higher than they actually are in practice. 
 
The questions and methods used to determine these results relied on attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, 
and behavior, not necessarily ‘hard’ metrics such as financial or business results.  For example, it is 
unclear whether unofficial ECT actually takes less time, is better for collaboration, or if these results 
are belief only. Regardless, subjectivity is important for understanding, and to complete the research, 
quantitative studies would be added to aid understanding.  Additionally, wording, order, and choice of 
questions were created by the researcher (based on literature and personal experience) and may not 
represent completeness of concepts or rule out psychological reactions to the survey questions.  


19 
 
 
Therefore, this report and associated data is for educational purposes only.  The hiring of a trained 
researcher or consultant to create a unique, structured, and complete study of your company is 
desired before using this report to make any large decisions.  
 
References 
 
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGA. 
 
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. 
 
Harney, J. (2007, July/August). The consolidation of collaboration. Edacmagazine.com,  p. 30.  
 
Himmelman, A. T. (1992). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: 
From social service to social justice. In C. Huxham (Ed.), 1996, Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 19‐43). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage. 
 
nd
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2  ed.). New York: McGraw‐Hill. 
 
Mattessich, P. W., Murray‐Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed.). St Paul, MN: 
Wilder Publishing Center of the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 
 
McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organization’s toughest  
challenges. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 
 
McCreary, B. (2009). Web collaboration – How it is impacting business. American Journal of  
Business, 24(2), 7‐9. 
 
O’Reilly, T.  (2006). Web 2.0 Compact definition: Trying again.  
http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/12/web‐20‐compact‐definition‐tryi.html 
 
Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary 
evidence. Management Science, 29.  
 
Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values approach to 
organizational analysis. Management Science, 29. 
 
Rosen, E. (2007). The Culture of Collaboration: Maximizing Time, talent and tools to create value in the global economy. 
San Francisco, CA: Red Ape Publishing 
 
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. 
 
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson‐Prentice Hall. 
 
 
 
 
 


20 
 
APPENDIX 
 
DEMOGRAPHICS DATA 
 
 Figure 1: Participant’s sex 

 
n=517 
 
 
Figure 2: Participant’s age 

 
n = 517. Average male = 44.28 years old, female = 43 years old 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


21 
 
Figure 3: Participant’s highest level of education [country’s equiv.] 

 
n = 517 
 
 
Figure 4: Participant’s primary work industry  

 
n = 517 
 
 
 
 
 


22 
 
Figure 5: Participant’s current work role 

 
n= 513 
 
 
Figure 6: Participant’s work department or “silo” 

 
n= 513 
 
 
 
 
 
 


23 
 
Figure 7: Participant’s company size 

 
n= 513 
 
Figure 8: Participant’s time in current company 

 
n= 509 
 
 
Figure 9: Percentage of participant’s using Enterprise Collaborative Technologies (ECT) for job related 
tasks?  
  % 
Yes  99 
No  1 
n=509 
 


24 
 
ENTERPRISE COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY (ECT) 
 
Figure 10: Departmental / Team adoption of ECT 

 
n= 498 
 
Figure 11: Overall organization adoption of ECT 

 
n= 498 
 


25 
 
Figure 12: List of “officially sanctioned” ECT technologies in the enterprise 

 
n= 498 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


26 
 
Figure 13: List of “unofficial” ECT used on the job  

 
n= 486 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


27 
 
Figure 14: Overall effectiveness of “Officially sanctioned” ECT 

 
n= 486, Average = 0.0909 when using (2,1,‐1,‐2), Neither effective nor ineffective 
 
 
Figure 15: The Collaboration effectiveness of “Officially sanctioned” ECT 

 
n= 486, Average = ‐0.103 when using (2,1,‐1,‐2), Neither effective nor ineffective 
 
 
 
 
 


28 
 
Figure 16. The integration of “Officially sanctioned” ECT 

 
n= 483, Average = ‐0.3265, when using (2,1,‐1,‐2), Neither integrated nor unintegrated 
 
Figure 17. The timeliness of “Officially sanctioned” ECT 

 
n= 482, Average = 1.7346 when using (3,2,1,‐0), towards “much time” 
 
 
 


29 
 
Figure 18. Overall effectiveness of “Unofficial” ECT 

 
n= 479, Average = 1.5773, when using (2,1,‐1,‐2), towards “very effective” 
 
Figure 19. The Collaboration effectiveness of “Unofficial” ECT  

 
n= 478, Average = 0.9587, when using (2,1,‐1,‐2), “Effective” 


30 
 
Figure 20. The integration of “Unofficial” ECT  

 
n= 476, Average = ‐0.4183, when using (2,1,‐1,‐2), towards “Unintegrated” 
 
 
Figure 21. The timeliness of “Unofficial” ECT  

 
n= 475, Average = 0.5833 when using (3,2,1,0), towards “Average amount of time” 
 
 
 
 


31 
 
Figure 22. Clearity and consistency of ECT / social media policies 

 
n = 472, trend towards no policies or unclear policies 
 
Figure 23. Expertise level of “Officially sanctioned” ECT  

 
n= 472. Average = 1.3131, when using (‐2,‐1,0,1,2), “Good” 
 
 
Figure 24. Effectiveness of training for “Officially sanctioned” ECT  

 
n= 467,Trend towards no training offered or ineffective training 
 
 
 


32 
 
WORKPLACE CULTURE: COLLABORATION 
 
Figure 25. Workplace culture [Group 1]  

 
n= 445 
 

 
n = 441 


33 
 

 
n = 439 
 

 
n= 431 
 
 

34 
 

 
n= 420 
 
 
Figure 30. Some other variables…   

 
n = 415 


35 
 
Figure 31. Collaboration: performance reviews, rewards 

 
n = 413 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


36 
 
Figure 32. The state of Collaborative Work Cultures – Variable list 
Collaborative Vision  Control 
“The budget seems to be large enough for ECT efforts”  “My organization seems to be controlling of employees”  
“Clear goals for collaboration are set”  “I am able to lead myself for the most part” 
“My job roles are clear”   
  Participation / Knowledge creation 
Collaboration Measurement / Reward  “People from above are the knowledge makers” 
“Employees are rewarded for gaining broad input”  “I am a participator in my organization, not a consumer”  
“Collaboration is clearly measured”   “I am able to create knowledge for others to use”  
“Collaboration is clearly rewarded”    
“Performance reviews include teamwork or collaboration”  Creativity / Innovation 
“Performance reviews include cross‐departmental  “Creativity is valued” 
collaboration”  “Meetings are spontaneously scheduled” 
“Performance reviews include employees helping other”  “I am encouraged to try new ways to be productive”  
  “I can think outside‐the‐box in my company” 
Internal competition   
“It is a ‘star performer’ culture”   Decision making 
“We compete, more than collaborate”   “We are overly risky/cautious in decision making” 
“Individuals are rewarded over teams”  “Our organization values chaos, over planning ideas” 
  “Decisions are made quickly”  
Relationships  “Consensus is valued over speed”  
“Managers introduce employees to each other”  “I am able to constructively criticize my teammates” 
“I am able to create new relationships easily, regardless of  “I am able to constructively criticize my supervisor or 
department”   leaders” 
“I routinely work with people from other departments”   
“I am familiar with other departments and their  Risk taking 
employees”  “We seem to be more concerned with security over 
“I am familiar with other departments and their goals”  productivity” 
  “We are in a compliance‐ or legal‐driven industry”  
Organizational openness  The legal department advises against ECT”  
“I am able to ask for information from managers in other  “Human Resources advises against ECT”  
departments”   
“I have easy access to information to do my job”  Training 
“Employees, managers, and leaders are accessible  “I have mentors from other departments who help train / 
regardless of status”   guide me”  
“Budgets are open to all / Transparent finances”  “I have mentors from my department who help train / 
  guide me” 
Sharing   
“People share”   Work / Life balance 
“People hoard knowledge”  “Management allows me to have a personal life as well” 
“I can ask people for help at anytime”  “Management has created a comfortable work 
  environment” 
   
 
Note: Countless variables exist in the literature for collaboration and work cultures. These groupings tend to overlap, and 
this particular arangement was chosen based on literature review, personal experience, and reports. 
 
 
 
 
 
 


37 
 
Figure 33. The state of Collaborative Work Cultures – Overall study 

 
Note: Averages from all reporting participants (2 to ‐2), with positive values considered helpful to collaboration.  
 
Figure 34. Collaboration rewards  

 
n= 407 
 
 


38 
 
Figure 35. Please select the five best reasons why you think ECT is helpful for your organization:  

 
n = 405 
 
ORGANIZATION STRATEGY, STRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP 
 
Figure 36. “Decider” for overall business strategy 

 
n = 399 


39 
 
Figure 37. “Decider” for departmental strategy  

 
n = 394 
 
 
Figure 38. “Decider” for team strategy  

 
n = 394 
 
 
 
 
 
 


40 
 
Figure 39. Who has the most say in how you do you job?  

 
n = 387 
 
Figure 40. Organization structure  

 
n = 375 
 
 


41 
 
Figure 41. Familiarity with Mission Statement of organization  

 
n = 373, Average = 0.5729, when using (‐2,‐1,1,2), towards “Familiar” 
 
 
Figure 42. Familiarity with Vision Statement of organization  

 
n = 372. Average = 0.0105, when using (‐2,‐1,1,2), “Neither familiar nor unfamiliar” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


42 
 
Figure 43. Familiarity with company Values  

 
n = 372. Average = 0.8958, when using (‐2,‐1,1,2), towards “Familiar” 
 
 
Figure 44. Would I recommend my company to others? 

 
n = 416, Average = ‐0.1808, when using (‐2,‐1,1,2), “Neither agree nor disagree” 
 
 
 
 


Collaboration in the Enterprise Report (free) - Summer 2010

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Collaboration in the Enterprise Report (free) - Summer 2010