In an earlier post I introduced the term Communitize, signifying the trend where traditional company codes and structures are gradually submerged in a constant flow of community-driven exchange and collaboration, defying organizational divisions and boundaries.

Communitizing enables organizations to absorb and harness the collective wisdom of their constituencies, increasing their capacity for change and innovation. Communitized companies are adaptive creatures, sensing and capitalizing on emergent shifts in market currents.

Examples abound of companies like Semco and P&G, which apparently have succeeded in opening up and connecting in- and outside talent. Unfortunately many more examples hint at a more sobering and even distressing reality.

I mentioned earlier that one of the key hurdles is the lingering lack of trust among staff and outside audience. Is this a temporary fad, a marketing ploy? Is the organization really up for it? Can it persist? If people are expected to converge and interact outside the formal channels, they want an unequivocal message, confirming them time and again in the honest intentions of the initiator.

And this is where we hit the iceberg.. Many companies behave like market places, where a management call often is the start of a subtle negotiation and adoption process, instead of a kick-off for a seamless execution. Ambiguity rules, with the echo of the management call being drowned out by overriding everyday considerations, voiced by middle management. These contrarian sounds may spring from an authentic concern about potential risks, but may also represent vested interests keen to preserve the status quo.

In a highly structured work environment, people have learnt to abide by clear, formal rules and guidelines. At times these rules may be perceived as stifling and frustrating, yet they also offer comfort and safety. Stepping out of this cocoon requires courage, trading a familiar game for a promising perspective that yet has to materialize. If every cautious step is accompanied by contrarian signals, people will ultimately lose faith and lapse into old habits.

So is ambiguity the slow killer? This would be the case if management has overestimated the ease and pace of transformation. Management needs to state empathically its dedication to the communitizing strategy, even if everyone seems to concur. Silent opposition is less visible from the top, but is easily noticed by the workforce as fuzzy conflicting signals start to accumulate. So management needs to speak out and lead by example, while duly noting that a Janus-faced appearance is sometimes unavoidable.

Yet there is something very peculiar about ambiguity. Ambiguity is not only a critical phenomenon in the change process toward a communitized organization; it is also the norm in an open collaborative environment, where people jointly refine their protocol as they proceed. This does not imply that a networked-based model of value creation is anarchic by nature. It does say however that the network rules leave room for interpretation and negotiation. This fuzziness, where contradictions are not entirely erased or cornered, is the inevitable byproduct of self-organization and flexibility. Ambiguity is here to stay. You better get used to it..