Irrationalizing E2.0, SCRM, And Social Business

Dennis Howlett thinks he Rationalizing the E2.0, SCRM, social business discussion but mostly he’s just confusing me.

He pulls together some anecdotes of conversations with Doc Searls and Euan Semple, a few paragraphs of Brian Solis’s disastrously named Social Darwinism piece, various thoughts about what SAP users do and do not want to do with their software purchases, and a bunch of other stuff. But I don’t get how this leads to the conclusion:

Finally, when thinking about E2.0/SCRM, pay attention to the way in
which organizational change occurs in the context of nuanced cultures.
Don’t be constrained by one or other theory simply because it makes for
an attractive sounding buzz phrase. Without that, much of what passes
for this new way of thinking will be lost.

Huh?

‘How change occurs in the context of nuanced cultures’? Aren’t all cultures nuanced? 

‘Don’t be contrained by one or another theory simply because it makes for
an attractive sounding buzz phrase.” I guess that means we should reject theories that have attractive sounding names? Shouldn’t we judge theories on what we gain from using them? On how they help us think? Not based on what they are called, right?

I would turn this around on Dennis. When thinking about the impacts of social tools and practices on the business world, think about how cultures adopt new things rather than how they resist them. Don’t be blinded by an obsession with how things work today or worked ten years ago, and don’t presume that new practices and tools won’t be adopted because they are new and have new names. Without that, much of what is new — new thinking, new tools, new practices — will remain outside your awareness.