Harold Jarche

Don’t worry, nobody can steal your knowledge

by

Why do I share my knowledge? Well, actually, I don’t. I could not share my knowledge with you, if I wanted. There is no such thing as knowledge transfer. Data and information can be transferred, but not knowledge.

So what is the idea behind behind personal knowledge mastery and the Seek>Sense>Share framework if knowledge cannot be shared in the first place? For me, PKM is a set of practices I can use to better articulate my knowledge. Seeking information from diverse sources gives me a better chance of seeing a fuller picture of our complex environment. Taking time to put my thoughts into words forces me to reflect and try to make some sense of the divergent voices coming from all over. Sharing the results of this sense-making gives back to the networks from which I drew my information and also provides more feedback loops from a variety of perspectives. It enhances serendipity.

Sharing information and viewing it through our individual filters is the best that we can hope for in terms of knowledge transfer. But not sharing would be much worse. As Luis Suarez writes on a very related post:

To me, since we are all embarked on a lifetime learning experience of what we know, what’s around us, who we are, what we do and why we do it, who we connect with, etc. etc. knowledge sharing is innate to our human nature of wanting to connect and collaborate with others. We, human beings, are social beings, and as such have been bound to share what we know with others, so that our learning curve never becomes flat. On the contrary.

While knowledge cannot really be shared,  our knowledge-making experiences can. Perhaps that is why we love stories. They are a glimpse into others’ knowledge, more nuanced than any other communication medium. Sharing is essential for our own sense-making. So share as much as possible. Nobody can steal your knowledge anyway. But we will all lose, if we don’t share it.
knowledge stealing

Top 10 Tools for Learning

by

Jane Hart is asking for submissions to her annual Top 100 Tools for Learning. Please vote, in the next 10 days, before it closes for another year. I really like the fact that Jane has done this for several years and we can see some interesting trends. Stay tuned for Jane’s analysis this year.

Here are my top 10 choices, with a few changes over the past year:

10: Google Plus: I am still learning how to use this platform which gives you great control over filtering how much information you get. The live Hangouts feature is a killer app, in my opinion.
9: Slideshare: An easy way to share presentations so that people can view them before or instead of downloading them.
8: Flickr: Still a great way to share photos online. I like the feature that automatically creates images in multiple sizes.
7: Gimp: An open source (free) image manipulation tool is very helpful for presentations and papers.
6: BuddyPress: This variant of WordPress powers the Social Learning Centre and has allowed me to deliver my workshops to more people.
5: Keynote: Apple’s presentation application has enabled me to improve my slide presentations, through its simplicity and lack of clip art.
4: Twitter: The micro-blogging platform lets me stay in loose touch with many people.
3: Diigo: Social bookmarks are a quick way for me to save a web page and find it easily (I do an auto backup to Delicious).
2: Google Reader: This feedreader lets me subscribe to many websites and stay current with bloggers and news feeds.
1: WordPress: It powers my blog, which is the core of my self-directed learning and online reflection. It’s easy to use, has a large community, and there are many plug-ins and additions available.

Weaving the next workplace

by

My last post, from responsibility to creativity, was picked up by Joachim Stroh, who created an image showing the problem with thinking of jobs as things to be filled. The image also connects with the post on how organizations can thrive in the network era.

I like this visual representation. It shows that thinking of jobs as buckets to fill can leave them empty or half-full. Instead, if you think of the organization as a network, then you look for gaps that need to be connected. This can be done by adding another node (person) or making better connections (roles & responsibilities). It may just be introducing one person to another, or closing triangles. It’s amazing how a shift in the perception of the nature of work could completely change an organization. A primary job of leadership then becomes network weaving. Network Weaving has four laws, writes Jack Ricchiuto: Luck; Innovation; Influence; and Growth.

Getting things done in networks barely resembles the rules of getting things done when the whole is divided into power, knowledge, and responsibility haves and have-nots. Best and worst of all, networks do not “play by the rules” because they are intrinsically too fluid and self-organizing for that. And because of that, they tend to be far more incubatorial than traditionally designed organizations and social structures when it comes to innovation and resiliency.

from responsibility to creativity

by

I originally wrote new work, new attitude in 2008, but would like to revisit and add to it.

2008

Nine Shift has a few posts on the changing nature of work and how the idea of responsibility usurped morals during the industrial age (See Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3).

“In the Industrial Age of the 20th century, you didn’t have to be of good moral character to work in the factory. But you did have to be responsible.  And so teachers in the 20th century schoolhouse and college taught (still teach) responsibility.   And by that  teachers mean specific behaviors.

Those behaviors are now obsolete. They made sense in the factory …  But not in the virtual office.”

As we moved from morality to responsibility one hundred years ago, are we now shifting from responsibility to creativity? If we are, then most of our organizational tools and measurements about productivity may have to get thrown out.

2012

“The word ‘responsible’ is one of those code-words that hides a whole range of preferred behaviours, from respecting copyright to keeping the language clean to refraining from bullying and hurtful behaviour to staying on topic, sitting up, and paying attention.” —Stephen Downes

From morality to responsibility to creativity

The past 100 years have been the first time that we have had a large middle class in many parts of the world (though this is quickly shrinking in places). The Corporation was an experiment to deal with large scale capitalism, and we had no real models to base it on, other than the military or the church. Therefore we got hierarchies. But perhaps this period was not a blip and really just the first phase of dealing with the new electric communications medium? Now that we are ~150 years post-telegraph, we are finally realizing that things have radically changed. It’s like the early 1600’s in Europe, 150 years after the printing press, and all hell is breaking loose. For a more detailed perspective on communication shifts and literacies, I would recommend “Why Johnny and Janey Can’t Read, and Why Mr. and Ms. Smith Can’t Teach: The challenge of multiple media literacies in tumultuous times” by Mark Federman.

An IBM poll of CEOs (2010) found they deemed creativity to be “the NUMBER ONE leadership competency of the successful enterprise of the future”. Today, being responsible is not good enough. Ross Dawson says that, “in a connected world, unless your skills are world-class, you are a commodity.” He suggests that there are three skill sets necessary to transcend commoditization — Expertise, Relationships, and Innovation. Creativity is needed to choose the right area of expertise, develop diverse professional networks, and be innovative. In our education systems, creativity is a fringe subject and is not nurtured or lauded.

Barbara Ormsby recently commented that, “Responsibility and creativity are two rather different qualities. This helps understand why the transition from clear responsibilities to practised creativity is such a huge challenge in organizations today.” So how can we improve creativity in organizations? We should learn from the creatives!

Make space for conversations

Creativity is a conversation – a tension – between individuals working on individual problems and the professional communities they belong to. —David Williamson Shaffer

Provide breathing room

Creativity shouldn’t–can’t–be a luxury, though. It can’t be something that we bring to a problem only when we have the space and time for it, because more often than not, we will be in situations where we lack both. We need to find ways to build it into the DNA of our working lives so that it becomes a part of who we are, not something we do only when the circumstances are “right.” This is our only security in a world that shifts constantly, demanding of us new ideas and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. —Michele Martin 

 Abandon ‘jobs’

The core assumption of the job, that it can be ‘filled’ [just like the minds of learners], needs to change. This is the key constraining concept for the creative economy. It presumes common skills and the mechanistic view that workers can be replaced without disruption. But who could replace Van Gogh, Picasso or even Steve Jobs? Complex work requires more creativity, and confining individual creativity within the bounds of a mere job description is debilitating. Structured jobs can suck individual creativity and create an organizational framework that discourages entrepreneurial zeal.

Develop improv skills

Improv comedy can help people deal with uncertainty. They have to make difficult decisions on the spot and think quickly without scripts or plots.

In a business world that’s more uncertain than ever it pays to be able to think on your feet. That’s why some business schools are using improvisation classes to teach skills such as creativity and leadership … As well as teaching people to react and adapt, he [Robert Kulhan] said improvisation can teach creativity, innovation, communication, teamwork and leadership. —CNN Route to the Top

 

Four circles to bind them

by

I’m still playing with Google Plus and have not made it an integrated part of my personal knowledge mastery process yet. One aspect of G+ I do not like is the inability to add tags or categorize what I find of interest, or to easily share with other networks. Sharing inside, of course, is easy, as Google would prefer you stay inside their ecosystem. What I usually do with G+ posts I like is 1) post them to Twitter, 2) add as Twitter favourites 3) and then curate them on my weekly Friday’s Finds blog post. It’s a bit convoluted but it kind of works. I could do the same by checking my ‘+1’ tagged items and regularly curating them on my blog.

I really like the Google Plus Hangout feature, which allows for immediate video conferencing, for up to 10 people, and integrates tools such as Google Documents for collaborative writing. Using the ‘On Air’ function lets you live broadcast your meeting via YouTube, which is then automatically recorded and saved as a YouTube video. It is seamless. The audio/video is very high quality with much less lag than Skype.

There is a feature of G+ that makes me think it can be the one to rule them all. These are circles. You add people to circles (which you can name) and then post updates on G+ to one or more circles of your choosing, or make them Public. Almost all of mine are public. But circles work both ways. You can control how much you see from each circle. I would suggest starting out by creating four circles, one for each setting. The settings slider appears on the right when you click on one of your circle names from the G+ Home page.

 There are four settings available:

  • Show nothing
  • Show some posts
  • Show most posts (what G+ recommends, but that’s for them, not you)
  • Show every post

There is also a bell symbol on the right  to subscribe to notifications (it’s a push function so you don’t miss anything). You see these settings explained when you hover your cursor over the slider.

So if you create four initial circles, you could use them as a filter to get better signal and less noise. You don’t need to spend a lot of time making a decision on where to put someone, as it’s easy to move a person from one circle to another. Fine-tuning this over time  could make your G+ stream a valuable information resource.

None: For people who have you in their circles, but you are not really interested in what they have to say, but feel you should be connected anyway. This group is handy if you don’t want something to be Public but want to reach a broader audience.

Some: These are people you know slightly or perhaps post too many updates.

Most: For people you know better, or usually post interesting things, but you don’t feel to you need to see everything.

Every Post: Good for work teams or fellow employees. I use this for my Internet Time Alliance colleagues.

I have found some deep conversations on G+, which is not limited by 140 characters. It integrates with other Google platforms, so it’s easy to share from Google Reader to Google Plus. Over time, I am finding it a good place to have some meaningful conversations. As with Twitter, if you find G+ boring, then you are following (circling) the wrong people.

Friday's complexity

by

Here are some of the observations and insights that were shared via Twitter (and other places) this past week.

Leadership as emergent, co-created and unheroic – by @JohnnieMoore

leadership is a complex social process enacted by the many. It is not a rational, scientific endeavour practised by a few, gifted individuals. That is to say, it is an emergent phenomenon that is co-created in the moment of people’s everyday interactions. As such, it is a normal characteristic of the day-to-day relationships of interdependent people.
~ Chris Rodgers

@johnt – Responding to Complexity & Uncertainty

Ralph Stacey (on shadow system dynamics), Karl Weick (social psychology of organising and sense-making), Manuel Castells (the network society), Albert Bandura (social learning, self-efficacy, social psychology), Stafford Beer (viable systems and distributed control), Albert Cherns (socio-technical principles), Russell Ackoff (systems thinking) etc all intellectual heroes. In my view, their insights on complex social systems leave many soc. biz ‘experts’ on the starting blocks. ~ @smartco (in comments)

@JerryMichalski – really interesting ideas on complexity and systems thinking – by @JurgenAppelo

A quick case for social technologies

by

I have been reviewing a number of resources I have collected on social media, social learning and return on investment. The bottom line seems very clear to me. Social technologies remove artificial organizational boundaries and let knowledge be shared more easily. I create slide presentations so that I have something ready in case I need to quickly review a subject, such as an impromptu client brief. I put this one together as an aid that might be helpful in presenting a few aspects of the positive impact of social technologies in the workplace.

#itashare

How organizations can thrive in the network era

by

I recently covered the BetaCodex Guide to Organizing for Complexity. A new special edition paper has just been released, Turn Your Company Outside-In. The initial premise is that traditional organizational design, and the ubiquitous org chart, is fundamentally flawed.

The challenge of moving from a hierarchical to a network structure is a complete shift in how we have thought about organizations. The BetaCodex model is based on solid systems and organizational theory from the likes of Stafford Beer, Charles Handy, Henry Mintzberg and Thomas Malone. From these, and others, Betacodex have developed two main design concepts: 12 laws, and the double helix transformation framework.

The most valuable part of this paper are the two case studies, that show how companies can create a new outside-in structure and better address external complexities. One is a German technology firm and the other a Brazilian packaging producer. This paper carries on from the last and includes enough practical information to make real structural change in organizations.

The BetaCodex framework supports the concept of loose hierarchies & strong networks, and provides a concrete structure to address the fact, highlighted in the Cluetrain Manifesto, that hyperlinks subvert hierarchy. I would suggest this as a sub-title for the paper: how organizations can thrive in the network era. A BetaCodex structure could lead us to a world without bosses and would help to ensure that the sociopaths do not take over. It would be a real thrill to work with an organization that is committed to such a change.

Validation and feedback

by

Here is a new approach to evaluation, by Nick Shackleton-Jones:

After the event, however, the system automatically prompts the chosen peer group to reassess those same behaviours at intervals of say one, three and six months. At the end of this period a ‘change score’ is calculated: an average value representing the amount of observed behavioural change that has taken place. Knowing that they are living up to the expectations of their peers, people make an effort to change. By coupling a meaningful challenge to the event, learners will endeavour to practise what they have learned – and we can skip directly to robust ‘level 3’ results.

Which is based on an old military approach, Training Validation, as exemplified by the Canadian Army:

On-job Performance
On-job performance is an evaluation measure that aims to determine if the trainee has been able to transfer the knowledge, skills or attitude learned in the training environment to the real world of the job. Within the ASAT, on-job performance is an element of validation conducted after at least three months following the training event. There are many different approaches to conducting this form of evaluation. Trainees, superiors and peers can be queried both through written questionnaires and personal interviews, and the results can lead to measurement of the effectiveness of the course/training activity. The validation of individual training is the responsibility of Commander LFDTS.

Training Efficiency
Examination of trainee reaction, the learning process and the transfer of learning to the job against the anticipated results and resources expended is the final method of determining efficiency. This analysis is a strategic responsibility, and the results are used to modify the conduct of future courses/training.

These are good systems if training was the correct solution in the first place, but note that formal instruction only accounts for 5% of workplace learning. As I wrote in a previous post, these types of methods work very well when you know what you are trying to achieve and understand the systems you are operating in. They work well when you have established best or good practices to base the training on. But what happens in complex environments, when ”the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance”? This is the situation many workers find themselves in today.

Feedback and validation have to be part of our daily work, not just for training events. This is where PKM practices can help on a personal level, work narration for teams, and communities of practice for disciplines. Once again, work is learning and learning is the work.

Friday's Finds #170

by

Here are some of the observations and insights that were shared via Twitter (and other places) this past week.

“It should be possible to build a city where you can go your whole life without owning a car and not feel deprived.” —Toronto planner Paul Bedford – via @grescoe

“Creativity is not an escape from disciplined thinking. It is an escape with disciplined thinking.” – Jerry Hirschberg – via @BarbaraOrmsby

@euan – A slap in the face

The worst illiterate is the political illiterate. He hears nothing, sees nothing, takes no part in political life. He doesn’t seem to know that the cost of living, the price of beans, of flour, of rent, of medicines, all depend on political decisions. He even prides himself on his political ignorance, sticks out his chest and says he hates politics. He doesn’t know, the imbecile, that from his political non- participation comes the prostitute, the abandoned child, the robber and, worst of all, corrupt officials, the lackeys of exploitative multinational corporations. — Bertolt Brecht

@downes – The Robot Teachers

But here’s where the challenge arises for the education and university system: it was designed to support income inequality and designed to favour the wealthy …

Examine the structure of the traditional university system, especially as instantiated in the United States, but also to a certain degree in Canada and many other nations. Admission is regulated by tuition, and in the most elite institutions, the tuition is the highest. The recent British experiment in voluntary moderation was a failure. Admission in private universities is also enabled by legacy, the result of favours granted by and to alumni of the university. There is in addition a bias in elite universities toward graduates of a small number of preparatory school.

@RogerSchank – Teaching Minds: How cognitive science can save our schools Note: I can definitely relate

Academic subjects are irrelevant to real learning. They are not irrelevant to the education of academics of course. But, how many people really want to become experts in the academic fields?

@JohnnieMoore – A few thoughts on peer-to-peer networks in meetings – Note: I have had similar thoughts about meetings.

In practice, one of my beefs with Q and A is that it purports to introduce interactivity to meetings but is often deadly dull. Generally after a speaker has already gone on too long, the more fidgety members of the audience need to do something different, and that may take the form of an overlong question that actually is more annoying to much of the audience than the speaker has been. What would often be much better is a complete break in the pattern. Have you noticed the energy level soar when we break for drinks? I don’t think it’s just the liquids.