experience-sharing vs information-sharing

by

Interesting finds that were shared on Twitter this past week include:

“You are what you repeatedly do. Excellence is not an event it is a habit.” ~Aristotle – via @simpletonbill

“Innovation – a definition: (in a holistic sense) – the realization of new ideas that contribute to sustainable changes” @JonHusband

“If innovation means we are temporarily incompetent because it’s new, then continuous innovation means continuous incompetence.” @Downes

“the single most important management skill to develop is a tolerance for ambiguity” ~ @TimKastelle

How does the traditional world view of knowledge management fit in the world of social business? by @sumeet_moghe

Useful content doesn’t come up by magic. Content also doesn’t come up as a result of an imposed structure. Content arrives on platforms because some people feel a strong ownership for it and believe that there’s value in sharing it. Over a period of time they use metadata such as tags, ratings and comments to provide a layer of information and commentary to the content. Given a reasonable amount of time, the structure for all the content on the platform starts to emerge. Tag clouds help create a map for users so they can browse through the content. Search engines start throwing intelligent results for searches. User commentary, ratings and flags provide a layer of quality control over the content, helping all members of the community find the best content for the purpose.

Knowledge Management = experience-sharing NOT information-sharing – Knoco Stories

In most of the training courses I run, I ask the question “where does knowledge come from?”
Always, every time, I get the answer “Experience – Knowledge comes from Experience”. Never does anyone answer “Knowledge comes from Information”.
Never
If you don’t believe me, try it yourself. Ask people “where does knowledge come from”? and see what they say.

General McChrystal “we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history”

We didn’t know enough and we still don’t know enough,” McChrystal said. “Most of us, me included, had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history, and we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history, the last 50 years.”

Is leadership an emergent property?

by

Note: this post is in early Beta.

Is leadership an emergent property of people working together (social capital) or is it something delivered, in a top-down fashion by an individual? I was asked about this recently, and immediately thought about the Apache nation that had only situational leaders, Nantans, who were in charge as long as warriors were willing to follow them. Because of this decentralization, they were able to fight the Spanish for a long time, regrouping as necessary, ultimately destroyed by a “benevolent” United States.

Looking at my outboard brain (my blog) I’ve reviewed some thoughts on leadership, which has not really been my focus, but is perhaps more of an emergent property after almost eight years. These are some of the ideas that still resonate with me.

Let me begin with this quote from Peter Levesque, which I picked up in 2004, showing how digital  interconnectedness may change our view leadership:

I suggest that the leaders will be found among the aggressively intelligent citizenry, liberated from many tasks and obligations by technology freely shared; using data, information and knowledge acquired from open source databases, produced from the multiples of billions of dollars of public money invested through research councils, universities, social agencies, and public institutions.

But an aggressively intelligent citizenry needs access to its own ideas. This in an ongoing battle with the established powers. Open information and access to our common knowledge assets seems to be a required part of any new leadership model.

Leaders may be required in hierarchies but are they necessary in wirearchies? The great work of our time may be to design, build and test new organizational models that reflect our democratic values and can function in an interconnected world. Leadership today may be more of an architectural task, or one of setting up the right systems.

We’re now at the stage where we have some new ideas for work (wirearchy, natural enterprises, workplace democracy) and some new technologies (social, nano-bio-techno-cogno). The next step in this evolution is for a new organizational model and that conversation has already started. The ideology will come later.

Ideas lead technology. Technology leads organizations. Organizations lead institutions. Then ideology brings up the rear, lagging all the rest—that’s when things really get set in concrete.

Does ridiculously-easy group forming mean that leadership can now emerge when people get together for collective action? What kind of leadership is there in mass, decentralized, social movements, like the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street movements?

Warren Bennis wrote that hierarchy is a prosthesis for trust. With open systems, trust emerges.

Knowledge workers, collaborate, you have nothing to lose but your managers. This is a statement I made a bit in jest on Twitter, but the truth behind it is that management is less useful to the interconnected, professional, concept worker. With fewer managers and hyperlinks subverting hierarchy, will a different breed of leadership emerge?

It takes different leadership, or leadership for networks, to do the important work in complex work environments, which, in my opinion, is to increase collaboration and support social learning in the workplace.

I haven’t really answered my own question whether leadership is an emergent property of net work, but I have little doubt that we need different kinds of leadership (more open, transparent & diverse) and people with these attributes may emerge as their peers allow them to lead; for the time being.

Spreading social capitalism

by

I had the pleasure of meeting Dan Robles at Innotribe and his recent post on It is Time to Evolve, got me thinking and making some connections. Dan starts with the big picture:

How the world really works

The Internet and social media have shifted the factors of production away from land, labor, and capital to a higher order of human organization.  This is what we need to be talking about.  People today produce things with knowledge – social, creative, and intellectual knowledge.  These are the factors of production for that 99% of the value that exists on Earth.

Dan goes on to say:

How can we expect to create any type of fair and rational economy from a bunch of invisible stuff milling around the parks?  There is no escape from Market Capitalism and no path to Social Capitalism without a Knowledge Inventory, period.

The knowledge inventory link above takes you to a video which discusses the three factors of production in social capitalism:

  1. Intellectual Capital (ability to collect, retain & share information
  2. Social Capital (ability  of people to work together)
  3. Creative Capital (ability  to combine diverse ideas)

These reminded me of the Law of the Few and how ideas get connected in communities.

knowledge inventory

Generally, Mavens exhibit the greatest intellectual capital; Connectors have the most diverse (creative) networks and Salespeople get things done (action). I wonder if this metaphor/model would help to get social capitalism “across the chasm”. Identify sufficient Mavens, Connectors & Salespeople (you need all three) and then build up to the 10% critical mass necessary to effectively spread ideas:

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

Leadership in Complexity

by

In organizing for diversity and complexity, I discussed structural changes that are needed in our institutions. Kevin Wheeler has a great slide presentation on leadership in complexity that looks at what is required in such a diverse and complex work world. In the future of leadership development, Kevin describes some new core leadership skill sets (Slides 17-21):

  • Dealing with Ambiguity
  • Dealing with Complexity
  • Dealing with Interdependencies
  • Fostering Creativity
  • Challenging Assumptions

Two shifts are driving the need for a new type of leadership: 1) networks are giving workers the freedom to act and cooperate and 2) the optimal control structure for complex environments is loose hierarchies and strong networks. Leadership, and organizational support functions, need to move from command & control to enable & encourage.

Kevin’s presentation aligns with several of the ideas I’ve been working on. Using terms from his presentation, I would say that a transparent, flexible and open organizational model is necessary so that leaders can listen to and analyze what is happening in real time. In turn, leaders can help set context and build consensus. This is 21st century leadership.

 

Friday's potpourri

by

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

I have a fairly busy speaking schedule for this year, so this tweet, via @SusanBannister was quite relevant ;)

“This cartoon was in the Times referring to Ed Miliband but could refer to many a keynote speaker perhaps.”

—

@Britopian: This is huge! Labor board ruling has businesses buzzing about workplace rules on social media, via @RossDawson

The September decision found that five workers at Hispanics United of Buffalo, a New York social services nonprofit, were fired illegally for criticizing a colleague on Facebook, and should be reinstated because their actions were protected under federal labor law. The case is part of a boom of complaints brought on behalf of workers challenging their employers’ right to fire them for Tweets, Facebook posts and YouTube videos that didn’t sit well with their bosses. But this ruling marked the first time an administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board weighed in on the matter.

Nature’s own stimulus package via @SandyMaxey

To shorten the recession, we’ll need to teach better and work smarter. Students learn better when schools promote place-based learning in the largest classroom of all: the natural world. In Scandinavian countries, where “all-weather” schools require students to spend time outside every day, kids get fewer colds and flu. And outdoor classrooms cost less than brick and mortar.

A Master’s Degree in Leadership and Organization Development, and Coaching, by @MarkFederman

What I think will distinguish the program we are developing from others that nominally offer a similar focus is a fundamental philosophy that organizational leadership has no meaning without the context of organization development. By this I mean that contemporary leadership does not stand on top of, in front of, or in any way apart from the uniqueness that is the organization-in-relation, that is, the valence-conceived instance of an organization. Contemporary leadership must be thought of as being embodied and enacted by process-and-people throughout the entire organization among all its member constituencies, integral to its continual emergence and autopoiesis. In this sense,leadership development and organization development are one and the same, enabled by approaches to individual and collective coaching that are not simply tied to sports-metaphor-laden, rah-rah, motivation-of-the-minute.

"the truth is utterly concealed"

by

From The Economist — Bosses think their firms are caring. Their minions disagree.

Tragicomically, the study found that bosses often believe their own guff, even if their underlings do not. Bosses are eight times more likely than the average to believe that their organisation is self-governing. (The cheery folk in human resources are also much more optimistic than other employees.) Some 27% of bosses believe their employees are inspired by their firm. Alas, only 4% of employees agree. Likewise, 41% of bosses say their firm rewards performance based on values rather than merely on financial results. Only 14% of employees swallow this.

It’s like the aristocracy prior to the French revolution or the 1% sipping champagne while the 99% occupy Wall Street. This kind of disconnect is not good. Common language and metaphors are essential for understanding. When one group sees the glass half full while the other has no glass, how can there be meaningful dialogue? ‘Leadership by walking around’ or getting executives off their butts and out of their offices and board rooms would be a good start. The business world is changing and nobody is going to understand what’s happening from inside the walls and filters of the C-suites.

As soon as you create a reporting chain, you add information filters. Too many filters and reality gets distorted. As Tim Harford wrote in his book, Adapt: Why success always starts with failure:

There is a limit to how much honest feedback most leaders really want to hear; and because we know this, most of us sugar-coat our opinions whenever we speak to a powerful person. In a deep hierarchy, that process is repeated many times, until the truth is utterly concealed inside a thick layer of sweet-talk.

I hope organizational leaders wake up soon, for their sake and ours.

The new knowledge worker

by

What are knowledge workers? Are they a new breed or just a variation of the 20th century professional class? Neal Gorenflo, co-founder and publisher of Shareable Magazine, has identified (a very preliminary idea) a certain type of knowledge worker:

  • Knowledge workers understand information as currency. Sharing is a core strategy for success even in a corporate context. This can bring knowledge workers to the commons. 
  • Their worldview is informed by systems thinking or is polyglot. It’s not informed by a single political ideology.
  • They understand that influence depends on the ability to persuade, and that choice of language is important. They will not use political language that has been marginalized. They’re all in this sense salespeople.
  • Knowledge workers can become moderate radicals, meaning they believe that fundamental change is needed but are politically a mixed bag, they borrow ideas from left and right, from religion, from science. And they have friends and relatives on both side of the political spectrum.
  • They do not have stable identities or their identities are not wrapped up in a single belief system. They are always wondering who they are. This is a source of angst.  But what they lack in identity, they make up for in opportunity. They have options.

My first reaction to this list was how obvious it is that these knowledge workers practice critical thinking; questioning all assumptions, including their own. These knowledge workers are united by networked and social learning and connected more so to the external environment than whatever internal team they happen to be working with. They have the long view, often unencumbered by dogma, but also short on quick, simple answers. They see the humour in H.L. Mencken’s comment that, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

If this is the new knowledge worker, what could that mean for the 21st century workplace?

  • We are already seeing the knowledge worker (creative, passionate, innovative) marketplace becoming more competitive.
  • Organizations may have to become more flexible and caring to attract good talent.
  • Organizations & corporations may have to become more ethical and less politicized.
In the long run, this should be a good thing; but what about the rest of the workforce? Stories from the economic edge indicate frustration and desperation with a broken system. How do we get to a state of enlightened organizations in a transparent environment providing meaningful ways for people to contribute to society? The new knowledge workers may have some of the answers, if they decide to flex their minds and their networks. As a knowledge worker, with the luck and skill to be in this situation, there are some big responsibilities to shoulder very soon. Is it time to lead, follow, or get out of the way?

Thoughts on slackers, conversations, data and networks

by

Here are some of the observations and insights shared via Twitter this past week.

“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.” ~ Gloria Steinem via @sebpaquet

Slack is a good thing – by @jackvinson

It can’t hurt to repeat this over and over again. Effective operations requires open spaces to handle variation and uncertainty. Even fairly “uniform” operations, such as assembly lines and factories need white space. Projects and knowledge work need even more.

It is a complete myth to believe that keeping everyone busy will result in success.

Netflix: maybe lessons here for your business? 

  • Netflix hire and promote people who demonstrate: Judgement, Communication, Impact, Curiosity, Innovation, Courage, Passion, Honesty & Selflessness.
  • At Netflix “adequate performance is rewarded with a generous severance package“.  They see themselves as a professional sports team not a kids games team so Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly so they have stars in every position.

Data Is A Social Object by Ton Zijlstra

In my presentations over the past 8 months I’ve positioned data as an object of sociality: it becomes the trigger for interaction, a trigger for the forming of connections between people. Much like photos are the social object of a site like Flickr.com, and videos are the social object of YouTube, or your daily activities are for Twitter.

Factories: the original social business – by @drmcewan

Linking back to Esko’s contention that leadership “should be about providing a platform for discussing the meaning of work and the collective identity”, I think that one of the big learnings in making the transition from traditional manufacturing to the ” learning factory” is the emergence of relationships as a key lever in making the transition to new ways of working.

I think we learned that the meaning of work was and continues to be in the relationships we have with each other, the relationship we have with the organisation we work for, and in the service we give to others. Creating the initial conditions for relationships to develop that enhance out desire for recognition, self-determination, social status and learning will continue to be associated with high- performance and engaging work.

2 Questions Everyone Asks When They Meet You – all social judgments boiled down to 2 dimensions? by @drves

Professor Susan Fiske of Princeton University has shown that all social judgements can be boiled down to these two dimensions:

  1. How warm is this person? The idea of warmth includes things like trustworthiness, friendliness, helpfulness, sociability and so on. Initial warmth judgements are made within a few seconds of meeting you.
  2. How competent is this person? Competency judgements take longer to form and include things like intelligence, creativity, perceived ability and so on.
June Holley and network weaving via @PAnklam & @nancyrubin
Connector
  • Reach out to be more inclusive
  • Helping people find resources
  • Connecting people with common interests
Network facilitator
  • Coordinate working groups
  • Facilitate meetings
  • Help set up the structure of the network
Project Leader/Coordinator
  • Help people find others interested in the same things
  • Help people work together on projects
  • Help people keep organized
Network Guardian
  • Help set up good communication systems and resources
  • Set up training & support for network weavers
  • Make sure time is set aside for reflection

Organizing for diversity and complexity

by

I’ve been looking at ways to explain why social learning is so important for business today. It comes down to the fact that what we know and do inside our organizations is insufficient to address external complexity or to be innovative. In Leadership 2030, the Hay Group identifies six fairly obvious, but worth repeating, megatrends, all of which will require more innovative approaches to work:

  • The balance of power is shifting to the East
  • Climate change and scarcity of resources is a mounting problem
  • The war for talent rages on
  • Accommodating growing individualization, requiring more social workplaces
  • Embracing people who are digitally adept
  • Harnessing Nano-Info-Bio-Cogno technologies

Connecting the diversity of markets and society to the organization, instead of creating firewalls, is a major challenge for leadership today. How do you maintain the integrity of the organization while embracing the chaos beyond? Part of the answer is in supporting communities of practice as a bridge between external networks and those doing the work.

Project Teams do complex work (if it’s not complex, it will be outsourced & automated) which requires strong interpersonal ties. Nick Milton has a similar explanatory framework [I’ve used some of his terms in my revised graphic above], and notes the increase in virtual teams as well:

The fourth level [project teams] is where the business needs actively to work with people from elsewhere as part of a short lived co-located team, or a longer lived virtual team.  It needs the skills and input and judgment and effort from the others, and the outcome is co-created with the others.

At the far end are external networks, where we get ideas and opinions, in a more chaotic, unstructured and random way. This is where serendipity often beckons.

In the middle are communities of practice, which comprise a mix of strong and weak social ties and are the ideal liquid space for mixing learning and work while sharing advice and knowledge. Social networks are the enabling technologies that can connect external networks, communities of practice and project teams. Social learning is what flows on these networks.

Ross Dawson has a very good description of the power of social networks from the perspective of Giam Swiegers, CEO of Deloitte Australia. However, social media change the hierarchical power dynamic and not all leaders may be ready for it:

He said as a senior executive if you can’t handle having a peer conversation with young, junior staff, you shouldn’t get involved. He gave an example of a young staff member who disagreed on a key issue with the CEO who said so publicly. Swiegers far preferred to have the debate with him in public rather than the views being aired in the pub without him knowing about it.

An unpopular policy decision was made internally that Swiegers was not told about. The response on Yammer was strong, quickly leading to changes in the policy, guided by the most sensible alternatives proposed on the social network.

The power of social networks, like electricity, will inevitably change almost every business model. Leaders need to understand the importance of organizational architecture. Working smarter starts by organizing to embrace diversity and manage complexity.