I've absented myself from the ActKM forum for a period, in part because repeating past exchanges with what I call the Poppernerians gets boring after a while but also as a lot of the time I used to spend on listservs is going on active editing of the Wikipedia. I know I owe a response on questions to do with Spiral Dynamics (up there with NLP as a pseudo-science) but that will take a bit of time. However a chance meeting with Stacy Land in the bar of the San Jose Hilton this lunch time, coupled with travel planning for the ActKM conference next month triggered a read rather than a delete response to the latest posting. The question which arose was the classic KM question: How do we get people to share what they know.
My general response to people who ask the question How do we get people to share what they know, is If you have to ask the question then you have probably taken the wrong approach. In my experience people generally do want to share, but they may not want to share in the manner prescribed by the corporate KM department. If you ask someone for assistance in the context of real and immediate need it will rarely be refused. As someone to share knowledge in the absence of that need, or in a form or manner determined by a centralised function then it will nearly always be refused.
Sharing needs to be linked to tools that support the way in which humans have evolved to share knowledge, not the way that IT departments have designed most current systems. They also need to be linked to common perceived need. Look at the success of blogging between platoon commanders in Iraq compared with formal distribution of doctrine if you want a good example.
Comments (7)
Dave
Your reference:
" Look at the success of blogging between platoon commanders in Iraq"
Can you provide a source or some links? I'd like to investigate this further.
Thanks
Iwan
Posted by Iwan Jenkins | September 22, 2008 1:22 AM
Posted on September 22, 2008 01:22
Hear Hear!!!
Posted by Mike Riversdale | September 22, 2008 11:46 AM
Posted on September 22, 2008 11:46
Yeah, I excused myself from ActKM years ago. This discussion has little, if anything to do with KM. All KM groups must focus on intangibles, networks, markets, and above all, the future. ActKM rejects most KM foundations, especially the focus on the future. They prefer bizarre and meaningless control archetypes. Very odd.
ActKM is a self-fulfilling prophesy for defective, destructive KM because it is centrally controlled. ActKM dysfunction is self-evident.
Sharing is a perfect example of destructive KM and its ActKM-style conversations and acolytes. Your hints are spot on. Sharing is an emergent property, social, pervasive -- an innate human behavior. People constantly share with ease and alacrity. It is only when bonehead IT/KM/HR people try to force unnatural, centralized acts of sharing, or worse, try to create a ‘knowledge-sharing culture’ do they fail miserably. ActKM style people and their sharing initiatives arrive at expensive, go-nowhere cul-de-sacs with confidence.
It is fantastic that you are leading-by-example with a focus on blogs, wikis, narrative, and so forth. (Better late than never.) Of course these are foreign to ActKM because they are centered on the foundations of KM: intangibles, networks, markets & the future. They are emergent, non-deterministic, future-focused, social, collective and complex – properties where craven and puerile KM people and their establishment get lost real fast.
Posted by John T Maloney | September 22, 2008 11:50 AM
Posted on September 22, 2008 11:50
I'm not giving up on ActKM John, just taking a break. Yes the group is partially and lightly moderated but I don't think that justifies your comments about control. The "better late than never" comment I just don't understand I am afraid. Late giving up on ActKM (well I haven't), late adopting blogs and Wikis? (not at all sure that is valid). Others there share my views on sharing. Blogs and WIki's are a part of the equation, listservs (especially long established one like ActKM) have a role to play too. Incidentally your language above would get you banned on Wikipedia for 48 hoursunder WP CIV :-)
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 22, 2008 3:28 PM
Posted on September 22, 2008 15:28
I think the answer to the question lies in the relationship between reciprocity and beneficance, exchange and gift-giving.
Posted by Larry Irons | September 22, 2008 10:36 PM
Posted on September 22, 2008 22:36
Dave, great post - for me you perfectly hit the nail on the head with "in the context of real and immediate need". I've been struggling to explain this to people and I think you've now made it a lot easier for me!
Would also be very interested in more on platoon commanders blogging - I didn't manage to turn up much with google searches.
Posted by Claire Fletcher | September 23, 2008 7:28 PM
Posted on September 23, 2008 19:28
Great post! I completely agree with you.
Posted by Samuel | September 23, 2008 8:41 PM
Posted on September 23, 2008 20:41