See if you can find the connection between these three things: a news item, a book and a song.

1) There was an interesting article in the news this week, regarding a radical proposal to change the way international football matches (soccer – stay with me, my American friends…) are handled in the event of a level score after all the time has been played.

penaltyThe traditional sequence of events is that after 90 minutes of normal time, and 30 minutes of extra time, a penalty shootout ensues – and sooner or later, one or more unfortunate players commit the heinous, unforgettable crime of missing a penalty – and endures a lifetime of shame from unforgiving fans. It’s a tough, but dramatic way to end a game – or a career as a popular footballer. Most fans would much prefer a legitimate win in the conventional way.

The radical idea (proposed by UEFA, which represents European football associations) was to hold a penalty shootout at the start of every international game, just in case it ends in a draw. That way everyone gets to enjoy the drama of the event without creating instant villains – and the game which follows has an extra degree of urgency. When you think about it, it’s actually quite a good idea – bringing forward what you occasionally do at the end of the game, so that everyone gets the benefit.

tom sawyer
2) In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer becomes fascinated with the idea of attending his own funeral – and, by faking own death, he gets to do exactly that, and upon hearing his own obituary and seeing the grieving Aunt Polly he comes to realise how much he was loved, and is filled with remorse.At least for a little while until his next adventure.

joni_mitchel_byt_cd
3) Joni Mitchel’s “Big Yellow Taxi” – and in particular the famous line from the chorus:
“Don’t it always seem to be, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone…”

 

 

Can you see the connection?

 

Now, more importantly can you see the connection to our world of Knowledge Management?

 

Here it is:  Harvesting knowledge from someone leaving the organisation, just before they go.

 

Why do we leave it until too late to start paying attention to the know-how and know-who bound up in our most valued employees? How many leaving parties have you been to where you leave saying “I never knew that about Bob, and I’ve worked with him for 20 years!”

Wouldn’t it be cool to work in a organisation where you got to “fake your own retirement” after 5 years. You get to hear how your colleagues valued and appreciated you, they get to discover so much more about your background and experience, and it all happens in time to have a positive impact on the ‘game’ which is the rest of your career in that organisation.

The good news is that we can do this more and more as our digital histories in organisations become longer and more readily accessible. All those contributions to discussions and conversations can be mined through my Yammer or Twitter profiles. My contributions to Wikis are marked by my electronic fingerprints. My blog entries reveal my personal thoughts and ideas in an ever-evolving memoir. My profile (internal and public) provides me with space to declare my interests, passions and past.
Add to this some of the processes carried out in more progressive, networked organisations, where I’m connected to buddies and mentors and I’m deliberately introduced into networks and communities as part of my induction.  Perhaps after a few years I get invited to do a “hot seat” exercise within a community, whereby members of the community can ask me questions over a 24 hour period.

If we were able to piece together all of these knowledge touchpoints from my career, then last-minute salvage exercises like “knowledge harvesting” would no longer necessary.

Now that would be a game-changer.

 

One of the common constructs used to ‘frame’ knowledge management activities is that of Collect or Connect.

Collect is often thought of to refer to the KM activities closest to document management and information management. It invokes thoughts of ubiquitous SharePoint, intranets, portals, knowledge assets, content, FAQs, wikis, folksonomies and taxonomies.

Connect takes us into the areas of networks, communities, social networking, expertise profiling, knowledge jams, cafes, conversations and randomised coffee trials.

connect-collect_Fotor

There’s nothing wrong with either of these domains – any more than there is anything wrong with a bookstore or a coffee shop. But just as there’s more to our high streets than libraries and coffee shops (mind you, there are an awful lot of coffee shops) – there more to KM than collect-and-connect.

So what happens when you put the coffee shop inside the bookstore, then invite an author to sign copies and discuss ideas for new books? That’s one way for new knowledge to be created.

ccc_Fotor

We also create knowledge when we learn from experience, combine and distil existing knowledge, make sense from patterns, collaborate, develop and build upon each others’ ideas. None of this is new, but I’m still surprised at how many organisations build a KM strategy which seems to be entirely fulfilled through SharePoint.  What a lack of ambition!

connect-collect-create_Fotor

I ran a workshop last week with a group of programme directors from different organisations who are in trust-building stages of forming a community of practice.  They had already created a self-assessment tool to provide them with a common language – and identified a number of topics within their overall discipline.
We found it very productive to run a group table conversation for each topic along the lines of:

  • “What knowledge can we collect – what can we each bring to the table?”
  • “Which sub-topics and specific questions can we connect together to discuss, where a conversation is more appropriate than formal information sharing?”
  • “What are the areas and challenges where we could collaborate and create new knowledge (products, guides, recommendations, processes) together?”

One hour later we had over 100 pointers to the best content, offers to share documents, a whole selection of informal and formal discussion areas, ad-hoc offers and requests – and a set of new potential collaboration projects to learn together, share experience, create new knowledge-based products and challenge conventional ways of working.
Now that’s likely to energise this community even more than any double espresso!

apple-watch

Like hundreds of millions of others, I enthusiastically  tuned in to watch the Apple Launch event yesterday.

And like hundreds of millions of others, I was frustrated by a the spectacular failure of the live-streaming of the event, which stuttered, error-messaged restarted, over-dubbed Chinese real-time translation, and regularly reverted to a bizarre test-card of a Truck Schedule.

Very un-Apple-like. Very embarrassing.

Needless to say, Twitter was in uproar baying for retribution; this tweet summarising the mood.

applefail

When things go publicly wrong, this is so often the reaction.  We look for the fall-guy and take ‘decisive action’.

Does this change anything?  Does it reduce the risk that the source of the failure will repeat it in the future?  I don’t believe so.
Somewhere out there, there are one or more totally committed Apple employees who have experienced the most agonizing, unforgettable public professional moment of shame.  They probably worked through the night for weeks in advance to make this a success – and somewhere, someone screwed up, in front of one of the largest audiences in the world.  Does anyone really think they would want to re-live that experience? Does anyone  think that they  – more than anyone else – will want to know who, when and why this failure happened?

So why would any sane organisation want heads to roll after such a one-off failure?

Because the trouble is, when heads roll, knowledge and experience rolls too.

All this reminds me of an apocryphal story from IBM – one which I often use to illustrate true cost of failure – failing to learn from it.

A sales executive was working on a big deal for IBM – around $10m of potential value. Somewhere along the way, they screwed up and lost the deal to a competitor. That was a big deal.

The salesperson was summoned to Lou Gertsner [or perhaps his predecessor CEO, John Akers?] to explain himself.  After hearing the  explanation, Gerstner asked the salesperson, “What do you think I should do?”.

“Well, I guess you’re going to fire me.” came the faltering response.

“Fire you?  Why would I fire you when I’ve just invested ten million dollars in your education?” retorted Gerstner.

Now that’s knowledge leadership in action.

I hope that today, intelligence triumphs over indignation  at  1, Infinite Loop, Cupertino, and Apple are smart enough to do the same.

 

I’m always embarrassed by my inability to speak another language, having never really progressed beyond my schoolboy French and Spanish. I’m frequently humbled by clients and friends around the world whose command of English and desire to learn more puts me to shame. I guess it’s one of the disadvantages of being a native speaker of the world’s accepted business language; it has led to linguistic laziness.

When we think about the field of knowledge and knowledge management, the English language has particular limitations. The verb “to know” has to be stretched in a number of directions, and masks some important distinctions that other languages make.

Whilst the English know things, know facts, know people, know what just happened and know their onions – our neighbours in France and Spain separate knowing into two areas:

Connaitre/Conocer: These are used ot express knowledge about something or someone where we have some experience with the thing (or person). You can know, or be acquainted with, a book, a movie, a place, or a person.

Savoir/Saber: These are used to talk about learned skills. You can know how to swim, draw, speak a language, etc. It is also used to ask about knowing about something, or knowing something by memory.

Think about it for a moment – who would you rather get travel advice from: someone who knows about Madrid, or someone who is acquainted with Madrid?

The conversations would be so different wouldn’t they? One is more transactional – almost a Google search. The other feels more like it would be a dialogue – a relational conversation.

It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s a powerful one and one which needs to be embedded in our approach to managing knowledge holistically. We need to address conocer and caber, and find ways to bring them together.

conocer

Interestingly, in my research for this post, I discovered that in Spanish, there are cases where conocer and saber are used interchangeably:

When you are expressing the fact of having knowledge or ideas about a subject or science, either saber or conocer is acceptable. It is also acceptable to use either saber or conocer to express the finding out of new information or news

Where is the best place to bring together knowledge, ideas, new information and news about a subject? Well, a community of practice or a network seems like a good place to start.
If this sounds familiar, and you’re a reader of “Learning to Fly” with a good memory, then it should do!

ltf

So I guess we knew about this all along – we just weren’t fully acquainted with it.

A while back I blogged about the value of experience from the film “The Kings Speech” – and the statement from self-styled speech therapist, Lionel Logue who, when cornered by the establishment about his lack of professional credentials, stated: “All I know, I know by experience”.

o-MUSHY-570Last year, the BBC TV series “Educating Yorkshire” was broadcast in the UK. It was a fly-on-the-wall documentary about a state school in the North of England, introducing us to the reality of today’s education, and the challenges for teachers and students alike.
The most memorable moment came when English Teacher, Mr Burton was helping Musharaf (aka “Mushy”), a student with a severe stammer, to prepare for his oral examination.  This was something of a lost cause, or so we thought, until Mr Burton had the courage to try something that he’d seen on the Kings Speech. He asked Mushy to try speaking whilst listening to music to through headphones – you can watch it here – it’s a heart-warming 5 minutes, and it went viral at the time. I challenge you to watch it and not shed a tear!

I recently read an interview that Mushy gave, where he said something that tingled my KM antennae.

“I thought Mr Burton was a genius until he lent me The King’s Speech afterwards, and then I realised he just copied that other man!”

Isn’t that interesting? He just copied that other man.

Applying someone else’s good practice in a new situation isn’t clever or innovative, at least, not in the conventional sense – but it still takes intelligent courage. In the clip, you can see Mr Burton is almost embarrassed to suggest that they try to  “just copy the other man”, and suggests it laughingly.

Whether it’s copying ‘best’ practices, or adapting good practices to a different context, we sometimes underestimate what it takes it takes to do this.
In some ways, the organisational motivation to innovate a ‘genius’ solution is greater than the recognition gained for copying or adapting. Something a bit like this?

failure matrix_Fotor

How much more effective would we be if we celebrated re-use and re-purposing of knowledge as much as we prized innovation?

Is there a way we can make is safer for the ‘Mr Burtons’ in our organisation to adopt and adapt what has worked for others?

It’s got to be worth a try…

 

 

 

 

I’ve been musing on the traditional approach to performance management, and how management-by-objectives could release so much more value if it was more transparent. I’ve seen so many examples where people rely on serendipity to discover a colleague or a project with an aligned objective. And they often discover it too late!

Objectives

OK – most of us know our own objectives, but Dilbert has a point…

Perhaps this is all a bit obvious, but, inspired by a recent talk from Euan Semple not to eschew stating the obvious, I thought I’d pose the question:

Why is is that even in enlightened organisations who emphasise collaboration and connection, personal performance objectives still seem to be treated with the same level of protection and secrecy as personal salaries?  It’s like we are asking people to complete a jigsaw with all of the pieces upside-down.

What if everyone’s profile page carried their objectives by default?

You know the kind of thing: “This is me and this is what I’m directing my energy into, to make our company more successful this year. Are you doing anything that might complement or align with me?”

Naturally you’ll need to conceal the ones which are commercially, personally or legally sensitive – but I would suggest that the majority of individual objectives could be shared, but remain barricaded into performance management silos.

Do you know of any examples of organisations where individual performance objectives are generally visible to all, and where people look for synergies?  I’ve started to discuss this on the Gurteen Linked-In group too  – getting plenty of agreement, but no mould-breaking examples yet.

Grateful for pointers or examples from anyone.

 

So let’s push this a bit further…

  • What if not just our objectives were visible, but also how we’re progressing in meeting them?
  • What if I could reach out and offer to help a colleague to prevent them from missing a target?
  • What if we could remove the perceived need to out-perform and compete with our colleagues, focus on being greater than the sum of our parts,  like the HBR article on T-shaped management, but on a truly corporate scale?

And to be truly revolutionary,

  • What if we could bury forced-ranking and focus on releasing best from our people; start managing talent collectively rather than individually, and reform closed performance management into collaborative knowledge sharing?

Now that sounds like the kind of courageous company which I’d like to work for.

Perhaps it’s time we discussed some what-if questions with our allies in HR?

It’s only in the last few years that I’ve come to appreciate(!) the connections between my world of KM and organizational learning, and the  philosophical mindset which underpins Appreciative Inquiry.

Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) pre-dates Knowledge Management. It has been around in its current recognised form since the mid 80s, and was first published as a discipline in 1987 when David Cooperrider  and Suresh Srivastva wrote their seminal paper for Research in Organisational Change and Development.

 

The video below sums it up nicely when he describes the conventional approach to improvement as viewing the organisation a “problem to be solved” –and how over time, a problem-resolution mindset can sap energy, goodwill and enthusiasm from the workforce.

I’ve heard accusations made that AI is somehow ‘dangerous’ because it artificially views the world through rose-tinted spectacles. My response?

Who are we to say that the lesson-learning, problem-discussing, improvement orientation which strongly influences us doesn’t come with its own pair of KM-branded Reactolite-tinted glasses?

Perhaps we just don’t realise that we’re wearing them (and perhaps that’s why some are so quick to look for the danger in other techniques!).  Our default perspective is not necessarily neutral and perfectly balanced, and it’s good to take a look our favourite tools and techniques and ask ourselves whether they reinforce a deficit view of the firm.

Having facilitated a number of KM-related workshops using an AI, I can vouch for the positive engagement power of the approach.  It’s still rooted in the reality of what we can learn from our own practice, but the conscious focus on what does it look like when we’re at our best gives a different kind of energy to the group, and expands their vision as to what is possible.

The four steps of an Appreciative Inquiry “4D” Summit are surprisingly simple:

a1
1. Discover. (Inquire into what works.)

This is a filtered process of reflection and storytelling to set the context for what is possible, building a “positive core” from the sharing of stories.

  • 2. Dream. (Imagine how good it could be.)

This is a creative vision-building step – constructed by amplifying the reality of the examples from the discovery step. The photo to the left  is from a UN KM and AI workshop in Addis Ababa , showing the positive core, and an engaged group creating their dream, stimulated with some inspirational photos of Africa.

3. Design. (Agree how good it should be.)

This is a prioritisation process, finding ways to connect the colourful hot-air balloon of a long-term vision to the ground with some actionable propositions.

4. Destiny. (Commit to what will be.)

Identify specific actions and start to plan for success.

An approach which combines Reflection, Storytelling, Visioning, Prioritisation and Action and generates positive energy for change? Why would I not want to employ that?

So if you’re a knowledge professional who hasn’t considered or explored Appreciative Inquiry, let me commend it to you as a valuable mindset to integrate into your KM toolkit.

Or to put it another way, provided we understand the perspectives and mindsets which can lie behind the techniques we recommend – then we can help our client organisations to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet of savoury lesson-learning, palate-cleansingly neutral sensemaking and sweet appreciative inquiry.

What’s not to like?