The recent post about Don Tapscott and some of his good ideas (Hear What Don Tapscott Has to Say) generated considerable comment from friends and colleagues. As I reviewed what I said, and what he had to say, it became clear that I have a little more to share about Tapscott’s thinking.
Here’s a quick follow-up
I took myself to Tapscott’s TED Talk, published last June, and I liked his message (the TED Talk is called Four Principles for the Open World, not a surprising title if you’ve watched the video interview published by McKinsey). He gets into his plea for openness right off the bat, and since openness, transparency, and sharing are all critical to our work as knowledge strategists, I’ll pass along some of what I picked up.
His “four principles” – it seems to me – have to do with Tapscott’s four approaches to openness, the four “different meanings” he offers. Collaboration, for example, is more successful than in the past because, as Tapscott puts it, in today’s collaborative environment “boundaries become more porous,” and social media rides high, probably accounting for some of those “more porous” boundaries.
Also part of the picture is a higher commitment – in today’s knowledge workplace – to transparency, enabling the building of trust (and going back, it seems to me, to the ideas about collaboration and trust Edward Marshall was writing about in the mid-1990s or so – if you don’t know Transforming the Way We Work: The Power of the Collaborative Workplace, find a copy and take a look). Some might disagree with me, but from my perspective (and Marshall’s), working collaboratively is how people want to work, and when given the chance to work in a group rather than alone, the result is often better than it would be if it came from a single worker. Arguable? Perhaps, but it’s my observation and in any case, Tapscott has picked up on the value of collaboration.
Sharing? Of course. To the extent that unless some sort of proprietary, fiduciary concerns are involved, sharing is just what we do. As I’ve noted often, the whole KM/knowledge services/knowledge strategy environment just doesn’t function if sharing isn’t built in; we might go so far as to say that sharing is the very foundation of KM and knowledge services, and we probably wouldn’t get any pushback.
And naturally I’m drawn to Tapscott’s fourth principle, that of empowerment. It’s only in an open world that societies can function with success, and as more and more of us learn that, building our lives and our workplaces around knowledge sharing and openness takes on a critical new focus. As people “learn about things,” Tapscott says, society becomes more open. “The arc of history” – I love the phrase – “is positive” and “it is open.” Well said.
If you have the opportunity to view the TED Talk, leave the cynicism and the skepticism at the door. Listen carefully, and by the time you get to the beautiful image at the end of the talk, you’ll be thinking very good thoughts about our future, both as knowledge professionals and as members of (I predict) a knowledge society.
Guy St. Clair says
From Michelle Drabik at the KM/Knowledge Services LinkedIn Group:
It is a clear and accurate message, and I believe there is promise for the future from the generations that find such principles to be their normal, rather than a new behavior. The struggle is implementing these principles now, while an old hierarchy fights to maintain comfortable patterns, and the new empowerment has not yet formed into a sustainable force (a new solution for the vacuum of power resulting from leaderless coup). This is the conundrum in corporations, governments, and other organizations right now that is polarizing and weakening, rather than drawing together and strengthening, them. A root cause is misguided goals, which is why strategy is so important. In business, we are focused on the shareholder rather than the customer, seeking competitive advantage based on economic fear (clinging to past business models) rather than trusting that there is a bigger pie if we share and that we have enough collective brainpower to successfully and equitably monetize it. Companies merely stick their toes in the water of sharing/collaboration and pull the plug when they don’t receive Olympic medals for swimming. How do we make it palatable for old-school leaders currently in command so that we can keep businesses failing, or must we tough it out waiting for digital natives to assume those roles? Don Tapscott’s message is spot on, but how do we move from beautiful imagery of starlings to practical reality? Who is doing it right, and what can we learn from them?
Guy replies:
Thank you very much, Michelle, for that cogent and thoughtful response to the post. You articulate well so many of the things we struggle with, as we attempt to move into knowledge strategy as a serious management (and societal) methodology. I’m very taken, especially, with your comment about the new empowerment not yet formed into a sustainable force.
And I’m especially taken with your final comment/question: how do we identify those who are doing it right and learn from them? It’s the single must difficult issue I have with my studies, my teaching, my writing (indeed, even in casual conversations with professional colleagues): where are the practical examples for us, so we can move from the beautiful imagery and the theory to an understanding of what’s successful (and what’s not)? Those stories are out there, and of course we all try to refer to them when we give attention to our case studies, our best-practices stories, and the like, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could have a good compilation of something along the lines of “Knowledge Strategy Stories: These People/Organizations Make It Work”?
Thanks again for that good response.
Guy St. Clair says
Paul T. Jackson at the KM/Knowledge Services LinkedIn Group writes:
There are any number of joint efforts by corporations, by employers, by granting institutions, and by education, and in just about any area of endeavor. What’s difficult is the focus by those within an organization, not just on goals, but solving a specific problem, when those involved are looking to further their own agenda. Over the years, I’ve seen this time and again where the best people leave because the people under them are sabotaging the efforts, along with union rules, and management rules, neither of which the latter two seem to know how to deal with these issues of personal aggrandizement….or indeed block efforts toward such collaboration.
On the other hand many of the joint efforts/collaboration (whatever,) shoot themselves in the foot for similar reasons noted in the above comments; who gets the prize, the patent, the accolades, et al? These situations are not likely to change. I’ve seen collaborations with granting foundations where the requirements for an organization are so stiff that those who need grants are ineligible from the get go, and one wonders if some of those foundations are in cahoots with particular organizations, but by law have to look like they are open to all.
As long as there are self-serving objectives among participants rather than the complete focus on the problem to be solved or overcome, there can be no REAL collaboration or openness. Setting up rules such as those for conflict of interest might very well help.
Guy responds:
Good comment, Paul, and, yes, the distinction between self-aggrandizement and organizational effectiveness (I mean true effectiveness, not just realizing one’s own agenda) really screws some people up.
I’m probably one of the last of the cock-eyed optimists, but since the whole concept of knowledge strategy came along, with the goal of having some person or group of people with authority, responsibility, and accountability for how information and knowledge are shared in the larger organization gives me hope.
I’m seeing positive results in more and more organizations, and where I see them most are with mid-career people (late 30s up to, say, middle 40s) who have the enthusiam (and the smarts) to see just how good things can be, in the information and knowledge management arena.
But you’re right. There’s still an enormous amount of work to do.
Thanks for what you wrote, Paul. I really appreciate it.
Guy St. Clair says
Ben Keefe at the SLA Knowledge Management Division LinkedIn Group writes:
I am of two minds about TED talks like these. They are interesting and entertaining, but I am not sure what I get out of them that I can actually apply to real life. I suppose people tend to think about the big picture when giving these presentations.
Although framed in a positive light by Tapscott, I am a little concerned by his idea that the world will embrace collectivism as something altogether positive. While there are examples of the use of new technology in events like the Arab Spring, there are also events like Anonymous’s naming of Amanda Todd’s alleged tormenter. In some ways, Anonymous acting on its outrage seems justifiable. On the other hand, the potential for libel or incitement to violence from an organization whose facts cannot be independently verified is disturbing. On a more mundane note, the fact that it’s a common sight to see a man and a woman on a date, where each is playing with a social media app on a phone instead of holding a conversation speaks to another paradox of social media: people are more connected, but they are less involved with each other.
In organizations the term group-think is applied to the practice of everyone thinking in the same way. If the whole world begins to hold the same opinions and move as a swarm like the starlings do, then I think that could spell trouble. It reminds me of the quotation from Edmund Burke’s Thoughts on French Affairs:
“If a great change is to be made in human affairs, the minds of men will be fitted to it; the general opinions and feelings will draw that way. Every fear, every hope, will forward it; and then they, who persist in opposing this mighty current in human affairs, will appear rather to resist the decrees of Providence itself, than the mere designs of men. They will not be resolute and firm, but perverse and obstinate.”
Now, trying to implement changes at any organization is difficult, and resistance to change can be frustrating. But always changing direction with whichever way the wind blows is not necessarily the way to implement change either.
Guy responds:
Once again, Ben, I thank you for your thoughtful and well-stated comments. You are wise to be “of two minds” about such activities as the TED talks, and it’s good that you stop and take the time to think about the influence of these sorts of knowledge-sharing events.
And your concern about the risks of a world-wide embrace of collectivism is well put. I would respond by suggesting that rather than such an “embrace” we need to focus on education – particularly ensuring that people are equipped with the intellectual resources to think and consider just how they can apply what they learn in real life.
And I continue to be hopeful. As I said in response to another comment to this post (this one on the KM/Knowledge Services LinkedIn Group site), “I’m probably one of the last of the cock-eyed optimists, but since the whole concept of knowledge strategy came along, with the goal of having some person or group of people with authority, responsibility, and accountability for how information and knowledge are shared in the larger organization gives me hope.”
And, in my opinion, it’s in the new way of thinking delivered by our open and transparent approach to KM, knowledge services, and knowledge strategy that we are able to “fit the minds” of people (both in the workplace and in society at large) to the idea of changing to what is needed regardless of the circumstances. But I don’t really think we are changing direction to whichever way the wind blows. I think (hope?) we’re being more careful and considerate than that.
And, yes, with respect to KM, knowledge services, and knowledge strategy, we truly are moving into the realm of the “big picture” but if we’re smart we won’t lose sight of how we apply what we do (and learn) to real life.
Really appreciate your cogent response, Ben. Let’s keep sharing.