Library Closures - a Trend? Madness I say! Madness!

Human Resources library closure part of troubling trend - I'll say! For years, much has been written about information overload, challenges with personal information management, finding the "right" needle in the information haystack, the gradual transition information on the Internet from free to "for a fee." And now it appears that organizations are dismantling the very groups that are in the BEST position to have a significant, positive impact on knowledge worker productivity and quality of knowledge work.

Like many of you I'm sure, my love affair with librarians began with my very first contact. Faced with what I thought the insurmountable challenge of writing my first essay in what was known then as "junior high school," I tentatively took my first steps into that sweet space of learning called the Library. There I met the most wonderful person. Welcoming, supportive, inquisitive, brilliant, empathetic, and soooo knowledgeable, my first librarian inquiried about my objective, my challenges, my existing thinking, and helped me navitage through the thousands and thousands of books, magazines, newspapers to the best few relevant to my quest. And she also helped pinpoint specific pages/paragraphs of greatest value, and helped frame up my thinking and approach to the essay. Heaven sent! My stress immediately shrank like a deflating baloon.

Thus began the love affair that has lasted years and years through various educational institutions, public and corporate settings. Definitely a long term relationship that is even richer and deeper today.

I find a lot of people get "juiced up" about how social media and associated technologies are changing how we work in amazing ways. No denying that.  But we're still a long way from - a la Star Trek - saying "computer.. " and having magic happen. Sure, we can more easily build social networks that we can tap into. Sure we can have RSS feeds that send us gobs of content based on some general criteria from sources we choose.  Sure there are lots of blogs and other content sources we can surf. And sure, we can share tags, ranks and comments about the content. OMG can you say "MEGA OVERLOAD!"  Can you say "Information Armageddon!"

Most of us are NOT in the information management business (unless it's your hobby on your personal time). Our job is to do our job, which we can't do if we're spending too much time rifling through / filtering, deciding exactly what to use and learn from - of all of the information from all of the information channels at our disposal - for a specific task.  And do we not often lament that we don't actually have the time to find, and often don't have the access rights for, what we really need? And are the networks of people that we are ever more reliant on filled with people facing the same challenges with little time to help US out?

Is there not very significant value in having highly trained professionals who can:

• continuously identify, qualify, broker, provide access / point to highly relevant information sources ranging from high-cost subscriptions to leading discussion forums / blogs and even internal information sources?
• do some preliminary research and analysis to get you off on the right foot?
• help you connect and dialog with people who share common interests?
• anticipate what you need and make necessary provisions so there is no lag time between when you need something and when you can access it?
• participate in and serve the immediate and emerging information / learning needs of the communities you belong to?
• do the above with quality and timeliness and enthusiasm because it's their primary role?

At its most basic, we consume information and talk with others to learn.  In the context of today's information challenges, let's shorten the learning curve, not lengthen it!  Though the mechanics of the work is changing, we need MORE librarians, not less!

And maybe, just maybe, we all need lessons on how to better leverage this valuable resource.

25-Page Social Media Rule Book. Really?

According to a recent Ottawa Citizen article. A 25-page rule book for social media that was years in the making. Really? What are they thinking?!?!?  With so much demand on everyone's time, and the amount of discretion that people can exercise in their day to day work, who has time to read, make sense of and apply this extensive a guideline set for one small aspect of their work?   Granted, there are always some people who make bad decisions, as this story about an MP using profanity in his tweets exemplifies, but 25 pages?!?!

At least that was my first reaction.  But of course, it's always a good idea to go to the source and check facts.
The guidelines, first released on November 18th, and published on the Canadian Treasury Board web site, are, in my opinion, not what you would first think, or perhaps what the media would imply.

If you give the guidelines a quick read, or even look at the table of contents, they are not for individuals specifically, but for government departments to use as a framework for making strategic decisions and for contextualizing direction for departmental staff. Section 5, for example, offers consideration for creating guidelines for staff.

The guidelines are not a difficult read, are not something that would be referred to on a frequent basis, but would be good input to a broader Internet strategy.

Sure, there are always ways to refine, simplify language, make writing clearer, but at some point it has to be 'good enough.'  Given what I believe to be the audience / purpose for these guidelines, I think they are more than good enough, and a pretty good job on the part of the authors.

But, you be the judge.

"Smart" Meeting Participation

Chris Corrigan's blog post Titled Helping Participants Learn led me to Johnnie Moore’s Weblog: Facilitation for participants, which led me to Steve Davis's post / book excerpt titled 12 Acts of Courage to Change Meetings for Good.

I love the notion that effective meetings are not solely the chair/facilitator's responsibility, and their are always more participants than meeting leaders. Meeting participants need to be accountable for their own action/inaction in meetings. I know in a lot of the meetings I attend, I wish more participants would:

• "Keep your group on target by avoiding tangents."
• "Realize and express your truth in service to the group."
• "Transform conflict into a spirit of collaboration."
• "Be curious, observant, and patient."

I think perhaps Davis' book This Meeting Sux, 12 Acts of Courage to Change Meetings for Good might be a great employee handout.

Liberalism, Conservatism and Organizational Change Management

I just stumbled upon a Psychology Today article titled The Ideological Animal that made for a very interesting read.  The author positions political stances as less of an intellectual exercises and more of a product of our childhood, education, and, quite surprisingly, fear of death.

For the topic at hand, though, the above article contains some interesting comparisons between liberal and conservative personalities, as derived from a number of significant psychological studies.  A few examples:

• Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world.
• Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals are more optimistic.
• Conservatives are more likely to be religious.
• Conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature. 
• Conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity.Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information.

If an organization has a predominance of one personality type / political stance versus another, I can certainly see how the communications / change management strategy would differ, ranging from more conventional, methodological, structured, with no surprises, to more emergent, conversational, and creative. And, obviously, it is important to align expectations of the scope / pace of change with the conservative or liberal nature of the organization.

Typical Knowledge Problems

I've been asked by colleagues recently - "What business problems does knowledge management solve?"  Obviously a good question, but it also caused me to reflect on how much of what is written about knowledge management is from the solution perspective - knowledge management definitions, tools, techniques, methods  and approaches - and less about how to recognize a business problem for which a knowledge management "solution" is appropriate.

So, here is a business problem for which knowledge management is a solution.

We all work in complex environments, where no one person knows the answer, in particular to a never before faced situation/problem or issue, or a completely new context for a known problem. Not only that, but as every situation and context is different, even the best of "best practices" (a misnomer in my opinion) need to be adapted if they are to be at all useful. The nature of the problem could be any business process, management challenge, technical hurdle etc. Imagine anything from "How can I best evolve my talent acquisition process?" "How do I adapt my financial management processes to align with new international reporting standards?" to "How can I stimulate the generation of more profitable ideas in our research and development group?"

Seems logical, then, to tap into external thinking and learning to try determine the best course of action. The approach / process used to tap into this external thinking / learning is considered, in today's context, a knowledge management solution.

McKinsey's article titled Using Knowledge Brokering to Improve Business Process positions seeking external thinking as "knowledge brokering," and uses process / open innovation as the broader business problem/context. But you may have heard this learning before doing process referred to as a peer assist process as defined by Collison / Parcell in their book Learning to Fly.  Regardless the name, using an explicit, disciplined process to identify knowledgeable people and tap into their insights and knowledge is a knowledge management solution. 

To maximize value from the knowledge brokering / peer assist process, the context must be the business problem.  It is not enough to ask people about their experiences / lessons learned, then be saddled with the challenge of applying that learning to the problem.  The problem itself should be the context for the conversation and drive the learning - the people who have experience and knowledge to offer should themselves apply it to collaboratively defining the problem and building solutions. That is the real power of knowledge brokering / peer assists.

(If you're looking to identify your own knowledge problems, a great starting point is the KM Diagnostic Cards available from Straights Knowledge.)

Key Collaborative Behavours

Reflecting on a number of meetings I've been involved in the last few months, I'm realizing that three key behaviors are required for effective collaboration (and just plain old good teamwork):

Limit your airtime.
There are many people who always monopolize the time available in meetings and consume the vast majority of airtime with their (on the positive side) ideas, enthusiasm and excitement, their (on the negative side) assertiveness, aggressiveness, and sometimes ego. If you want to be collaborative, and contribute to a collaborative environment, give others the time and opportunity to contribute to the conversation.

Invite contributions.
More than just allowing time/opportunity to contributions, an invitation is a very powerful device for encouraging participation. Questions like "What do you think?" "How do you feel about... ?" "What would you do about...?" when asked genuinely/sincerely, will draw out perspectives worth considering, even from the most reluctant of participants.

Chose the right time and tone for critique/criticism.
One of the easiest ways for smart people to demonstrate they are smart is to look for, find and point out faults in logic, ideas or plans.  At the wrong time, criticism, in particular if it's harsh, can completely stifle creativity/innovation, in particular in the early stages of idea generation and exploration. As I'm sure most of you have seen, withering criticism can also create a climate that discourages more introverted people from sharing their thinking. So, defer critique and criticism to later in the thinking process, once the ideas are generated and will articulated. Then, when it is time to analyze and think critically, do so in a positive tone and "on the same team" as others, exploring the thinking objectively for gaps within the context of the conversation.

"Check-in" for common understanding.
We all view what happens around us differently, thanks to our DNA and our experiences that create the mental models and filters we use every day. Just because something is written, illustrated, or presented on a PowerPoint slide, don't assume that everyone shares the same understanding. Do your self a favor - test for common understanding about key ideas and concepts before everyone walks out of the room. Ask people questions like "What does that mean for you?" "Explain in your own words.. " "How does this apply in  your context.. ?" "If you had to explain this to someone else, how would you.. ?"  If you are doing the presenting, use illustrative examples to ensure everyone is "on the same page."  Simply asking people "Do you understand?" is not really a good test for common understanding.

Limiting. Inviting. Timing. Checking-in.

A Pithy Article on Leadership for the Future

I came across a Knowledge@Wharton article today titled Deloitte CEO Barry Salzberg on Leadership as 'the Norm, Not the Exception.' Like most of you I'm sure, pressed for time, I always appreciate a short, pithy, relevant article with substance. If you have a minute, it's well worth the read - it does a nice job of capturing what I think are many of today's key leadership issues and recommendations including:

• "Gone is the day of the old command-and-control environment, the climb-the-ladder model, in which the employee kept quiet and didn't say too much, certainly not much beyond what was asked and tasked..."
• "Gone, too, is the densely layered organizational hierarchy [and] dinosaur-like structures that are too slow and lumbering for today's environment."
• “...leadership needs to be "flat" today. It needs to be transparent.”
• "No longer is leadership about a few exceptional leaders at the top of the organization. Rather, the future is about exceptional teams and the leaders within those teams who can out-maneuver, out-manage and out-innovate their competition."
• “...you never know where the best ideas will come from.”
• “If you build a supportive environment where everyone is expected to contribute, you'll get synergies and creative ideas you never imagined were possible."
• “In a global world, leaders are required at all levels of the organization, not just at the top.”
• "The corporate lattice metaphor signals a shift in mindset. It's better reflective of today's employees, who want variety and flexibility and reject a one-size-fits-all approach."
• "Another leadership relic, according to Salzberg: the idea of a "ruling elite in the clouds of some bureaucratic Mount Olympus."
• Leaders today must also be transparent, especially in today's socially networked world, said Salzberg. "In today's social media environment, it's fascinating to see how in 10 seconds what you say is spread throughout the organization. There are few hiding places."
• The best leaders are ... generous with their experience, time and understanding that leadership is a life-long journey that is best made with trusted companions...”

Overall, well worth the read.