This article has documented in a little more detail the recent research that highlights how conversation can actually make us smarter and more innovative – this research is from:

• Anita Williams Woolley et al, who found that “small groups demonstrate distinctive ‘collective intelligence’ when facing difficult tasks”.
• Steven Johnson’s book Where Good Ideas Come From, on cultural progress and how innovation really works.
• Oscar Ybarra et al, showing that even brief, friendly conversations can improve individual mental function.

This research is summarised and drawn together in the article, along with other thoughts on conversation, change and social media.

Download a copy of the article here.

photo: thesquigglyline

This morning, I presented on the same topic as my last KMLF presentation – see this post for the details.  This time, I have tweaked the presentation a little, and had the luxury of enough time to get the audience engaged in the conversation. Since the KMLF presentation, I have also  written an article on this topic for Online Currents, which is being published this month. A copy of the article will be posted here a little while after the magazine is out.

The new slide pack is now up on SlideShare.  One thing that has emerged from this work that is added to this version of the presentation is my proposed Innovative Meeting Test:

• Have we all been introduced?
• Is everyone open and willing to change?
• Are we all taking equal turns?
• Is the talk friendly and constructive?
• Do we have sufficiently diverse viewpoints?

We know all about explicit knowledge – it is visible and tactile, and has been recorded in libraries since Sumerian times. Tacit knowledge, however, is somewhat harder to tie down. This is the knowledge inside peoples’ heads. We often attempt – with varying degrees of success – to convert it into an explicit form so we can better measure and account for it. However, one of the best ways to handle tacit knowledge is for people to simply work together with it, and talk about it. This article investigates one of the most effective ways of dealing with tacit knowledge in organisations – Communities of Practice – and why helping them to grow and flourish requires a better understanding of the words “community” and “practice”, as well as an understanding of the place of technology.

So begins the latest version of my thoughts on Communities of Practice – this time, in an article in the Thomson Reuters publication Online Currents. A full copy of this article is now available on this site.

This extends the ideas in my earlier article The theory and practice of communities.

The slide pack, including speaker notes, is available at SlideShare. A list of references is also included on the Notes page of the last slide.

The main ideas drawn on for this presentation are as follows:

• Some thoughts from Theodore Zeldin on “conversation and minds”, from  David Gurteen’s site.
• Research by Anita Williams Woolley, et al, who found that “small groups demonstrate distinctive ‘collective intelligence’ when facing difficult tasks”.
• My previous post  on The Idea Monopoly?.
• An article about Steven Johnson’s ideas on cultural progress, discussing his book Where Good Ideas Come From.
• Research by Oscar Ybarra, et al, showing that even brief, friendly conversations can improve individual mental function.

We also discussed the pros and cons of the format, with mixed results. I think that it is a great format, provided that it can lead into further discussion as required. We have just started using MeetUp for managing Melbourne KMLF events, so expect further discussion on the MeetUp post.

The first part  addressed the dynamics of collaboration and CoPs – a discussion about community.  This is built on articles I have written previously, one of which is discussed on this site.  This also refers to Stan Garfield’s Communities Manifesto.

The second part provided some of the outcomes of the work Matt Moore and I did in our survey and report OzCollab – Collaboration Software in Australia. We then broke into a collaborative exercise, using another card game involving Patrick Lambe’s KM Method Cards.

The final part of the session then addressed the approach to participative change that has also been discussed here before – The Idea Monopoly.  This highlights the need for creativity, trust and openness in today’s complex organisations, and draws on the Cynefin model and other recent research.

The Slide Packs are now available on SlideShare – they are:

Knowledge Transfer Toolkit Program

This case study outlines how to capture knowledge from a team of experts and make it available to a non-expert target audience.

A managed program approach is used to bring together all of the (traditionally separate) threads of content management, communications and learning to form a coherent, flexible knowledge transfer toolkit. A key element in putting this program into place is to encourage the required behaviours of all participants, including promoting knowledge sharing.

Using social media as a business tool

Topics covered are:

• Trust and openness –the new paradigm for engagement
• The importance of people and personality
• Evaluating the benefits, risks and challenges
• Existing channels and new strategies
• Practical examples of social media

I finally had a chance to use them in a guest lecture I delivered recently at Victoria University (where my son was doing a KM unit as part of his business Master’s degree).

The game is described in full on the methodcards.net wiki site. 

In essence, it was used to support a presentation on KM technology, tools and techniques.  The full slide pack for the lecture is on SlideShare.

The first part of the lecture gave a general overview of KM tools and a case study scenario – an outline of the environment and cultures of a business where a KM program was introduced.  The students were then split into four groups, and cards were distributed to the groups.  Each group was then asked to select the approaches, methods or tools that they considered would be the most appropriate to address the case study scenario. 

After the selections were made and presented, the choices were then discussed.  The remainder of the lecture covered the tools actually used in the case study, with further discussion of how the students’ choices matched the real-world example.

Of course, there are no absolute “right” or “wrong” answers in this exercise – it’s the conversation that is most important! The main point is for the students to become more familiar with KM approaches, methods and tools, and to think through which would be most helpful in a given scenario.

For the full details, see the description on the wiki.

This work describes national cultural patterns, and how they affect knowledge sharing.  Here is a simple summary diagram I have put together of the four basic types they described:

Both types of culture in the left column are independent and individualist, and predominantly Western. 

The top left quadrant is the domain of the rugged individualists.  They are mostly found in France, Germany, the UK and USA.  These people see each other as unique, and accept inequalities.  Thus they can naturally accept a social class structure.  They tend to hoard knowledge, and see this knowledge hoarding as power.  They like theoretical analysis.

The horizontal individualists in the bottom left domain see themselves as equal in status with each other.  Bhagat et al state that they also have “a relatively high tolerance for ambiguity and complexity”.   They are mostly found in Denmark, Sweden and Australia.  This is of particular interest, and will be discussed further.

The collectivist cultures represented in the right column are mostly Eastern.  These collectivists are interdependent, and tend to be much better at sharing knowledge than the individualists.  They historically share knowledge by storytelling, and have persistence – they are happy to let time take its course. 

At the top right, we have the culture of duty and conformity found in China, Korea, Singapore and India.  People in this cultural pattern respond to hierarchy and authority, and believe in service and sacrifice for the benefit of the group.  At the same time, individuals still see themselves as different from each other. This pattern is particularly evident in the caste system in India.  Another feature of this cultural type is favouritism shown to family members – seen in some developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Finally – and perhaps most interestingly – is the horizontal-collective pattern, shown in Japan and the kibbutzim in Israel.  People in this pattern tend to have similar tastes and preferences, and strong group customs and relationships.  They have an ideal of equality as “oneness” with the group.  They are independent thinkers, yet prefer to make decisions by consensus.

Individualist cultures prefer working with explicit knowledge; collectivist cultures are comfortable with tacit knowledge.  There may also be a left brain – right brain analogy here as well.

Application of the model

I would suggest that this particular view is a somewhat blunt instrument – there are many other distinctions between cultures.  However, George Box’s maxim “all models are wrong, but some are useful” applies here.  Even at this coarse level, this model is useful for increasing our understanding of the impact of basic cultural types not only on knowledge sharing, but on many aspects of how the world operates.

The main intent of the model was to understand the barriers to knowledge sharing between different cultures.  Knowledge sharing between the cultural domains is easiest up and down the diagram (individualist to individualist or collectivist to collectivist), more difficult across the diagram (individualist to collectivist or vice-versa) but most difficult along the diagonals.

Looking at the nationalities exhibiting these cultural patterns, this highlights the great difficulties involved when attempting to take knowledge across some borders, such as, between Japan and the USA.  Similarly, it may also explain that even though Australia may be geographically part of Asia, we struggle to be seen as culturally belonging.

It is also useful in attempting to understand some of the basic differences in cultural context – the differences that cause global conflict.  People in one culture have difficulty with even a basic understanding of how people in another culture view themselves and the world.  This shows why attempts to impose universal moral standards generally fail.  

For instance, the concept of democracy is attractive to some cultural groups; less so to others.  It is not that some people “like” it more than others; it just makes more sense in some contexts than others.  Democratic cultural groups see democracy as an absolute, to be sought after regardless of context.  They cannot understand why people in other parts of the world would not want to be democratic, nor can they understand that these people may not see democracy as an absolute, but only as another aspect of a foreign culture – as much to be sought after as fast food restaurant chains.

I also find the impact of these cultural types on knowledge sharing and other activities within the culture just as interesting.

It is interesting to look at the model through the Cynefin lens.  Individualist cultures in general are represented as having an affinity for ordered systems, and collectivists as more comfortable with complexity.  This is perhaps reflected in the problems that Western cultures have in coping with complexity.  It seems that we still persist in attempting to use analysis and other ordered systems approaches to solve complex problems.

Down under

So how well does Australia fit into the horizontal individualist pattern?  “Australian culture” can be interpreted in a number of different ways.  There are also people who would claim that the term itself is an oxymoron.

Traditional Australian culture, as typified by “bush” culture or the Anzac legends, is the culture of mateship, of the “fair go”, of “she’ll be right”.  It is the culture of the larrikin or ocker, with scant respect for authority – or at least for authoritarians.  This is horizontal individualism at its purest – “I’m just as good as you are”.  (Even the grammar defies conventions!)

It is the dry, black humour born of the hardship of the pioneering days.  The original title of this blog was based on a typical Australian story dating from World War II.  It is interesting that this culture of equality was born out of a rigid class system – the history of squatters (landed gentry) and convicts.

Even the exalted position of the Anzac in Australian culture is interesting.  The Anzac legend was born from the crushing World War I military defeat at Gallipoli.  Even though the Anzac spirit is all about the sacrifice and the journey, the stories of the time are full of irony and self-deprecation.  Today’s pomp and ceremony seem a little out of place when you read these stories.

The Australian sense of equality is so ingrained that whenever people from vertical individualist cultures address me as “sir” I feel slightly offended, and find it hard to take them seriously. 

Successive waves of immigration have also added to and strengthened an amazingly rich multicultural nation.  Where else can you walk into your local Turkish restaurant to see a wedding reception in progress where the groom is Maltese and the bride Malaysian?

This culture has many laudable characteristics, but it is a coin with two sides.  It can also be racist (even if usually in an offhand, non-malicious way); it can also be misogynist.  It has historically ignored the existence of the indigenous inhabitants of the country that gave it birth – or looked on them with misguided pity or worse.  The concept of universal equality gives rise to the “tall poppy” syndrome, where even our loved heroes are eventually torn down to same level as the rest of us.  This indicates a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.  In some ways, maybe we are still not comfortable with who we are.

On its brighter side, though, this typical Australian culture should give us some potential advantages in the knowledge age.  It is a beneficial environment for knowledge sharing, and a natural habitat for social media.  All tweets are equal.

But is this the whole story?  The culture that we see around us in organisations in Australia today seems to be much more vertical individualist in nature.  We have adopted much from the business culture of the USA and UK.  This may have been a good idea during the industrial age, but it no longer serves us well.

We have just been celebrating Anzac Day a week or so ago.  Let’s see if we can bring back some of the best aspects of the Anzac spirit and strengthen the collaboration in our organisations!

The topic of organisational change – and getting people more involved in it – is something I have been becoming quite passionate about for a while now.  This presentation at trampoline will be the first time I have presented on the topic. I intend to develop this work, and its linking themes, in time to come.  I am currently playing with a new term for this – “orgsourcing”. You heard it first here!

This article effectively serves as a White Paper on the work that I have done in the past on a Knowledge Transfer Toolkit, and the related consultancy service now offered.

The Australian Collaboration Software Report

Are you currently using collaborative software, or are you planning to acquire it? Would you like to benchmark your experience against that of others? Are you based in Australia? Please fill out the survey at http://tinyurl.com/ozcollab now!

Matt Moore of Innotecture and I are researching the use of collaboration tools in Australia. “Collaboration” is a buzz term at the moment, and we want to get behind the hype to discover how organisations are selecting and implementing tools and whether they are benefiting from them. If you have experience with selecting, implementing or maintaining a collaboration tool within the last 12 months then we would like you to take part in this survey. 

Read more about what’s in it for you at: http://ozcollab.com/.