As I've read the messages on knowledge management, the phrase that keeps running through my head is one I hear from David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney when they talk about Appreciative Inquiry:
narrative rich communication To me, that's what we get from each other by sharing stories. Such communication holds spirit in its belly; it encapsulates the tacit. It is what makes knowledge more about relationship and connection, defying our ability to put it in a database. Peg Holman -----Original Message----- From: Richard Charles Holloway <learnsh...@thresholds.com> To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu <osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu> Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Knowledge Management >no, Kay...I don't believe that they lack the ability to form teams--it just >seems like it sometimes (-; > >What's lacking (usually) is the purpose and individual belief system (why >should I be part of a team? I've always been successful on my own!); the >training or education (when was the last time you heard of a school >"examining" and "grading" a study group as opposed to a student?); and the >organizational performance drivers (compensation; rewards; promotion; >recognition). > >When people do successfully form teams, it is usually because these 3 >components are satisfied to allow people to collaboratively work together. > >Of course, there are many instances of people who naturally work this way. >It's just that the organization's culture tends to create a performance >obstacle to collaborative behavior. One of the saddest things is to undo >the cynicism brought on by an organizational culture for people who >naturally tend to want to work together. > >My experience is that many knowledge workers do want to work together, >collaboratively. They enjoy forming the "community of practice" that allows >them to optimize their enjoyment, their working experience. Organizational >systems spoil this natural tendency. Indeed, most of this begins to happen >at the very point when youngsters enter the educational system. On the >sporting field, the activity is mostly team-centered. In the classroom, >it's almost all individual-centered. > >There are some activities which are best left to individual endeavor--but >the workplace is often best served by groups of people working >collaboratively together. Sharing knowledge (for the purposes described by >the term KM) requires collaborative behavior. So the key is to change >organizational systems so that they create the appropriate environment for >the type of behavior we want to support--whether it's individual >contribution or collaborative contribution. Or, perhaps better yet, so that >each person and team can optimize behavior to meet the situation. > >That's why OS can be such a powerful way for people in organizations to >begin addressing the needed changes...and because the right changes occur to >people only as they mature (develop their capacity) within a changing >organization, OS meetings become an evolutionary way for them to adapt >themselves and their organization to shape their future. At least, this is >the way I'm planning to introduce and use OS within these groups. > >thanks for asking...hope this is a coherent response. > >Doc > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Kay Wakefield <kbwa...@aol.com> >To: <osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu> >Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 8:23 AM >Subject: Re: Knowledge Management > > >> Doc, do I understand you to say that most professionals (doctors, lawyers, >> accountants) lack the necessary ability to form teams which allow for >sharing >> of knowledge and wisdom? I don't necessarily think you wrong, but would >like >> you to expand on your thought. I'm particularly interested in your >thoughts >> about how it might work for these professionals to become more >collaborative >> (for lack of a better word). >> >> Kay >> >> Kay B. Wakefield, Esq. >> Wakefield McCobb, P.C. >> 1618 SW First Avenue Suite 210 >> Portland, Oregon 97201 >> (503) 223-8046 >> kbwa...@aol.com >> >> The Family Business Law Firm >>