Weinberger
(2011) said “The network can make us smarter if we want to be smarter” (p. 91) yet
suggests that we are losing the ability to collect, control or predict
knowledge. My first inclination, reflecting
on Russel Ackoff ‘s DIKW (data-information-knowledge–wisdom)
hierarchy discussed by Weinberger, is to ask, “ How much of what we have on the
network really knowledge?” Based on this
hierarchy it would seem that what we have available on the internet is data;
many points of data which need to be processed and connected in order to become
information. This information then needs
to be culled, prepared, judged and refined in order to filter out the non-essential
and determine which information is most helpful. The information which makes it through this
filter then becomes knowledge. In the
past, because experts were always part of the filtering process, people could
assume knowledge to be true and for justifiable reasons. Such curated knowledge could help us gain a
better understanding of the world.
Furthermore by comprehending and sharing knowledge we could become
wise.
Experts
are no longer a guaranteed part of the knowledge formation process which still
begins with connecting data points. Now,
instead of experts, networked individuals connect the dots and what was once
the realm of the few becomes accessible to all. Knowledge will never be contained again; it
is free and expanding and morphing. But
since networked knowledge is no longer static – how do we ever hold onto it
long enough to turn this knowledge into wisdom?
And for the same reasons how can we even begin to contemplate managing
it?
Wienberger
uses another pyramid analogy in discussing how we amass
knowledge. The masses are at the base with no particular organization or
focus. However these crowds of
individuals naturally come together in affinity groups (made very easy with
social media) and discuss and share the data which yields information. But the next step, where the information
would become knowledge, could be perverted if our affinity groups are too
homogenous. In such cases we could
instead get an echo chamber. Since it is only under the condition of
diversity of opinion that knowledge can be formed echo chambers will not result
in knowledge.
Expertise,
previously so valuable in determining knowledge, loses its value because change
is so rapid and also because everyone proclaims expertise. Bill Fisher in HBR argues
that knowledge simply may no longer matter since it changes so quickly. However, soft skills and being human to one another
will gain in importance. Thus we see
that networked knowledge is facilitated by stronger human bonds. The focus on the importance of the human connection in knowledge creation and management is
reinforced by Nancy Dixon in her discussion
about knowledge management. She
explains that initially knowledge management was about connecting people to content. In its next iteration it brought people
together to learn from one another. In
its present phase knowledge management requires leveraging collective knowledge
and derives largely from conversation both virtual and face-to-face.
This Collective Knowledge is obtained
from the convergence of varied perspectives which, through evolving
conversation, come to a point of joint sensemaking - a hallmark of
Leveraging Collective Knowledge. Heifetz and Laurie in their 2001 article in HBR explain that this integrated thinking
is critical to solve today’s issues, which
he calls adaptive challenges – things for which there are no definitive answers. Adaptive challenges are ideally suited for
diverse conversational learning because they are unpredictable, the problem is
loosely defined and there are many views on an acceptable solution.
Davenport in Whatever
Happened to Knowledge Management explores the possibility that the web has destroyed the need
for knowledge management and mentions that Google trends indicate that interest
in searching for knowledge management has dropped off precipitously in the last
several years. There is an irony in this fact because in so many ways Google is
an incredible knowledge management system.
Considering the ways that knowledge management has evolved, rather than
killing it, I feel the web has enhanced it.
The web has minimized the importance of an organization seeking to cull
and store all of its data in any static form or attempting to limit access to
anything other than proprietary information.
But it is certainly maintaining a
very agile and diverse database and enabling us all to connect in a myriad of
ways to access, share, process, and evolve that information into knowledge.
The democratization of knowledge demands we stay
connected to others in order to make sense out of the data. This reality alters
the role of a leader Nancy
Dixon reminds us the leader needs to play a key role in fostering the
conversation rather than providing the answer.
To help achieve this Heifetz
discusses several components that leaders need to take to foster adaptive
learning and effective knowledge management.
He recommends that leaders can promote conversation by helping frame the
issues, challenging roles and unproductive norms, allowing flexibility, and exposing
conflicts so they can be assessed and addressed by a diverse group.
Building
on Jarche’s
emphasis on the importance of sharing, reflection and social learning, a leader
needs to create opportunities for all levels of learning to occur; opportunities
which depend on expertise as well as opportunities to co-solve problems. Jarche refers to several elements of learning
including Intra-Organizational Learning which moves the organization from personally-directed to group-directed learning and creates strong learning
networks. These
discussions reminded me of the concept of conversational space which I
had featured in a class I designed a few years back. Kolb, Baker and Jensen discuss the concept which I feel has particular relevance for leaders
trying to foster networked knowledge creation and management. A
main element of conversational space focuses on a leader establishing a safe
space where people with differing opinions can deepen their understanding. How well a leader prepares the conversational
space will determine the degree to which the conversation in the space promotes
learning or gets in its way. The full
theory is fascinating and I believe very relevant to a discussion of present
day knowledge management. However, for
this current piece I will conclude by mentioning conversational learning’s
emphasis on learning occurring in the tension that exists between listening and
speaking. These tensions are created
through the interface of various opposites and results in integrated knowing
very similar to Heifetz’ collective knowledge mentioned earlier. Therefore
a leader will foster networked knowledge management to the extent she enables
conversation, creates the space and encourages the dualities.
What is the next phase of knowledge management? Are our brains ready to connect to the extent
the network can avail? How do we select the elements of knowledge
management that will serve society tomorrow?
And finally, can knowledge be managed anymore?
No complete answer to any of these but certainly some new elements to
consider.
Reference
Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge
now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest
person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.
Tricia, I like your focus on joint sensemaking and the idea of a conversational space...though I have attempted in the past to create such a space for faculty. It typically launches with great interest and fanfare...and then fades after a few months. Twitter is the one vehicle that seems to have legs...but I agree that it is more of an echo chamber than true conversation place.
ReplyDeleteDr. Watwood,
DeleteFirst I admire that you have attempted to establish a conversational space for your faculty and agree it sounds deceptively simple and very desirable. And thus encourages great initial interest. But as Kolb and others who have studied true conversational space attest - it is very difficult to maintain. It takes time, focus, self awareness, intentional inclusion, a willingness to both foster and tolerate disagreement and full honesty and these are all uncomfortable. Yet I feel as leaders we have to keep trying to establish this space because otherwise we will never transition our knowledge to wisdom. Simply finding agreement with our own thoughts does not get us closer to wisdom.
A year ago I heard rumblings of Twitter fading out. Now it is completely relevant yet seemingly not taking us closer to meaningful conversation or sensemaking. However, I wonder how it might contribute to more transformational dialogue. Hmmm?? Food for thought.
Thanks,
Tricia
Dr. Watwood and Tricia,
DeleteI was intrigued by your comments in regards to conversational space. Reflecting on the week two topics of discussion, it seems there are so many options, and individuals appear to identify with either the options they are most comfortable with or that the uses within the tool vary greatly. It seems to me that if space is going to be created or utilized for specific purposes, those purposes should be clear. I am struggling with the fact that the technologies that seem to be more than a flash in the pan tend to be fluid and continue to evolve over time. How do we balance keeping networks pointed but not be too ridge so to defeat the purpose of an open sharing of ideas?
Jason
Jason - Thanks for your discussion and glad you are intrigued by the comments in regards to conversational space. The paper (and research) linked in that section is pretty obtuse but I have read it a number of times over the last few years so think it's finally sinking in. The concept is actually not aligned with any technology but rather in how we humans are present with one another both sharing and listening and coming to new meanings and understandings together. Our networked world has evolved since the introduction of the concept but I find it to have extra relevance just because of that element of uber-connection through networks. I agree that clarity of use and purpose can help us select the most appropriate tool and degree of connection needed and also that determining this clarity is really difficult. I have been feeling for a while - and this class and Weinberger's book are exacerbating the feeling - that I have to reorient so much of what I thought I knew. However, I am hoping that if we can find the right mindset (through conversation maybe?) this mindset will act as a map and help us navigate all the unpredictable and escalating tech changes. Fingers crossed ~Tricia
DeleteTricia,
DeleteThe echo chamber can be deafening with the cacophony of groupthink. I am trying to view/use Twitter every day, and this morning I ran into the NOISE. It was all response to a tweet from one person, but most of it was mean, vitriolic, and had me thinking that if this wasn’t the digital ether, folks would be sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches. I suspect many of these garner courage from the protection of the cloud, as some do from the distance of a phoneline (I borrowed a term from a friend for someone who is aggressive on the phone, but more docile in person: phone napoleons). This all makes me struggle with the value of the data coming across this tool.
To your point about conversational space, I have found that the idea of “safe space” is critical to getting people to be open and honest. I think that leaders have the responsibility to make the space safe, but also, as pertains to the group-directed learning, to manage what Lau & Murnighan (1998) referred to as faultlines. Faultlines represent the factors that foster subgroup creation – which tend to keep a larger team (i.e., group) from performing well due to the sub-group’s goals, proclivities, etc. Faultlines depend on the compositional dynamics of the multiple demographic attributes (e.g., race, age, gender, culture, nationality, language, etc.) that can potentially subdivide a group. Faultlines divide a group's members on the basis of one or more attributes. Faultlines become stronger as more attributes align themselves in the same way (e.g., older men and younger women - i.e., combining age and gender) (Lau and Murnighan 1998). But the paper was written in 1998, so I think that today’s communications technologies stretch what the demographics should include. Two examples are social networking, and political affiliation. These new social technologies present a steroid for many concepts, faultlines is likely one of them.
Thanks,
Shawn
References:
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.533229
Weinberger, D. (2011). Too Big to Know. New York: Basic Books.
Shawn - Thanks for the nudge to look into fault lines and their impact on the safe conversational space. With a quick perusal I did find some preliminary research on fault lines and creativity and innovation http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=articles Creativity and Innovation are an area I have long been interested in and you have added another dimension. Thanks! And yes - the echo chamber is maddening. I am noticing I am experiencing some psychological disruption with all the noise and rancor. I have never experienced this emotional state and it is to an extend linked to the cacophony of people knowing they are right and losing all recollection of civil, intelligent dialogue. I am grateful for this class and its exploration of aspects of this reality. I am eager to put some of these pieces together. Regards ~Tricia
DeleteTricia,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I really appreciate that you conveyed the vital role that leaders play in managing networked knowledge. With adaptive challenges becoming mainstream, your point that a leader “needs to play a key role in fostering the conversation rather than providing the answer” seems more critical than ever.
Intrigued by your suggestion to use conversational learning as a leadership approach to managing networked knowledge, I eagerly read the Kolb, Baker, and Jensen (2005) paper. Wow! What an excellent, insightful read, and one that I will revisit. Speaking of the paper, have you had a chance to implement any of the ideas in the “Creating the Conversational Learning Space” section (p. 30)? If so, I would love to hear what idea(s) you implemented, and whether you had good results. I am also wondering if you found any differences in having learning conversations with individuals, as compared to a group. Thank you for sharing this resource!
-CatOnKB
References
Baker, A., Jensen, P., & Kolb, D. (2005). Conversation as experiential learning. Management Learning, 36(4), 411–427. doi:10.1177/1350507605058130
I’m so glad you took a look at the piece on Conversational Learning. I thought you particularly might enjoy it. And I completely agree – it needs to be read and re-read over the years for it to begin to sink in. It is really dense reading and when I first read through it about 6 years ago I wasn’t at all sure how I was going to create this in the classroom. But I tried and the instructor I was designing the class for was really open to experiment. We set up learning/discussion circles and the students would reflect on and discuss their learning and life in general. Rather than focus on the physical space, we simply used chairs in the classroom and 10-15 people per circle, we focused on the mind set and used the concept of trying to push the conversation (and each individual in it) to a place finding the place where order meets chaos and seeming contradictions (like the opposable mind http://www.slideshare.net/N_Albro/roger-martin-and-integrative-thinking ) prevail. When it went well, everyone was fully present and moving from confusion to a heightened mental clarity. When it did not, it was extremely awkward. It took time and a commitment and since those classes I have been unable to obtain the same level of commitment from anyone. I feel very motivated to revive my attempts to try to establish this type dialectical space considering the readings and the challenges they present. Thanks for your encouragement to do so! ~Tricia
DeleteTrica,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your experience! I continue to be intrigued by learning conversations, and how these might be implemented. Based on your experience, it strikes me that there is a meta-level to the four-stage experiential learning cycle devised by Kolb (1984) and discussed in the Baker, Jensen, and Kolb (2005) paper. In attempting to establish this type of dialectical space, you would be going through the cycle yourself, with your reflection on the experience guiding the way forward. In any case, it is a fascinating area, which I hope you have the opportunity to explore further!
-CatOnKB
References
Baker, A., Jensen, P., & Kolb, D. (2005). Conversation as experiential learning. Management Learning, 36(4), 411–427. doi:10.1177/1350507605058130
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Absolutely. You are really getting to the heart of Kolb's work - the experiential learning cycle is ever-present. And although I'd not been thinking about it or conversational space much over the last year or so - the readings we are discussing has strangely brought it to the forefront of my awareness. It is there for a reason ...
Delete