Ohhhhhhh, so many things going on this week...apartment hunting in DC (major pain in the ass), trying to figure out Rita Ora's ethnicity....I mean, she could be Albanian like it says on her Wiki page but she looks at least half Black AND she dated a Kardashian and, except for Kourtney, we know how they roll.
What else...I am officially over these "idealist peddlers" harassing folks on the streets of DC to listen to their spiel about whatever organization they're repping. They could take a few cues from their homeless competitors, namely, say your piece and keep it moving! 'Cause, let me tell you, you are taking your LIFE into your hands steppin' in front me to block my path to the Metro at 6pm to ask me if you can ask me a question - you just did!
Ain't nobody got time for that!
Recently, I attended the Global KM Health Share Fair hosted by the Global Health Knowledge Collaborative (GHKC). Since the field of public health is new ground for me in my KM career, I hoped to get some insight into the ways in which KM is is being used in the space to help me be more creative. Unfortunately, my takeaways weren't quite what I set out to acquire.
For starters, I made the realization that I am indeed a KM snob. What is that you ask? In a nutshell, if I don't feel that a person adds to my understanding of KM then I'm not interested. If I don't feel like a networking relationship will help me to grow as a professional or individual then I'm not interested. And, if I don't feel that someones understanding of KM is consistent or in line with mine, then I'm especially not interested. This might seem ironic - possibly, even moronic, considering that my entire profession is about promoting communication and knowledge sharing, but honestly, that's just where I'm at these days. Over the course of my nearly 10 year career I have certainly put in my time meditating on KM and sharing my insights on the subject with anyone remotely interested (and several folks who weren't) but too often those conversations seem painfully one-sided (and not just because we likes to talk, which we do). At this stage of my career I need professional relationships that are equally give and take, not ones where I'm giving solely to help them grow. Yes, it's nice to give but sometimes we wanna be Johnny at Christmas instead of being Santa all the time - milk and cookies ain't the same thing as a Samsung Galaxy 4S, I'm just sayin'.
My second, unexpected realization, was that folks in this space don't seem to do as much sharing as you'd think or expect. There was whining about competition for donors/funding dollars and the need to differentiate themselves from their "competitors" in terms of publishing research and program activity and maybe I'm just being an unsympathetic jackass but it seemed that too many of these folks were operating in a spirit of fear - yeah, I'm getting spiritual - that flies in the face of the work that they are doing. At the end of the day, we are working to save lives and, in some cases, eliminate illnesses in poorer, underserved populations that don't exist within Western nations. There may be competition for the limited resources to achieve these goals but collaboration is free y'all!
Interesting side bar: Considering how fearful some of these organizations are about sharing knowledge and information, sharing fearlessly is a great way to give visibility to those organizations willing to try something different.
Anywho, while I sat there feeling like a fish out of water because everyone else has their history and experience within the space in which they (and now "'I") work to bond over and I'm being a "judgey" KM snob looking down on them for not knowing as much about KM as (I like to think) I do and not trying harder to know more about KM or to develop innovative ways to approach KM I started getting critical of everything: the layout of the room, anything anybody said, what the girl next to me was eating at breakfast (and how).
To be fair, I did make an effort to share my thoughts in small group work sessions but, honestly, no one seemed very interested in what I had to say. And while I'm willing (in the space of time it takes to write this post) to consider that it's because what I said wasn't particularly interesting, it's common knowledge that everything I have to say is, at a minimum, interesting, so I don't think that was the case. I think it's because the reflections and contributions of other people, doing exactly the type of work that they do, frustrated by exactly the same challenges they are confronting, and saying exactly the same things they believe (not to mention all of those people who don't like to be aggressive about the truth preferring to sugar coat every bitter pill until they rob it of it's effectiveness), were more compelling than some dude who was, essentially, asking them to reflect upon how their attitudes and perspectives (read: bias) influence how they do their work and the results they see.
Yeah, real-talk, I was that deep.
But I couldn't help it! Listening to some of the comments just had me on an Adult Ed rager. I know that I'm probably the only (or one of a few) KM professional who went the route of an Adult Ed course of study, but I truly believe that getting anywhere from the intersection of KM Avenue and Public Health Street demands an understanding of these Adult Ed principles courtesy of Malcolm Knowles (with a little help from the Queensland Occupational Therapy Fieldwork Collaborative (QOTFC):
Adults are internally motivated and self-directed
Develop rapport with your audience and encourage a Socratic method of learning to encourage critical thinking and elicit participation
Show interest in peoples thoughts, opinions, and feedback
Provide regular constructive and specific feedback (both positive and negative)
Encourage use of the range of KM tools and resources available within your organization
Encourage individual KM activity that reflects folks' needs and helps them to achieve their own goals and objectives
Acknowledge folks preferred learning style of each member of your audience/team/staff
Adults bring life experiences and knowledge to learning experiences
Understand the needs and skills of your audience before attempting to secure their buy-in or commitment to something
Facilitate reflective learning opportunities
Adults are goal oriented
Provide meaningful learning experiences that are clearly linked to your audiences goals
Provide relate-able, real-life examples
Ask questions that motivate reflection, inquiry and further research.
Adults are relevancy oriented
Provide some choice in KM activities and tools so that participation - and learning - reflect the interests and habits of your audience
Adults are practical
When making choices about assessments, interventions, and availability of resources and tools, take the time to clearly explain and discuss your rationale
Be open, honest, and explicit about the impact and usefulness of tasks and activities in which folks are engaged
Adult learners like to be respected
Take an interest in your audience
Acknowledge the wealth of experiences that folks bring to the process
Regarding folks as colleagues equal (and maybe even superior) in life experience
Encourage the expression of ideas, reasoning and feedback
Secure buy-in at every opportunity
Your organization may have this massive need (directive and/or mandate) to improve how knowledge and information resources are shared but folks' level of participation reflects their individual need, not your wants. People may put documents in the knowledgebase because they have to (and manage it when told to do so) but active engagement happens when they see relevance to their own work. If you're not getting this type of engagement stop bitchin' about folks not beating a path to the wonderful system you've gifted them with (clearly, in a vacuum) and start asking them what it will take to make that system and the processes you've established into a tool that meets their needs.
Although it might not seem like it from all of the activity on this blog, I have been writing my ass off the last few months. Unfortunately, the down side of doing it offline is that I have to rev up my creative juices in order to write as freely as my wit and wrongness require. Thankfully, a little “dab” of Cher and Junior from my undergrad party days at Backstreet seems to help.
Ahhh, the club days. It seems like just yesterday that I was screaming for a DJ and sweating alcohol and second hand smoke into some ridiculous get-up. Wait, it was yesterday – house party, then MJQ and my favorite new cocktail: JD and sweet iced tea. Tell me again when I’m supposed to grow the hell up?!?!?! Well, as long as my Wii fit age is less than my real age I’m gonna keep whippin' my hair back and forth!
Anywho, a few months ago, I was researching social movements for inspiration on KM Branding when I came across a typology of social movements based on the work of the late anthropologist, David Aberle. As shown below, Aberle proposed four types of social movements (Alternative, Redemptive, Reformative, and Revolutionary) that revolved around two questions: (1) Who is the movement attempting to change, and (2) How much change is being advocated?
Alternative social movements seek to facilitate limited change within a limited population. Example: Planned Parenthood, because it’s directed toward people of childbearing age to teach about the consequences of sex.
Redemptive social movements also operate within a limited population, but seek to bring about a radical change. Example: Some religious sects fit here, especially ones that recruit members to be ‘reborn’.
Reformative social movements target the entire population while seeking to facilitate only a limited change. Example: Environmental movements, because they encourage everyone to aid in improving the environment.
Revolutionary social movements seek to (radically) change all of society. Example: The Communist party is one example of a movement seeking to radically alter social institutions.
Since two of my previous approaches – Green KM and Guerrilla KM (‘reformative’ and ‘revolutionary’, respectively) – were a surprising and unexpected fit, I challenged myself to round out the model with two additional approaches: The Cult of KM (Redemptive) and (my upcoming) 12 Step KM (Alternative).
Despite all of the negative information out there about cult leaders and cult formation, I’ve had a blast with the Cult of KM. I suppose it's understandable given that cult leaders aren’t really perceived as the most positive people in the world. Actually, because of their ability to exert influence and authority over others to the extent that folks will do anything for them (and a general lack of hesitation about doing so) cult leaders are an extremely dangerous lot. Still, as much as we condemn them there are plenty of folks out there who wouldn’t mind having their mojo! For knowledge managers, the ability to build a cult-like following can make a world of difference. Like, let’s say, the difference between a bright future and a career change.
Why a Cult of KM?
Let’s be honest, building and championing organizational initiatives can be straight up ridiculous! And, it sure as hell doesn’t get any easier when the initiative involves changing not only processes, but behaviors. The questions people ask regarding change initiatives are reminiscent of the terrible-two’s: Why? Why do I have to change? Why should I change? Does everybody have to change? Aren’t we changing every day? What if I don’t want to change? Can I change into whatever I want? Why do you get to tell me what to change? What’s change?
Just to refresh your memory, the objective of KM Branding is to provide education and promote awareness of KM; in effect, responding to (and attempting to mitigate) these questions as well as the bazillion others you’re sure to be confronted with as you go about doing “that KM voodoo that you do so well”. Contrary to the stereotype, in building a cult of KM you’re not trying to create a mindless mass of followers…unless you are. Hopefully, you’re not quite so sketchy and truly focused on building quality relationships and developing a level of KM understanding that enables its institutionalization.
Unlike (the equally radical) Guerrilla KM, which utilizes more of a grassroots, “power to the people” campaign/approach, a Cult of KM focuses on building social equity (or capital) among a limited, targeted group of organizational stakeholders who are in the best position to help promote and champion KM.
Creating a KM Cult(ure)
“It is important to recognize, however, that so long as only one person holds a religious idea, no true religion exists. We conceptualize successful cult innovation as a social process in which innovators both invent new religious ideas and transmit them to other persons in exchange for rewards.” (Bainbridge & Stark, 1979)
As practitioners, no matter how great we think KM is, it doesn’t mean diddly if we’re the only ones who recognize that greatness. Furthermore, you can be a fuckin’ “A” fantastic knowledge manager with charisma to spare, but if you’re not actively engaged in proselytizing KM (and asserting yourself as the organizational authority on the subject) success will be fleeting, if at all. I mean, c’mon, if you’re not actively engaging the audience you’re after, how the hell are they supposed to know you’re out there? KM may well be the set of strategies developed and pursued to improve how knowledge is shared and leveraged, but executing these strategies isn’t enough – you need to create a movement that elevates KM from good business to a religious experience. No surprise, however, that cultivating this type of experience is easier said than done.
As organizations adapt to rapidly changing markets with continuous efforts to improve operational efficiency, change fatigue has, increasingly, become a common problem across industries. The result: people don’t "fall" for every new fangled trend or technology comes along…especially when it’s marketed as a panacea. The beauty of KM, however, is that managing knowledge is something organizations are constantly and actively engaged in so you don’t have to sell them on KM as a new, profit-making/money-saving fad; you just have to sell them on your ability to improve how the company is managing its knowledge. To do this, you have to demonstrate amazing (prophet-like) awareness, insight and perceptivity into the issues facing the organization while discreetly solving some of these issues – and publicizing the hell out of the results (of course, focusing less on what you did and more on what you achieved to build a reputation).
At any rate, I’m hopeful that shedding some light on these four building blocks of a cult will be useful in securing the influence and social capital necessary to spread the “gospel of KM” in any organization. (Props to Tobias et al, Banbridge & Stark, and Rick DeLong's Socionics blog for providing some of my research material.)
Four Components of a Cult
Compensators
Proselytization
Asserting Authority
Maintaining Control
Roping the Mark: Dispensing Compensation
Every now and then I feel the need to drop an ugly truth about current KM practices that I hope will enlighten a lot more than it exasperates. With absolutely no disrespect to all of the successful, functioning KM initiatives out there, some of you don’t have so much of a KM culture as a Religion of the Yellow Stick in which people are dragged, kicking and screaming, into KM activity rather than brought over at their level of understanding and in their own good time. Granted, time is a crucial factor and conversion isn’t the most expedient route but the long-term success of KM is in its sustainability beyond any mandate. It’s not how many active participants/users (read: seats filled) you might have on any given day (when brandishing your stick), but an accepted belief in KM that leads to ingrained, normalized (read: ritual) KM behavior (practicing and preaching).
This is important to know because securing the buy-in of organizational stakeholders isn’t like converting some “rice Christian” with the promise of KM’s transformational qualities and the customary “quick win”. Nor is it likely that these stakeholders will be lined up outside your door waiting for you to save them (at least not to start with, muahahahaha). No, chances are you’ll be pulling a Carl Lewis running after folks and trying to nail down time to talk about KM, so, like any good salesperson/cult leader (same difference in this context), you have to make your time count.
Banbridge & Stark define compensators as “satisfying articles of faith, postulations that strongly desired rewards will be obtained in the distant future or in some other unverifiable context”. In KM-speak that means having a strong KM value proposition; and by strong I mean tricked out like a Transformer! KM professionals should, at a minimum, already be involved in conducting SWOT analyses, market research, and understanding the history of change initiatives (both failed and successful), the organizational culture, and the general attitude towards change. But, the key to developing the most beguiling and irresistible compensators is in thoroughly understanding the personal and professional needs of your stakeholders. What motivates them – money, power/influence, respect…genuine altruism? Only by understanding their motivations can you exploit them!
I know, I know, I sound like one shady bee-yotch right now, but step outside of my seemingly sinister scenario for a moment into the cold, harsh light of day (and your marks’ shoes) and ask yourself: Aside from a top-down mandate to do so (and people still find ways of ignoring those – you know exactly what I’m talking about) why should any of these people give a rat’s ass about you and your KM initiative? What do they really get out of drinking the kool-aid or swallowing “the little red pill”?
Sidenote: For your sake, I hope that you won’t make the mistake of assuming that just because it’s someone’s job to do something that this argument alone will be sufficient to sway them. And, unless you’re dealing with a hardcore altruist, don’t bank on “the benefit to all” argument. Lastly, please, please, "Dear Lord baby Jesus, lyin' there in his ghost manger, just lookin' at his Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors" don’t try to persuade anyone with the idea that it will make them look good or impress higher ups (even if it will) unless you are absolutely, positively sure that this is their Achilles heel.
That said, if the only answer you can come up with (to my pre-sidenote-rant question) is some tired, re-hashed diatribe on the bennies of KM (blah, blah, blah) then not only should you expect to be blown off (hopefully in a Miss Manners approved fashion), you kinda deserve it. In business, as in life, people prioritize relationships and activities according to what matters most to them (not you). Compensators should be relevant to the mark! You have to find each of their Achilles heel – vanity, ambition, social conscience – and play it (with every ounce of class you possess) to the hilt. Roping the mark is not so much about selling KM as it is about selling yourself as a solutions provider, the answer to their unspoken prayers; you’re “roping” them into a relationship with you in which you are regarded with great respect, thoughtfulness, and consideration.
You want their confidence.
I’m sure that some people may not see the point in separating their KM and “solutions provider” pitches but keep in mind that you’re building a “following” by developing relationships, not by selling a service or product – even your compensators are simply a hook! Every half decent sales professional knows that the highest quality and most enduring buyer-seller relationships are built on trust that has been carefully cultivated – not just having the best price point at the moment. While some of your stakeholders might be characterized (or even self-describe) as having little time for “small talk” or sales pitches with requests that folks simply "cut to the chase", your success as a KM cult leader is dependent upon setting the pace.
The Royal Road: Socializing KM
“…I guess Professor Zueblin is right when he says that thinking is the hardest work many people ever have to do, and they don't like to do any more of it than they can help. They look for a royal road through some short cut in the form of a clever scheme or stunt, which they call the obvious thing to do; but calling it doesn't make it so.” (Excerpted from Obvious Adams, p50)
The classic idea of a cult is that it’s a con, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, pull back the curtain and the all-powerful Oz is a powerless fraud (read: no skills, experience, and/or abilities) who was swept away in a hot air balloon (read: momentum of a, potentially great, idea). So, one might reasonably ask, “If you’ve got the goods and can deliver on your promises, then why all the hoopla, why the need for the con-like approach?” Basically? Because people like to be schmoozed, they want to be seduced…they want to believe that there is a “there” out there! As the timeless tale of Obvious Adams illustrates, some folks have a difficult time acknowledging and accepting the perfect simplicity in a strategy or idea; a fact that leaves many susceptible to idiots and con-men (go you!!). So, it advances the cause (well, your cause, at any rate) to craft a mythology around KM, wrapping the KM vision and strategy within a grand illusion that sets stakeholders off on a great adventure down a royal road to the solution they’re seeking.
Before you “poo poo” the idea, consider that any idiot can offer a solution – what makes yours stand-out, what gives it substance and merit, makes it worth listening to? The ability to deliver solutions with an appropriate and convincing display of showmanship is an art that distinguishes “good” from "great". Mythologies, like fairy-tales, are an enduring, time tested medium for imparting knowledge, wisdom and values. And, unlike, many traditional business communiqués, they travel well across an organization (nothing travels better than gossip, conjecture, and enigmatic tales). In addition to the fun, excitement and entertainment value inherent in this approach (fun is not anathema to business no matter what you learned in B-school), a well-crafted mythology can be an effective tool for piquing interest in and sparking discussion about KM, socializing the KM vision and desired values of knowledge sharing, and promoting KM’s various services and benefits.
"It [the fairy tale] addresses itself to the child’s sense of courage and adventure. The tale advises the child: Take your courage in hand and go out to meet the world head on. According to Bruno Bettelheim, the fairy tale offers this promise: If you have courage and if you persist, you can overcome any obstacle, conquer any foe.
"By recognizing a child’s daily fears, appealing to his courage and confidence, and by offering hope, the fairy tale presents the child with a means by which he can understand the world and himself. And those who would deodorize the tales impose a fearsome lie upon the child. J.R.R. Tolkien cautioned, “It does not pay to leave a dragon out of your calculations if you live near him." (The Read-Aloud Handbook, Jim Trelease)
Perhaps one of the most pervasively frustrating issues hounding knowledge management professionals – regardless of experience or organizational type – revolves around making KM work. Often, the answer lies, simply, in making KM real – an actual organizational challenge requiring an actual strategic solution. I mean, hey, if you can’t sell KM, then how do you expect to sell a KM solution? And, continuing my trend of advising on what not to assume, don’t assume that just because a KM need has been identified (as evidenced by the job posting that lead to you getting hired) that there is universal agreement on what KM is or the best approach to managing KM-related issues. Even in the (shocking, amazing) event that such consensus exists, there will, likely, still be a need to socialize KM that will facilitate building the foundation for your emergence as the KM cult leader (a.k.a solutions provider). After all, unlike charlatans of old who relied upon deception and ambiguity, the solution you are offering truly exists! The mythology you create not only illuminates, placing a spotlight on organizational needs with a colorful, inventive lamp, it also demonstrates a profound awareness and understanding of these needs and spreads the message (the “good word”) that there is an enlightened and achievable way of meeting these needs.
See there, you’re not some ratchet con-man – you’re offering an explanation for phenomena beyond folks comprehension, a sense of security in the face of uncertainty, and most of all, you’re offering hope …hope that there is a reason, that there is a way, that there are answers to all of the unanswered questions and unmet needs. Really, your organization is so lucky to have you.
And it’s important you make sure they know it.
Parting the Sea: Asserting Your Guru-ness
“In life one has to face a huge assortment,
Of nauseating fads and good advice,
There's health and fitness, diet and deportment,
And other pointless forms of sacrifice,
Conversation? Wit? I am a doubter,
Manners? Charm? They're no way to impress,
So forget the inner me, observe the outer,
I am what I wear and how I dress" (Excerpted from My Strongest Suit, Aida)
Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of proselytization, particularly when it comes to spiritual matters. I’ve always felt that God, who set the stars in the Heavens and created the Earth and the Sea and all life on this planet probably doesn’t need PR (especially when you consider some of the people speaking on His/Her behalf). Color me crazy, but I’m thinking the work speaks for itself, y’know? But hey…that’s my take.
Wannabe cult leaders on the other hand, could definitely benefit! Shameless self-promotion may be gauche but what’s the use of spreading “the good word” of KM if folks don’t know that there’s a bonafide KM guru in their midst? You’ve gained their trust, you’ve spread the gospel, now it’s time to reap the harvest.
When you compare the roles typically ascribed to a guru (teacher, leader, motivator, counselor) against the ones a Knowledge Manager must play (all of the above PLUS evangelist, confidant, problem solver, hand-holder, networker, make-shit-happen-er) the gap between guru and Knowledge Manager is virtually non-existent…that is, if you have the cojones to take the leap! For those of you that do, a few pointers..."
Pursue stealth relationships.
In their book Captive Hearts, Captive Minds authors Tobias, Lalich, and Langone describe cult leaders as having "an outstanding ability to charm and win over followers. They beguile and seduce. They enter a room and garner all the attention. They command the utmost respect and obedience." Acquiring the initial trust of your mark is only the first step in building long-term relationships that deepen your rapport, strengthen your influence, and enable you to discreetly identify and discover critical needs (and by that, I mean plural – go hard or go home!) so that you can manifest solutions seemingly out of thin air. The key is in identifying multiple needs that you address at your discretion (not theirs) which reinforces the notion that you are indeed the Wizard of KM and not a one hit wonder.
Be a problem solver, not a problem explainer.
Although I’m fond of being “Mr. Full Disclosure” and a firm believer in transparency, the culty-guru in me recognizes that my effectiveness isn’t tied to these goody-goody character traits. Both you and your audience (but mostly you) want to feel like you are a miracle worker, so cut to the chase. Problem solve with minimal to no explanation of how. For solutions with long-term benefits, avoid speaking too much about them up front so that you can mine them for future wins. Take metrics, for example, unless it’s a key part of the solution being provided, don’t disclose that you’re tracking them until you generate your first report. Besides, too much time spent on talking about a problem (or its solution) is just going to give folks a headache anyway.
Keep it cool and zen-like.
While there are moments when showing a chink in the armor (never more than two) can be beneficial to growing your legend, the ability to project awe-inspiring confidence and intrepidness along with an uncanny sense of control are important assets for a culty-guru. Fueling the flame of (belief in) your enlightenment requires anticipating and planning for future needs and challenges in order to remain two steps ahead of your stakeholders while giving the appearance of either being nonchalant or excited (whichever feels right) about these developments. Keep in mind that when your stakeholders are stressed out, it’s business as usual; when you’re stressed out, there’s a problem. Also, god-like confidence: sexy as hell!
Think before you act and act before you speak!
Deliver on the promise of something great and transformative by speaking more with your actions and less with your words. And, when you do speak (for example, in a meeting where solutions are being solicited), speak plainly, directly (matter of fact), and succinctly, declaring your solution as if it were the most natural and obvious thing in the world. Mind Control 101 author JK Ellis offers the following advice: “Be accessible as a person but present your knowledge and wisdom as being rare, expensive, mysterious, and only for those who are truly ready for it. This compromise allows you to build deep personal bonds with people yet have them want more of your presence."
Manage your accessibility.
Given your target audience, you should fully expect potential followers to be high on need and low on time (for anyone or anything they don’t consider a priority), ensuring that you – capable, ambitious, self-directed minx that you are – are always in demand. But do not, I repeat, do not, make yourself available to be anyone’s problem-solving bitch! Building a cult of KM isn’t just about branding KM you’re also branding yourself! Remember that not only are you an expert but you’re the expert providing critical solutions, so, at a minimum, be only as available as your adherents. Why is this important? Because if your target audience fails to fully appreciate your time and talent then the social equity you’ve been questing after (“my precious”) ain’t gonna happen. Social equity isn’t conferred just because you made shit happen, it’s given because your expertise is valued, respected, and greatly desired. Plus, being available at the drop of a dime gives the impression that you’re a genie in a bottle.
Build (and maintain) the mystery.
Downplay the amount of work involved in making KM happen. Create the illusion that executing KM is a magical process, regardless of the actual work involved. You want stakeholders to believe that you have a gift for making KM work beyond anything that they could do themselves. Hold fast to this knowledge – your job is to improve sharing of organizational information, not your trade secrets. And when you do share, don’t give it out like candy.
Herd the sheep, reinforce the message.
When creating a movement of this magnitude it’s easy to get lost in the sea of glory, power, and public exaltation that is sure to mark your ascension however, in addition to the many feats of awesomeness you will, no doubt, perform, it’s important to regularly set aside time to “light the way” for your flock. Being a leader (and physical manifestation of KM) means being a mentor…a shepherd. You must accept your responsibility for providing guidance and wisdom. By creating and seizing learning opportunities – the teachable moment – to improve their understanding and awareness of KM and good knowledge sharing principles not only are you actively involved in shaping their concept of KM, you are asserting yourself as the authority on all things KM.
The Wizard of KM: Maintaining Control
The Wizard of Oz is an excellent example of how effective good mythology and creative theatre can be used to advance an agenda. This dude, literally, blew into a cult leader’s dream – an entire town eagerly willing to offer up their hopes, submit to delusions, and confer power upon some jamoke in a hot air balloon. He didn’t even have to create his own mythology just perpetuate the one they built for him! Sadly, his masterful, though deceitful, use of theatre was less about consolidating power (‘cause he really didn’t have any) and more about not getting busted and, possibly, killed by a wicked witch. In the end, his duplicity was uncovered by a dog.
A dog. Damn.
Despite the potential sketchy-ness of the tactics I espouse in building a KM Cult, I still believe it can be achieved without sacrificing the values of sustainability, empowerment, and community development that epitomize my KM vision (“reaaally I do, reaaally”). Having a hustle doesn’t mean that you can’t be sincere and on the up-and-up (or mean that you’re the anti-Knowledge Manager). Neither does having good intentions mean that you have to be Mother Teresa. In fact, after all the work you’ve put into cultivating your little movement, you’re going to need a dab of “slick Rick” and a bit of theatre to ensure its continued success by keeping your flock on the straight and narrow and fending off dime store demagogues! The triple threat you’ll definitely want to stay on top of:
Time constraints that interfere with stakeholder participation/indoctrination
Stakeholder skepticism
Stakeholder belief that their regular input is unnecessary or irrelevant
While theatre is a useful tool for engaging and amusing stakeholders (e.g., creating a name and special language for the cult; using nicknames to promote camaraderie; assigning totems and gifting physical representations, etc.) the weapon of choice for maintaining control is, without a doubt, thought reform.
As defined by Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer, thought reform (a.k.a. "brainwashing"; I prefer “behavior modification” for our purposes) is the “systematic and incremental application of psychological and social influence techniques to produce specific attitudinal and behavioral changes.” These changes are meant to occur without being immediately noticeable to the mark but I have a hard time seeing some of the more traditional techniques making any sort of a splash in a corporate environment. Come on, ritual dieting and fasting: Food is what gets most people through the workday so unless you plan on slipping something into their Lean Cuisine you’re not likely to change their diet or cause them to quit eating full-stop. And, while you might get some attention for going on a food strike I guarantee it won’t be the kind you’re after. Then there’s group pressure and “love bombing”: You don’t have to force singing, hugging, touching, and flattery on anyone – this stuff happens easily enough under the influence of alcohol at Happy Hours and raucous holiday parties all the time! Unless your strategy is to blackmail anyone stupid enough to get caught on film, you might wanna take a pass. My favorite has to be isolation and separation: are you kidding me, most folks pray for the opportunity to be isolated and separated from colleagues and co-workers.
Luckily, I’ve outlined a list of more useful tactics for altering stakeholders’ perception of KM.
Meditation, Affirmations, and Admonitions…Oh My!
Objective: KM Consciousness-raising
Rationale: These practices encourage stakeholders to continuously think about their issues from a KM perspective. As a culty-guru, you want to foster the habit of adherents soliciting your advice/feedback and asking themselves “How can KM help (HCKMH)?” each time a challenge arises. In the beginning you may have to wean them by selectively and proactively addressing needs (that you’ve identified) while impressing upon them the criticality of taking the first steps to contact KM ("KM helps those who contact KM"). Consider a framed desktop admonition: "Breathe in. Breathe out. Call KM." Also, consider routinely tweeting affirmations! Another weaning technique: as you become aware of challenges facing stakeholders send out brief, unsolicited emails offering sage (yet vague) advice with a reminder of your availability to help (hold on to full solutions until you score a face-to-face). Introducing yoga into your KM workshops is a creative way of encouraging stakeholders to take valuable “me time” while teaching them how to channel their energy into being more focused, deliberate, and productive in their roles. And “Kaaaaay Emmmmm” makes an amazing chant!
Sharing in Community
Objective: Symbolic self-surrender
Rationale: Lead KM workshops in which stakeholders “confess” their thoughts and feelings about KM (i.e., concerns, level of understanding), sharing knowledge (i.e., impact on personal power, status), workplace issues, etc. This is a clever method of empowering stakeholders (in ways that support your agenda) by addressing and allaying fears, increasing rapport, and uncovering new opportunities. This is also a fantastic opportunity to redistribute power! As the facilitator, the person responsible for absolving stakeholders of their "sins" and guiding them towards enlightenment, your role as shepherd and guru becomes increasingly evident.
Stigmatize Wrong Behavior
Objective: Reinforce standards
Rationale: As a rule, I don’t agree with the practice of rewarding employees for demonstrating good knowledge sharing…'cause it’s kinda your job and you shouldn’t be rewarded for doing what you’re supposed to be doing anyway. On the other hand, vilifying bad or poor knowledge sharing helps to set and reinforce standards. Obviously, you can’t go around tacking scarlet letters on people (though if you could I wonder what letter(s) would be used…suggestions?), but creating marketing campaigns in response to unacceptable behaviors – especially campaigns that target the perpetrators (without naming names) – carry a special stigma all their own.
Build Attention Traps
Objective: Make KM the center of the universe
Rationale: Though the concept is decades old, attention economics has become my new mini-obsession, especially since we seem to be living at the height of the Attention Economy! In every aspect of our lives, we are barraged by an insane variety of social, political, economic, and technological forces vying for our attention. Moreover, we are actively exchanging our attention for currency. Attention traps are designed to create a "centripetal gaze" that, essentially, sucks people in. Once you’ve "cracked the stakeholder code" and succeeded in securing a measure of trust bombard them with provocative and alluring attention traps designed to place KM, squarely, at the center of their universe (“KM is all!”) and enhance their commitment to active knowledge stewardship.
The Tao of KM
Objective: Establish a "higher purpose" among stakeholders
Rationale: A common cult teaching is that members of the group share a higher, divine purpose to which their communion and activities are ascribed. Given the radical change your KM cult is attempting to make within such a limited population, this concept is practically tailor made. Indeed, targeted your stakeholders because they’re special – they possess the social capital you need to acquire in order to do bigger, better things with KM across the larger organization. So, advising them that they have a higher purpose (let’s say, to transform the company) isn’t necessarily a lie or a bad thing because they do. Attributing problems experienced by those outside of the group (perhaps in another department, division, or company) as the consequence of being on the "wrong path" is wading into slightly murkier waters. However you choose to spin this “higher purpose” it should appeal to your stakeholders self-interest and entwine their needs/wants with the organizational mission to promote congruence between their personal agendas and beneficial to the organization’s bottom line.
OR, "For Knowledge Managers Who Have Considered Suicide When The Drama Is Too Much"
Shockingly, I'm taking time away from the insanity that is SPAWAR (and, of course, I LOVE it, lol) to post something before the month is up. Once again, it's not my promised KM3.0 post, but I hope you'll forgive my slackness, it's definitely not intentional. As it is, I'm only awake and writing tonight because I stayed up to watch Serena fight her way back from almost being bumped out by Svetlana "Bumpy" Kuznetsova in the second set. Way to go ReRe!!!
As I raced down I-26 on my way home around 8:30p tonight, venting to Lucy (my new car) about my day, I was reflecting on some particularly bad knowledge management behaviors exhibited by some KM folks I know and it struck me how very true the maxim "your attitude determines your altitude" is with regards to KM.
If there's one thing I learned from my graduate program at the University of Southern Maine (and I learned a lot!) it's the importance of leading by example; practicing what you preach, as it were.
I believe I re-counted, in an older post, my attempt in the 2nd year of my graduate studies to evaluate KM practices and behaviors at Boston-area consulting firms offering KM consulting services for my Program Evaluation class. All, except one, of my requests were completely ignored. The single exception being Booz Allen, who's then CKO, Dr. Chuck Lucier, kindly responded that BAH only worked with post-doc researchers and folks from B-School's. Although, I was peeved (and my response to Dr. Lucier slightly bitter) I just assumed these organizations didn't want a flashlight shined upon their internal KM efforts in case the deets cast them in an unfavorable light and generated questions about their ability to sell a service they hadn't fully realized themselves.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Anyway, I say all of that because I do think that it's important, especially with KM, to model the practices and behaviors we are promoting. After all, if you won't swallow the little red pill, then why should your clients, customers, or organization?
The problem of KM Divas, however, goes deeper than being a bad role model. As a knowledge manager, your personal attitude about sharing knowledge and information influences the development and implementation of your KM strategy. Having met KM professionals who've demonstrated that Nazi's and Communists can get jobs as knowledge managers too, you can imagine what KM might look like under that sort of direction (and that's not to say Nazi's and Communists are "bad"...they just don't have reputations for being very "open-minded").
Fortunately, unlike Whitney Houston's reality show and Diana Ross bouncing Lil Kim's pastied fake boob on live TV, most KM Divas stop well short of crimes against humanity. Rather, they demonstrate their diva-ness in their fondness for knowledge hoarding (sad and tacky), grand, self-proclamations of expertness (can you be a KM guru if you've never done any practical KM? I'm just axin'!), and preference for competition over collaboration (if you have a subject matter expert on your team, doesn't it make sense to use them over an outside contractor who will give you the credit for a price?).
What's worse, is when KM professionals don't realize they are a KM Diva. Unfortunately, these behaviors also limit any chance of success for good KM practices and behaviors to take root and become an organizational norm. At the end of the day, joking and office politicking aside, this is the major issue this type of behavior presents. If KM is going to sell the value, values and ROI of open, collaborative environments, it must be championed by folks who embody and espouse these qualities. (Or, who are willing to try - that alone will bring awareness of where similar-minded folks in an organization are coming from and lead to building bridges with people who could easily be your greatest cynics.)
For folks out there who are stuck working under a KM Diva: I feel you! If you have any strategies for surviving in that environment share them with me and I'll post them here. Who knows, if my dream of being an Herb Farmer when I retire doesn't pan out, maybe I can start up a Knowledge Management Diva Rehabilitation Program. I can already envision Amy Winehouse's "Rehab" being a KM Diva anthem, "...they tried to make me go to rehab and I said, 'know', 'know', 'know'..."
I recently received (and accepted) an offer for an exciting KM gig and that's kept me pretty occupied for the last few weeks so I haven't gotten around to doing much blogging. many articles last week. On top of that, when I haven't been interviewing, negotiating the offer, or apartment hunting online I've been sitting on my duff religiously watching the US Open and working on increasing my ability points on my new Facebook obsession, "My Heroes Ability".
Anywho, I haven't put much thought into my latest blog topic (though I'm sure the next few weeks will bring much blog-worthy activity) and I wasn't quite sure what to write about, but then something happened that was more compelling than hours upon hours of tennis, more nerve-wracking than apartment hunting via Craigslist, and yes, even more exciting than my new job offer.
Season two of Gossip Girl.When the first season of my current pop culture fetish came to a close, I had hoped that immersing myself in ALTA and USTA tennis and hanging out in our rooftop 'japoozi' admiring Atlanta's cityscape would be enough to stave off the sadness of being without the weekly exploits of my fictional Upper East Side set.
Then I got it into my head to commemorate my affection for GG by writing a KM-related post about the show, but the untimely passing of my friend Fiona zapped pretty much any desire in me to do anything more than just get through each day.
However, now that my spirits are higher and I'm back on track with my blog and - praise Comcast! - GG is back on the telly, since I haven't prepared anything else worth blogging about, I thought I'd celebrate the return of my favorite guilty pleasure with a little light reading on what Gossip Girl has taught (and reaffirmed for) me about KM.
In true Adult Ed fashion I am a firm believer that every experience, relationship, situation, and tele-drama provides a teachable moment and learning opportunity, if only we're willing (and bent enough) to see it.
For the uninitiated, Gossip Girl is a popular TV Show, based on the NY Times bestselling series of the same name, that chronicles the lives of the young elite of New York's Upper East Side. At first glance, it hardly seems KM worthy, but when you consider the meteoric adoption rates (and out of the box usage) of social networking technologies by the show's characters (and demo audience) and adjust your perspective of the show's titular character from gossip columnist to an SME (subject-matter-expert) who manages knowledge and information on and about her "subject", then it's not difficult to see some valid take-aways.
When I initially had the idea to write this post one of the articles among that week's reads discussed a study of how young adult's consumed news and the way in which today's youth is bombarded by news they can't adequately process: "Today's youth receive their news from far more sources than older people, consuming modern media from "online video, blogs, online social networks, mobile devices, RSS, word of mouth, Web portals and search engines," according to the study findings. This glut of technological news sources has led consumers to experience an "imbalance in their news diet," specifically trouble keeping up with news stories that went on too long or were too in-depth.
While I challenge the idea that young adults are suffering from "newstritional disorder" as the Time's article suggests, (it's interesting to note here that, one, the study's primary focus is on how young adults access the news, not how they process it, and, two, the study has a very narrow definition of what is "news" and what young adults consider "news"), as a Knowledge Manager, I've certainly seen the problem of information overload with knowledgebases and content management systems. In this sense, access to too much information, coming at you from all directions, tends to turn users off to using the system entirely. The core of the problem lies with information managers and/or producers either disregarding or misunderstanding the information needed/desired and the way(s) in which their target audience shares and consumes information.
In its depiction of how young adults manage information, I think Gossip Girl certainly debunks the Times' pessissm. Furthermore, I think as people of all ages become more comfortable with technology that has become increasingly more inclusive...more plug-n-play, if you will...that they are taking more control over the information they consume, process, and share. The challenge then, for news and information providers, is to improve their target marketing strategies. In fact, Louise Druce, Editor of KnowledgeBoard.com, published an article on 'Target Marketing Through KM' just a few weeks ago).
Most importantly, I've learned (and been reminded) from Gossip Girl that when it comes to sharing knowledge and information, people will participate when the knowledge is meaningful to them, when both the knowledge and the act of sharing has value, and when they are free to use the tools that are most convenient to them
Gossip-Girl-as-knowledge-manager isn't just some all-knowing narrator that guides viewers through each episode. Though anonymous, she is an active character who serves as a valued information resource for the other characters, who, in return, participates in the knowledge sharing cycle by contributing to the body of information that GG manages, demonstrating both the culture of sharing and the value perceived in sharing. For her part, GG builds the credibility of her role as a knoweldge manager by managing, organizing, delivering, and validating "contributed content" (in the way one would expect from a primtime soap).
Of course, it might seem that her success and popularity is attributable purely to the often scandalous nature of the information she's sharing, I mean, people love to dish the dirt and, heck, even parents go to Gossip Girl to get the inside track on what's happening with their children and their children's friends. However, whether your pedaling the latest society dirt or spreadsheets replete with financial data, sharing is sharing!
Sharing when the knowledge is meaningful
Knowledge that is meaningful is relevant, it serves a purpose. This isn't knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This is knowledge that has an impact on a person's life, job, role or position. If people can't clearly identify the need or if you have to create meaning for them, odds are good that your knowledge sharing efforts will be for naught
Sharing when both the knowledge and the act of sharing has value
It's pretty obvious that knowledge or information considered valuable will be regarded as a commodity. People will want it, pursue it, hoarde it, and use it to achieve their goals. That's a no-brainer. What I find intriguing is the value placed on the act of sharing. This is a topic of much interest to KM professionals because understanding what motivates folks to share (e.g., peer pressure, self-interest, keeping up with Joneses, trendsetting, accountability, acquiring a sense of power and authority, etc.) is key to improving participation in knowledge sharing efforts. In my opinion, any perceived value of knowledge is secondary to the perception of the value of sharing. Why? For one, it's important to maintain the sharing-cycle even when the knowledge being shared is of little or no value; two, sometimes it's the process of sharing itself which gives knowledge value; and, three, knowledge only has value when it's used, 'sitting on it' merely renders it moot.
Sharing when free to use the tools that are most convenient
The Times' articles was absolutely correct that the modern information age provides far more media channels than the days of 'yore', but rather than being confusing and distracting, it simply provides a variety of options for content/information/knowledge managers to reach your audience...and for them to reach you! Not only does GG reach her audience via the web and a host of mobile applications, but her audience utilizes the same technology to share information with GG. Now, that's not a call to exploit the full range of available technologies in your KM endeavors. One of the biggest hurdles to KM efforts is the insistence of so many KM implementers on introducing new technology in conjunction with their KM iniative rather than relying upon the use of existing technologies with which folks are already comfortable. After all, one of your goals should be to reduce as many barriers to sharing as possible. Instead, consider incorporating existing practices/process for sharing knowledge and introducing new ways of using "old" tech.
If you can't tell from my blog, I'm pretty irreverent.
While there are a few things I like to keep traditional (NY-style cheesecake sans toppings, Sunday Brunch, Gin Martini's, Presbyterian Church services with classical hymns - none of those contemporary services for me, bub!), I'm otherwise a white-after-Labor-Day wearing, sex-politics-religion talking kinda guy. Back when I was a student at Georgia State, absorbing anything and everything KM that I could get my hands on, it's my irreverence that I credit with helping me to separate the wheat from the chaff of KM lit as well as seek inspiration from other sources/fields - Psychology, Economics, Marketing, Education...Pokémon.
Yes, Pokémon.
I wrote a paper entitled "Pokémon As a Metaphor for Knowledge Management: Gotta Catch 'Em All!"...hardly worthy of KM World or InsideKnowledge, but I got an 'A'! (If you think that's interesting, I got my one and only tattoo just for an Organizational Devevlopment class project in which we had to present analyses and comparisons of three businesess in the same field. We chose tattoo parlors. And, again, got an 'A'. When I get my PhD I'm going to get something pierced, lol.)
Yes, I rock. I know. Totally OOC (out of control).
Anyway, having read a lot of crap on the subject of KM, I'm not one to fawn over the rockstars of KM (even though I have the list). Usually, I'm so critical of the literature that it's rare for me to put anyone on a pedestal, but I'm putting Patrick Lambe on one today.
I don't know Patrick, personally, and I was only recently introduced to his work and thoughts last week when I was researching KM certification and came across his 2006 article, "KM Competencies: Is Certification the Way to Go?".
On Tuesday, I was Googling 'sunk cost' wiki-style (you know, when you start on one page reading something and then 2 hours later you've clicked your way onto some completely tangential topic?) when I found myself at Green Chameleon reading Patrick's 2002 article,"Accounting for Knowledge Management"
Hands down, it's the most brilliant piece on KM that I've read in 2008 and, maybe, for the last couple of years. And, it's useful. Not in some academic, theoretical, abstract sense, but practically useful. It's not a 'how to' manual though (so don't go gettin' all excited), but for those of you grappling with the development of metrics and tools/processes to measure the value of your KM efforts, Patrick has written an intelligent, insightful (and interesting to read) article that provides both history and perspective on accounting for knowledge-intensive businesses and activity.
It made me think of my first knowledge audit and how it took me just a hair over six months, several (almost) pointless AEA (American Evaluation Association) conference modules and sheer gumption to design and then implement what I hoped wouldn't be a capital-F failure. The end result, my 'State of Knowledge' report to the company, has become a regular deliverable in every KM engagement with which I'm involved. Just as Patrick touches on in this article, it may not provide the hard numbers and precise statistical figures associated with modern accounting methods, but it does provide an account - annually - that represents to management, the leadership, investors and the organization, in general, the value derived from investments made in human capital and KM efforts.
So, after reading this KM chef d'oeuvre I cyber-stalked Patrick via Google, nosed around Green Chameleon for a bit, and read several more amazing articles:
There are many more, so you'll have to check out the website to view them, but I love these articles mostly because even the ones written 7 or 8 years ago still ring (prophetically) true today.
Thanks Patrick! It would have been nice to have had your insights when I was in school, but I'll happily share them now that I'm in the field.
I hadn't planned on posting a blog today, especially since I had one of those weird, job-in-jeopardy-dreams last night (because I didn't bring 15 sub sandwiches to an office event...even though, in my dream, I didn't know I was supposed to bring anything). Some people dream of being naked, I dream of not bringing subs to an office party...tomato, tomata. Anyway, I figured I'd just focus on work today, but as I was doing my daily news/blog reviews, I came across the article, Tapping Into Knowledge Management at CIO Insight by John Parkinson.
Mr. Parkinson's main point is that KM "isn't something you do. Rather, it's the result you get when you do a lot of other things right."
As both the title of this post, and my response below indicates, I'm not in total agreeement with this statement. Please access the link above to read the article (it's brief) and read my comments below.
Cheers!!
"What fascinates me most about a lot of the KM literature that I read - it sets KM way up in Mount Olympus and then gives the most dodgy, convoluted, wordy directions to getting there. Still, as a KM practitioner, I'm not completely on board with the idea that knowledge management isn't something you do", preferring to believe that it is both the process and the end result.
"As a student of Obvious Adams, I am in total agreement with your skepticism of a big, expensive, capital-letter KM engagement. Particularly, since it sounds to me like you really just need to introduce a forward-looking process that provides a forum for capturing the knowledge/information you're after and then either hiring or tasking a dedicated resource - someone familiar with your industry, work environment, products, and projects - to analyze and report on the information being shared.
"I say forward-looking, because it's important not to get caught up in trying to capture past behaviors/practices - if that knowledge is still relevant, it will come, if it isn't, then it's useless anyway.
"And, yes, there's always a learning curve and there are always folks who are either late to the party (late adopters) or who never arrive (non-users), but you can increase adoption through a combination of marketing (an internal 'viral campaign' and word-of-mouth via early adopters/advocates) and by making use of tools/resources that are already being used. In most production environments, people are already sharing information using some form of e-tool, be it email, IM, wikis, etc. or some combination and, it's likely, either the information that you're looking for, or the path to those with that knowledge, is there.
"As, to the busy-ness of people with the valued knowledge, unless your KM is Charles Xavier you're never going to get it all anyway!
"However, by having specific needs and focused questions (using the aforementioned process) and leaving the analysis of that information to someone well-suited to the task, you make the process minimally invasive, minimally irksome, and, most importantly, relevant.
"My personal experience is that it's not sharing that people have a problem with, it's having to info-dump, indiscriminately, AND, do it in tidy little chunks, easily digestible by the masses; make the process convenient and intelligent to the full range of your consumers and you just might get somewhere. After all, everyone has a use for useful knowledge.
My next post was actually going to be on the impact of KM with regards to employee retention & recruitment (I'm in full recruiter mode y'all - but the cold calls still suck, hehehehe), anyway, I was responding to Jim Lee's most recent post and liked what I wrote enought to re-post here. ______________________ Hmmm, a couple of observations on "valuable content"...I think its important when attempting to promote knowledge sharing activity that people are given a certain amount of latitude in what they share - many people don't immediately recognize the value in their contributions and often wait to share something "special" (and end up not sharing anything at all); I tend to favor encouraging sharing even when it's not particularly valuable just to get people in the habit of sharing.
In terms of identifying value in knowledge, in my opinion, that's part of the role that the knowledge manager plays - identifying areas for further/deeper exploration and becoming involved in the process of building the value of the knowledge base/repository. For all knowledge content, you have to read between the lines and ask "what value does this information have?", "how can this information help the organization achieve it's goals?" - and whether you yourself have any answers (or not), kick it back out to the masses and invite them to answer those questions, as well.
Too many organizations just expect that people know (1) the value of the knowledge they possess and (2) how to communicate that knowledge. This is another important role for knowledge managers - educating people on how to share, in addition to why, what, when, and where (without being too restrictive, limited, or controlling - all of which are counter-productive).
It's interesting here to note that while blogging reflects people's willingness to have a voice and share the contents of their head (however redundant, idiotic, shameless or sardonic), so many organizations are afraid of encouraging the practice internally, because they don't know what they'll get (or, more precisely, they know exactly what they'll get and they don't want to deal with it).
Something to think about: the more you attempt to control the process (and content) of knowledge sharing, the less sharing you're likely to have; and while the narrow focus may have its benefits, are you getting all the knowledge you need/want? I say worry about implementing "controls" after you've created some solid momentum.
As for measurement, I don't know if Stan intentionally or unintentionally left measurement off of his list, but I think it is a topic that gets too much attention. I absolutely see the value in incorporating measurement protocols into your KM strategy, but too much time is expended on trying to quantify the value and the benefit and to what end? Is it helping to get KM up and running? For most organizations, the inability to adequately develop measurement standards prevents KM from even getting out of the gate. I'm not saying it should be a free for all (you can have basic metrics tied to your overall goals), but perhaps organizations should try a more faith-based approach to KM and just go with it until there's actually something to measure.
Thus far in my career, I've worked on two full lifecycle KM engagements and one of the (many) things that irks me is how Senior Executives (including the President and CEO) have been non-users of the KM systems I've been involved with. During my time with Ariba, I'm not even sure if our Sr. Execs even knew the company had a knowledge base (if they did, maybe they wouldn't have laid off half of the team....I'm not bitter, lol), but in my last position with B+P both the President and the company founder were aware that a system had been deployed, yet neither of them ever logged into it.
At Ariba, I challenged the argument that execs at this level should be exempt from having to manage their own content (usually submitted and managed by direct reports or admin) - to no avail. I wonder, however, if exempting Sr. Execs from knowledge management activity (even the mundane stuff - it's mundane for everybody) diminishes their awareness of the critical value of knowledge management and factors into why so many KM efforts fail; after all, if its not supported, in practice, by your senior leadership, then why should the rank and file give a hoot?
One could argue that the higher the position in the organizational hierarchy, the greater the responsibility to share one's knowledge and, thusly, demonstrate and model good knowledge stewardship.
OR, "I Am A KM Snob"
Ain't nobody got time for that!
This is important to know because securing the buy-in of organizational stakeholders isn’t like converting some “rice Christian” with the promise of KM’s transformational qualities and the customary “quick win”. Nor is it likely that these stakeholders will be lined up outside your door waiting for you to save them (at least not to start with, muahahahaha). No, chances are you’ll be pulling a Carl Lewis running after folks and trying to nail down time to talk about KM, so, like any good salesperson/cult leader (same difference in this context), you have to make your time count.
I know, I know, I sound like one shady bee-yotch right now, but step outside of my seemingly sinister scenario for a moment into the cold, harsh light of day (and your marks’ shoes) and ask yourself: Aside from a top-down mandate to do so (and people still find ways of ignoring those – you know exactly what I’m talking about) why should any of these people give a rat’s ass about you and your KM initiative? What do they really get out of drinking the kool-aid or swallowing “the little red pill”?
Shockingly, I'm taking time away from the insanity that is SPAWAR (and, of course, I LOVE it, lol) to post something before the month is up. Once again, it's not my promised KM3.0 post, but I hope you'll forgive my slackness, it's definitely not intentional. As it is, I'm only awake and writing tonight because I stayed up to watch Serena fight her way back from almost being bumped out by Svetlana "Bumpy" Kuznetsova in the second set. Way to go ReRe!!!
Unfortunately, these behaviors also limit any chance of success for good KM practices and behaviors to take root and become an organizational norm. At the end of the day, joking and office politicking aside, this is the major issue this type of behavior presents. If KM is going to sell the value, values and ROI of open, collaborative environments, it must be championed by folks who embody and espouse these qualities. (Or, who are willing to try - that alone will bring awareness of where similar-minded folks in an organization are coming from and lead to building bridges with people who could easily be your greatest cynics.)
student at Georgia State, absorbing anything and everything KM that I could get my hands on, it's my irreverence that I credit with helping me to separate the wheat from the chaff of KM lit as well as seek inspiration from other sources/fields - Psychology, Economics, Marketing, Education...Pokémon. 
Anyway, having read a lot of crap on the subject of KM, I'm not one to fawn over the rockstars of KM (even though I have the list). Usually, I'm so critical of the literature that it's rare for me to put anyone on a pedestal, but I'm putting Patrick Lambe on one today.
