Everything you do relies on knowledge sharing

Here’s a video interview about knowledge sharing recorded at the ShareFair in Rome January 2009

 

http://blip.tv/file/1690893

Learning from Mistakes

At 10.06am on July 22 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder by police officers who had followed him on to a tube train at Stockwell, south London.

It was Scotland Yard’s first use of a shoot-to-kill policy designed to tackle suicide bombers, and came the day after four unsuccessful attempts to detonate devices on London’s transport system. Let’s remind ourselves of the context. Two weeks earlier there were a series of coordinated bomb blasts that hit London’s public transport system during the morning rush hour. The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four suicide bombers, injured 700, and caused disruption of the city’s transport system and creating fear and panic amongst those who lived and worked in London, and beyond.

Just two weeks later with the security forces on high alert, four attempted bomb attacks again disrupted part of London’s public transport system.  Fortunately only the detonators of the bombs exploded and the bombers escaped. There followed an intense manhunt for the bombers believing them capable of striking again at any moment.

Police were hunting the four men, and they thought they may have found one of them. They were stalking a block of flats because the address was written on a piece of paper found in one of the rucksacks holding a failed bomb.  Menezes happened to live in another flat in the block and was followed as soon as he left the building that morning.

It is horrific that someone innocent died, a tragedy for the family and traumatic for the policemen involved. It is a pity that we cannot focus on the lessons to learn in preparation for when it might happen again rather than trying to assign blame. The current inquest is designed to get at what happened, but the press seemed more concerned with witch-hunts and forcing resignations.  I am sure the intent that day was to protect the lives of the public and the police were very conscious their own lives were at risk.

But have we learned the lessons of past experiences?  Unfortunately it is not the first time that an innocent man has been killed by the police.  Malcolm Gladwell author of The Tipping Point had months earlier published another book called “Blink.” 

In it he explores moments when we know something without knowing why, when we make snap judgements by blocking out the irrelevant and focusing on narrow slices of experience. It can be powerful when it works but it can be disastrous when it goes awry.  When stress levels rise we narrow our focus, time slows down and in Gladwell’s view we become temporarily autistic.

Chapter 6 is entitled “Seven Seconds in the Bronx.” In it he recounts a real incident in which four police officers end up killing an innocent man, Amaddou Diallo, who was an immigrant from Guinea. He had stepped outside his apartment at half past midnight to get some air. The cops, on patrol in a Street Crime Unit were travelling together in one vehicle, decided he looked suspicious as they drove past. They backed the car up for another look.  He stayed where he was, a behaviour the police decided was brazen. He was simply curious.  When two of the cops got out of the car and moved towards him he turned slightly to his side and went for something in his pocket. They decided he was dangerous.  He was not. He was reaching for his wallet to show ID. The cops between them fired 41 bullets into him, killing him instantly.

There is no evidence that the police were bad people, or racists or out to get Diallo. On the other hand it was not a simple accident, because the policemen made a series of a catastrophic misjudgements, and an innocent man who was outside his home for a breath of fresh air was gunned down.

The parallels with the Stockwell shooting are apparent.  What can we do to prepare our police to cope with those high stress situations and still make the correct judgements?

How do we create the right conditions to learn from mistakes, rather than identify who is to blame and make them suffer?  Think about your own organisation.  What can you do to encourage learning from mistakes?  What do you need to do differently to enable the right conditions?

Stonehenge

Last night’s Television programme Stonehenge Timewatch nicely illustrated two pitfalls of knowledge management – We tell more than we can know and if we have an answer in mind we can usually find it.

If you have never seen it here is a great panoramic interactive view of it which you will not get if you visit it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/stonehenge/panorama.shtml

Everyday experience suggests that we often seem to know more than we can tell. Riding a bicycle, playing tennis or driving a car, for instance, all involve mastering complex sets of motor skills, yet we are at a loss when it comes to explaining exactly how we perform such physical feats. We cannot write down or explain to someone how to perform these acts. But paradoxically we also often seem to tell more than we can know. We interpret what we have observed – we fill in the gaps. On last night’s programme professors Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainwright were keen to prove their theory correct, that the smaller blue stones of Stonehenge, the ones that had been transported some 250 km from South Wales, were believed to have healing properties.

[See http://www.bbc.co.uk/timewatch/stonehenge.shtml ]

Earlier this year Timewatch archaeologists carried out the first dig for almost half a century inside the stone circle of the world’s most famous Neolithic monument. Their aim was to unearth evidence for a startling new theory – that Stonehenge was built to heal the sick. It was a good demonstration of The Ladder of Inference in practice (see my earlier posting). Archaeologists had a belief and were looking for data to support it. They found significantly more chips of bluestone than the local sarsen stones which they interpreted as evidence that people had chipped off talismen to cure their insufferable pains and ills. They also found an ancient grain suggesting agriculture on or near the site, necessary apparently to allow people time to spend time putting the stones upright. To the archaeologists the finds fitted with their model of what they wanted the answer to be. For someone like me with no belief one way or another about the origins and purpose of Stonehenge I was left feeling there were a number of possible answers.

Now they might be right, but the evidence portrayed in the programme certainly didn’t convince me that people travelled across Europe in search of a cure for an abscess or broken bones.

Knowledge that’s difficult to share – FEEDBACK

One particular type of knowledge is sometimes difficult to share. Feedback is a way of reflecting on a recent experience, but if it is delivered badly doesn’t achieve the intended change.

Giving a feedback sandwich

Skilled people make feedback a positive experience, leaving everyone feeling valued, even if the feedback itself is difficult or negative. If feedback is delivered badly, or not at all, the impact can be demoralising and long-lasting.

Whether the message you intend to give is positive or negative, the skill you use to give it will still affect the impact you have. A message you intend to be positive can demoralise someone, if they walk away feeling confused. A tough message about poor performance can leave a person feeling supported and motivated if you deliver it with skill.

Feedback well delivered can be used for a variety of purposes, for instance to:

• influence someone to do something differently or to change their approach. Feedback is more likely to get a result because it gives the person useful information combined with evidence that you value and support them.
• recognise and acknowledge effort – people are more likely to perform well if you let them know you’ve noticed
• clarify expectations and give accurate information about what you like and value.
• improve the quality of the work – through clear and timely performance feedback, more attention to performance quality and more clarity about the what, how, why and when of people’s jobs and tasks.
• motivate – people often respond well when you take the time to give them clear, accurate information, along with a stated intention to help them do better.

But don’t just launch in to giving feedback without invitation. Signal that you would like to give some feedback, and why you want to give it – and wait for the person to accept the offer.

I have found the idea of a feedback sandwich helpful as a giver and a receiver of feedback.

First, emphasize the positive. Talk about their strengths, about what they’ve done right, or well, and why it was right or good. They need to know this so that they can do more of it, and also because it will make them feel good about themselves and what they have done.

The good news needs to be:

• Clear Be clear about what you want to say. If you think it was ‘great’ or ‘excellent’ or ‘admirable’ or ‘very stimulating’, then say so. Have the courage of your convictions.
• Specific Avoid general comments - words like “excellent” are good to make the person feel good but once the first flush has passed they still want to know what went right and how they can replicate that. Avoid generalisations such as “never” and “always” – be more specific.
• Personal Acknowledge the person as an individual. Using their name helps – “Geoff, I thought the way you tackled this was good. I particularly liked the way you …..” Speak for yourself – show that these words and feelings are your own by using “I” statements. Don’t use labelling words to describe a person, say what they are doing or saying instead.
• Honest Clearly distinguish between fact and judgement. A numerical answer can be ‘right’; this is a fact. A design was undertaken ‘rigorously’; this is an opinion, though hopefully based on clear criteria. On the other hand, an argument was ‘original’; a fact relative to your own current knowledge. An argument was ‘elegant’; an opinion or a judgement. Be clear what the nature of your good news is.

Next, tell them what needs improvement and how they can do it better in future. They also need to know what they’ve done wrong or poorly.  As well as the what, give them the reasons.  This will help them appreciate why their approach or answer was inappropriate. Focus on the behaviour rather than the person. Rather than provide direct advice helping the person to come to a better understanding of their issue, how it developed, and how they can identify actions to address the issue more effectively.

The bad news needs to be:

• Specific Make it clear what you are reacting to – which word, which idea, which stylistic feature. Make it clear in what respects the work is wrong, inappropriate, whatever it is. Don’t be vague or imply what you want to say. If the person has to guess what you mean, they may guess wrongly. Poor feedback leaves the recipient in doubt about what you meant. Give an accurate description of the behaviour you are talking about, and about what you’d like to see instead. “I feel like you’re not listening to me when you finish my sentences for me: you did that a few times when we were talking about the project plan. I want to finish what I’m saying before you add your points.”
• Constructive Suggest how the work could have been made accurate, good, conforming to the paradigm of the subject, whatever. Suggest sources of information and guidance. Give them a handle, encouragement, whatever seems right.
• Kind Specific is kind. Constructive is kind. “Poor” scribbled at the end of a written report is unhelpful.
• Honest (See above under ‘good news’)

Finally, end with positive encouragement. Round off your feedback with a positive general comment. “You really seem to be making an impact on the team”, “Your analytic skills are improving steadily”, “You’re making good use of the evidence”. Say whatever you can that’s encouraging and truthful.

But what gets in the way? You may find it difficult to give feedback because you:

• believe that the feedback is negative and unhelpful
• worry that the other person will not like you
• believe that the other person cannot handle the feedback
• have had previous experiences in which the receiver was hostile to feedback
  or didn’t change

· feel the feedback isn’t worth the risk.

The giver and receiver both need to be open to receiving feedback and open to the possibility that the feedback being given may be based on incorrect assumptions.

If you are on the receiving end and receiving feedback:

• Listen attentively, in order to understand another person’s viewpoint, perspective, needs and feelings. Hearing feedback can give you a “reality check” – you can compare how you think you are, with what other people tell you. You’ll find out how you are getting on – the good and the bad, what’s working and what isn’t.
• Try not to take things personally. Learn from the experience.
• If you want to hear more feedback, you will probably have to ask for it directly. Some people offer regular feedback. Many others would offer it, if they were asked. Not everyone has good feedback skills. You are likely to get a mixed quality of feedback – some perceptive and supportive; some critical and unspecific.

How can you get useful information from criticism if, for example, the speaker has poor feedback skills? Turning criticism into useful feedback. Use questions to find out the issue underneath the criticism. Be clear about what would help you. Help the person understand what you want.

If you hear an adjective e.g. argumentative, aggressive, brilliant, innovative Ask what led the person to form that impression of you. Ask for specifics – what you did or said; when it happened? If you hear something you don’t understand Indicate that you would like to understand and ask them to go through it again. If the person doesn’t say what they’d prefer you to do Ask for suggestions: “Do you have any ideas about how I could do this differently, so I can get a better result?” If the person is being critical about the incident that went wrong Show you’ve heard their points, then be direct about what you’d prefer – ask the person to focus on the issue, not on you. “So, you think that the meeting went very badly this afternoon, and my presentation was a particular problem. Can you tell me where you think I went wrong, and what I could do differently next time?”

Giving and receiving feedback is not easy and is often uncomfortable, but given regularly leads to powerful learning from experience.