I’ve just returned from Namibia.  One of the places I visited was Okinjima, home of the Africat Foundation. They take in unwanted cheetahs and rehabilitate them. Some of these are orphans, the result of the mother being killed by a farmer wanting to protect his cattle. These orphaned cubs are dependent on their mothers for food and protection and are too young to cope on their own in the wild. At first they need feeding, but they soon learn to chase their prey. However when they catch them they don’t know how to kill them. This is not something the mother had time to teach them. They also chase predators not realising the risk.  If released into the wild alone they cannot learn from the mistakes of others. They are released into a large controlled area with 5 or 6 others. If one tackles a hyena and is killed the others learn from that. They learn from experience – a giraffe or zebra can kill with a single kick, a kill can attract hyenas, leopards and lions and they are not fussy about the age of the meat, so better to move on after 3 days. They discover by experience how to kill a springbok once they have caught up with it.

I also attended the Information and Knowledge for Development (InK4DEV) conference in Windhoek http://www.ink4dev.net/ and listened to a discussion about indigenous knowledge being lost particularly in communities where there is a generation gap, due to war or AIDS for example.  Again there is a breakdown in the natural flow of knowledge from one generation to another.

That led me to reflect on some of the problems facing communities in the UK. Because of mobility for economic or other reasons, family units are dispersed. There is less opportunity for children to learn about their culture from their grandparents, uncles and aunts for example. Knowledge is not being passed on and they must learn from their own mistakes and those of others.  What mechanisms can be put in place to compensate for these disruptions to flow?  When we see examples of coherent communities what can we learn from them?

In Learning to Fly p 231 we refer to Albert Mehrabian “Silent Messages”. 7% of the message is in the words, 38% is in the tone of voice, and 55% is body language.  CreativityWorks challenges how we interpret this with the following animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dboA8cag1M.  What do you think?  And how will you communicate  the response?

I have just attended my first school reunion, something I have studiously ignored for a number of years. My fear was it would be a contest to see who had made the best of their life and those that hadn’t wouldn’t participate.

In the event those fears were unfounded and I had a very pleasant evening catching up with people I have not seen since our teenage years. It was nothing grand – a spacious private venue, a bar, and a table of buffet food. Much of the buffet was left untouched and the bar staff were underemployed. People were far more interested in catching up and reconnecting.

As I approached the venue – a couple of people stared at me strangely. They were trying to relate the ‘me now’ to the one they remembered all those years ago. I couldn’t place them, so I stared harder. A nickname was mentioned and suddenly it came back to me. Within minutes I was remembering them as they are today not the photo image I remembered as they were then. And amazingly the events, the jokes, the scrapes we were in came back by association. And I suddenly remembered more names.

I went in and as I moved around the room reconnecting, the thing that hit me most was that it was the facial expressions, the mannerisms, the nervous laughter that had remained most unchanged. The body had aged but the spirit of the person was no different.

At the end of the evening there were a few people whose name I knew and remembered but the person was not the same as the one I remembered from way back.

It struck me that knowledge is like this. Once we learn and know something then it is a photo image and it is real and even though time has moved on, and the world has moved on, we are stuck with the frozen image of that knowledge. And by association we assume all related knowledge remains the same. Sometimes it takes a ‘reunion’ to reframe that knowledge, and there will be some that is so etched in our brain that we cannot let go of the knowledge that was. When we stop learning, stop being receptive, then we risk being stuck with outdated knowledge that is not relevant.

Someone shared a simple example of this at a recent meeting at Henley KM Forum.

Which of these two lines is longer?

<—————————————>

or                                        >——————————————<

It’s a familiar trick and we respond automatically ‘They are both the same.’

But they are not. It is a different context and actually they lower line is longer. Because knowledge is familiar we shouldn’t stop seeing it afresh.

It was great to see everyone again!

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

http://blip.tv/file/1690893

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?

I came across this today http://kmreading.blogspot.com/ . You might find it interesting.  I did!

Alan Fricker of the NHS reviews “Learning to Fly” chapter by chapter and considers how it applies in the Health sector.

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.

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.

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

Judging from the results of the ‘Adecco Demographic Fitness Survey’, most firms don’t know where to find knowledge. The Adecco Institute is a research centre focused on the field of work and how work impacts individuals, regions and organizations. In late 2007, it conducted a survey across the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain to assess whether organisations are preparing for a workforce that is increasingly aging. By 2050, the population aged between 15 and 64, i.e. the share of the population considered as being of employable age, will drop by one fifth.

Adecco used a Demographic Fitness Index to measure five factors that influence a firm’s ability to leverage an ageing workforce:

• Career Management

• Lifelong Learning

• Knowledge Management

• Health Management

• Diversity Management

Career Management addresses the needs of both employers and employees, and helps develop a level of loyalty to the firm that cannot be fostered with traditional perks like pay increases. Employees who feel that their employer fails to accommodate their needs will look for opportunities elsewhere – taking their expertise with them.

Lifelong Learning is increasingly essential in a world of constant change. Both employers and employees must be committed to lifelong learning in order to keep ahead of the demands of business.

Knowledge Management is the effective management of the knowledge that employees typically carry around in their heads – whether this be business specific knowledge, vendor contacts, business processes, or even who to call to get certain problems resolved. It is essential that companies understand the risks they run when key employees depart.

Health Management addresses the needs of workers as they age – sensitivity to workers ergonomic and physical needs as well as encouraging healthy catering and providing ongoing health checks and consultations.

Diversity Management recognizes the necessity of creating a work environment that values each individual’s contribution – regardless of age or rank. Diversity management ensures that work groups include both older and younger workers.

Let’s focus on knowledge management or how well a firm tracks business-critical and company-specific knowledge. They asked those surveyed about the steps they took regarding the use, safeguarding and renewal of knowledge in their organisation. They offered a list of “tools” for consideration:

• Management Information Systems
• Customer relationship Management systems
• Internal online forums
• Internal “Yellow Pages”
• Building mixed age teams
• Standardised records of business-critical knowledge
• Targeted training
• Use of external consultants
• Co-operation with other companies
• Co-operation with colleges and other institutions
• Establishing own think tanks
• Contact with external think tanks

Most used were Use of external consultants, Co-operation with other companies and Targeted training. At the other end of the scale less than a third of the organisations surveyed used think tanks, “Yellow Pages” or internal online forums. However take up within these organisations was patchy (averaging 43%).

The UK performed worse than the European average: 31% of firms in the five countries claim to have conducted a full and complete analysis to identify the holders of business-critical knowledge in their firm. Only 18% of UK firms made the same claim. And only 25% of British firms have conducted an analysis of the risk of lost knowledge when individual employees leave.

When staff members leave, we lose vital expertise – explicit knowledge, such as how a product or process works, as well as implicit knowledge embedded in customer relationships, internal networks and firm culture and values. All of these can affect our ability to produce, innovate and compete.

These gaps in analysis will be critical to companies as the rate of retirement accelerates, and key business knowledge walks out the door – often, knowledge that isn’t missed until it is no longer there.

I wonder, if you now think about the knowledge assets that your company has, to what extent have you carried out an analysis of business-critical knowledge assets in your organisation?

I was in the District of Karnataka, India recently working with a group of local NGOs (Myrada and MSK) and we were learning from each other. Together we visited 3 villages close to Bellary with whom the NGOs had a good working relationship. The NGOs were providing information and education about the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) – How it is spread, how to avoid it and how to deal with it etc.

Sharing & Learning

We were encouraging them to try a different way of working. Over the previous 3 days we had visited each of the three villages to listen and learn what the issues and concerns were and what they were already doing to respond. On the fourth day we brought together representatives from the 3 villages, village elders, young women and young men to share their experiences in their own villages. This was something that hadn’t happened before. Indeed the different groups had not discussed it together in their own villages before this week.

We mixed people up and got them to tackle different issues in small groups of about 10 people. They were sat in circles on the floor of the village hut where we were meeting. A local NGO person was assigned to each group. The discussion was in the local Kanada language, so I could not follow the discussion. I watched instead the interactions within the circles. In one group it was apparent that the conversation was between one of the group and the NGO person, and then another of the group and the NGO person. The NGO person was providing the answers. I intervened. Through an interpreter I explained the role of the NGO person was not to educate and provide the answers but to encourage the group to share their own responses and experiences. It wasn’t working and the third time I intervened it was to physically remove the NGO rep from the circle. I got her to stand with me on the other side of the hall and watch. The circle closed up and the conversation restarted. Suddenly the dynamics changed completely – the conversation flowed across and back around the circle, first in one direction, and then another. People who had so far made no contribution were making their voice heard. It became animated, there was laughter and everyone shared and learned.

The NGO persons eyes lit up – the light bulb went on – now she got what I had been trying to explain! She went back and joined the circle as a listener – and learned things she had not heard before.