Friendship versus objectivity in KM - The challenge of sustainable socialisation
24-Sep-04
In other words, how beneficial is the impact of human personal relationships, based on mutual acquaintance and friendship, in the knowledge sharing context? Should it be stimulated or avoided? Are tightly-knit networks of friends a good foundation of knowledge sharing? Should we allow personal acquaintances and friendships to take a role in the knowledge management structure? We can find reasons and extreme examples that argue for both points of view. The first argument in favour of allowing and fomenting the closeness of personal relationships between users of the system is that it is unavoidable. People want to know who they talk to, whom they help, whose guidelines they follow. And once they meet, sympathy or antipathy are unavoidable. Since unavoidable things can’t be escaped in the end, it seems logical to just allow them. The second is that a deeper knowledge of the “others” in the system is a great motivator. A face-to-face exchange between enthusiasts is very likely to lead to new ideas and paths of work. Appreciation or interest in an idea are more clearly perceived, and more motivating, when you know and see the other people. Trust is more easily attained between people who know and appreciate each other. The third is that, as networks of friendship and personal loyalty spread, stability ensues. Sensibilities are spared the harsher words; people become both more civil and more interested in helping friends and acquaintances than they could be in helping mere colleagues. One fourth argument is that it “builds community” by constructing a solid feeling of recognition and belonging to the group. This has undeniable positive effects on the belonging individual, and allows the group to act as a more effective unit when pressing projects or causes. Also, it is a very effective force for retaining the collaboration of users. Thus a group of people, bound by mutual friendship and loyalty, can constitute an active and solid force for knowledge sharing and innovation. But those very arguments have a negative side that is not frequently commented. Observation shows that the above advantages can become problems if interpersonal links play too much of a role. Knowledge management systems, and CoPs in particular, are usually built in order to fulfill a role. That role is not to be a social network or a tribe: it is to provide solutions and methods to the users, to provide value. The formation of social, friendship-based networks can have inhibiting effects on this in many ways. To start with, it sets up a different hierarchy of values. In such a system, users value each other based on whom they are friends with and the sympathy they hold for each other. This is inconsistent with an environment that appreciates and rewards the work of people who contribute most to helping the rest. When informal authority is derived from those “social” assets and not from merit, the whole purpose of the knowledge sharing system is thwarted: the incentive is then on being social and sympathetic, not on helping and delivering. About the second and third arguments (that close-knit networks motivate better), there is serious experimental objection. Face to face meetings do generate bursts of energy and motivation. But an excess of “density” in the network, when people hold each other in too much regard to contradict or disappoint, is a stifling influence. Arguments can be weighted more on the merits of whom they will offend or help, than on their merit in solving the problem at hand. It is the direct equivalent of doing business with close friends: all too frequently, the business suffers or the friendship ends. Worse still, a system that contains a “dense” network (a group of friends that does not span the full list of users) is apt to find itself in trouble through preferment. Users left outside the cabal of friends are not regarded or helped in the same degree than those inside, which leads to demotivation and conflict. Users inside it come often to expect preferential treatment from their friends and even bending of the common rules. The fourth argument stressed the building of “community” as a motivation tool. Indeed, that may have beneficial psychological aspects for the individual, but ultimately is most beneficial to the administrators of the system or knowledge resource who channel that loyalty into collaboration. Indeed, it may hinder the effectiveness of the users that are thus prevented from seeking the resource and methods that will most increase their ability to solve their professional needs. As mentioned before, such dense networks are almost unavoidable. People want, need, and shall introduce some human element in their collaboration. Therefore, it is not a matter of how to avoid the densification of networks, but rather of how to avoid the excess of it. How to avoid the substitution of meritocracy by socialising. How to prevent a stifling culture of considerate respect. How to guarantee access and welcome to newbies and outliers. And how to keep in mind that the best system is not the present one but that which gives the best results for our ultimate aims: we need to be open to change. There is no magic recipe to achieve this list of goals. But the evident importance of managing them stresses the relevance of the human element in the management of knowledge sharing. Electronic systems and elaborate work processes are nothing if human characters and relationships are not taken into account at every step.
Friendship versus objectivity in KM - The challenge of sustainable socialisation
Miguel CORNEJO
miguel@macuarium.com
A recent development in an online community has shone the spotlight again on a matter that I’ve repeatedly found to be very important for CoPs in particular and for knowledge building and sharing in general. This is the role of social structures in the collaboration process, and the consequences of the different ways in which such structures arise.
The case for friendship
The case for distance
Steering on the brink
© Miguel Cornejo 2004
Knowledgeboard/ H-SIG Home Page
Details
- Author:
- Miguel CORNEJO
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 24-Sep-04
- Categories:
- Human and Social, Human Side of KM
- Sections:
This article has been read 7052 times.
Tools
Member comments (12)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
But who is Janis?
The name of Irving Janis appeared in the famous KnowledgeBoard article by John Moore on 1st November 2002. The article is entitled “The Value of Trust”; its URL is http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=86659&d=pnd
Just in case the reader thinks more details should have been given about Irving L. Janis, here is a short biography:
Janis was born in 1918 and died in 1990. He was recruited by Yale University in 1947 (Psychology Department) as he already had acquired an astounding reputation. In 1972 he published “Victims of Groupthink”, still considered an essential landmark in the study of group dynamics.He retired in 1986, when he was appointed Adjunct Professor Emeritus at Berkeley.
More about the concept of Groupthink at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_think
friendship bad, love good
Assuming we are talking about any organisational system responsible to many different sides (rather than your peer group fantasy) friendships (ie biases of a small cluster of people to each other) are bad or at least not good in the long run. However if you search through the main authors on simplicity, to date the number 1 research finding is that love of a deep purpose, that unqique care which spins the relationships of the whole organisation's future worth to all people (above zero sum that organsiational progress is human progress) needs to be about - that kind of love is the good dynamic (and if the reason for being friends is uniting that, then long may you be friends)
Irving Janis agrees with Miguel!!!
By chance my browsing brought me to this wonderful URL: http://www.onepine.info/mgrp3.htm
where I discovered the following clear and concise text that follows, and that seems to emphasize forcefully what Miguel has presented.
Visiting the whole site (onepine.info) could prove quite fruitful too.
Groupthink - Irving Janis
Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals. Groups engaged in groupthink can end up making faulty decisions."A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."
"The more amiability and esprit de corps among members of a policy- making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups." You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it exhibits these eight symptoms
1) Appears to have an illusion of invulnerability - group members believe that they cannot fail.
2) Belief in the rightness of their cause .
3) The collectively rationalise the decisions they make creating an unquestioning atmosphere.
4) Out groups are stereotyped and outsiders disregarded.
5) Self-censorship which eliminates any expression of disagreement.
6) Illusion of unanimity from a lack of alternative arguments.
7) Direct pressure is put on on anyone who disagrees
8) Members (self appointed) take on themselves role to protect a leader by keeping information from the leader. Groupthink can lead to a number of dysfunctional group behaviours / processes - they can fail to adequately look at alternatives or assess the risks associated with decisions, as well as select and use only information that supports their position etc. The consequences are fairly predictable! It has its detractors who will say it is too vague, question the theoretical basis for linking the eight "symptoms" and such like. Is often used when looking at groups with overt political agenda and the 'Bay of Pigs' is cited as a good example as well as the Watergate incidents. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink.
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Links
here are probably quite a lot out there as it is a common subject in communication, group and decision making courses.Janis and Groupthink
Some of the links I did not provide but they are of course available at http://www.onepine.info/mgrp3.htm
subjective vs. objective
Hello Miguel,
The 4 points you mentioned here are very interesting. I suppose we do not have to point too far to see the same patterns?
Any thought of 'recruiting' someone who is stranger to the group to moderate? That person would be partial to the internal affairs of the group (until he/she perhaps succumbed to the influence of some members of the group?).
Cindy
Some indicators
Hi Jacques, all,
that's two questions :-).
About the first (diagnosis), it is a hard one. The case that inspired the article was quite more rotten than we knew. Now we're working on some "early warning" signs to enable administrators to detect the problem. But it's not easy. At the moment, we have:
- (subjective) Moderator resistance to share information with rest of the team.
- (subjective) Moderator resentment when other people from the team act in the CoP without intermediaries.
- (mediated) Number of old hands who stop participating because they feel sidelined or mistreated.
- (direct) Concentration of postings - a group answers each other consistently, interacting less with the rest.
About the "charter", there's something in it. I agree every CoP should have clear and stated rules, and there should be a minimal but very clear moderation manual, as well as a dynamic procedure review system (debate among moderators, with a clear leadership). But I don't quite favour "constitutions" with articles open to all CoP members because the momentary pressure of some groups can sway the rules away from the common needs: most CoP participants are not very interested in those matters.
And there's the question of the paymaster. "No taxation without representation"... and no representation unless taking responsibility for the CoP's resources. In my humble opinion :-).
Best regards,
Miguel
Who does the diagnosis?
Hello,
The story you are telling shows us that when skilled people can bring their help to solve messy situations it can really work. The thing is: who will be aware of the degree of "messiness" of the situation, who will dare say it is a problem, and that there are underlying risks? We start here with a diagnosis issue.
And then the running of CoPs is probably one of the most delicate fields of intervention. Shouldn't CoPs have their own sets of rules ("officialized" users' charter) to smoothen the process of redefining the roles of some of their members?
Groupthink and leaving leaders
Hi Cindy, Alfred, all,
about your comments.
- The CoP that sparked this article has become an example of Cindy's question (can it survive if the leader leaves).
In this case, both moderators (a long-time veteran who played a more relaxed referential role, and a newer and more active one) left at the same time and under a cloud. What is more, that exit coincided (or sparked) the departure of over a dozen of the most eminent CoP members to form a different project. You guessed it: the group of friends that we were talking about.
We applied our own theory to finding a solution: we've engaged a new team of three CoP members as moderators, selecting them not just because of their skill and disposition but for their wide-based prestige in the community... beyond the "eminent" group of friends. The substitution took less than a week; I took the time to train them intensively; and now the CoP is bubbling happily along while the self-exiled "friends" are seen as petty spoilers. Talent that was overshadowed and even sidelined by the network of friends is now on stage and producing a renewed exchange of ideas.
Indeed some of the "friends" are now hovering between the two resources and even coming back.
Problems are not over, but the model seems to work.
- About the groupthink issue. Yes, it is a very real danger in these situations.
- About the three tier decision model :-). That is one style of leadership that could work in these cases. It would avoid group think, but it precludes wide-based decision making... which is often the best way to guarantee a committed team at execution.
Best regards,
Miguel
a three tier best practice
-Long ago I read "victims of groupthink" which shed a cruel light on how farreaching and dangerous political decisions were biased for "excess friendship"...
I'd suggest a three tier best practice :
-before making a decision be as open and uncommited as possible
-for making a decision stay alone and be responsible
-for implementing a decision build as close knit and commited a network as you can.
Friends and Family
Hello Miguel,
Human beings are social animals. We gather around our friends (with family I suppose we do not have much choice) and we bring our friends to gathering that we enjoy and believe in. When we decided to leave for whatever reasons, very seldom our friends that we brought along would stay. Simple reason: they were there because we asked them to.
We know it is not possible to forbid 'friends bringing friends', but can we prevent a SIG dies because the leader leaves? I think yes. Prevention. Each case is different of course, and that takes time and energy. Lots of them.
That brings me to a discussion I had at school. And this is a true case. CEO of a company supports the CoP. Therefore things are running very well. My question to my professor was: what if this CEO leaves for whatever reason, would the CoP survive?
Just like everything else, building a CoP is easy, maintaining one is the tough part.
Cindy
Most times it goes the best way
Hi Jacques,
I think there is :-).
For instance, in the forum that started that train of thought, most of the extremes have been successfully avoided while participation and membership grew exponentially, and the circle of users linked by personal acquitanceship and friendhip has swelled.
On the other hand, when the senior moderator retired, the junior one decided to resign too, citing concerns about some tasks and rules that were too heavy for him alone... and now most of his close friends (which are some of the most qualified users) are unconfortable with the idea of stepping in his place as substitute moderators.
Quite curious, and difficult to manage. I don't yet know how it will end yet :-).
Best regards,
Miguel
Is there any hope?
There it would appear you are describing some of the schizophrenic aspects that tend to "shape" our contemporary societies. In the first place a hyper-individualistic world tries to rebuild ties between people. Then we have communities which behave like selfish individuals, for the benefit of a few individuals.
We certainly have to put all this into perspective and under the spotlight of the values which have helped humanity grow out of barbarism. Let's hope it is not too late!
three cheers for connections with OP
yes KM would certainly be wholly different place/space - meriting the empathy of human beings - if it had earnestly bothered to link with what organisational pscyhologists had already helped to map for 40 years or more before KM was born
I would be very interested if anyone believes that KM has pivotally honored such an inclusiveness. I guess its there to some extent in the work of Wiig, Edvinsson, Allee and the standard on culture that Neil Allan edited for the EU/KB/Bsi consortium but its not been practised in the design of virtual community boards or any of the technology offerings that I have walked into in any apparent way
If we agree it hasn't bothered, we should have an open inquest on why, and make sure we have some OP people invited into the chats that KB organises in 2005. I can understnad why the time-poor KM practitioner might not have bumped into OP people but any failure of researchers and academics and funders to make these bridges destroys Europe's potential productivity & spirit