Stephen Bounds — Wed, 24/07/2013 - 08:16
I wrote this brief on impersonal trust in organizations up last year, but somehow forgot to write about it here. I can't take credit for the material, it's based on a doctoral dissertion by Mika Vanhala. However, I've never seen a better treatment on trust and I thought it deserved broader exposure:
Stephen Bounds — Mon, 15/07/2013 - 16:02
For many years, the doctor-patient relationship was simple: they would make a diagnosis, tell you what should be done, and it was expected that you would passively comply (there's a good chap/lass). And why not? After all: they were the experts. What could a layman contribute to solving a problem when the learned doctors had done 10+ years of intensive study to become qualified?
Stephen Bounds — Mon, 24/06/2013 - 09:22
It's not too late to get a discounted Early Bird registration for the knowquestion workshops.
Stephen Bounds — Tue, 14/05/2013 - 13:17
In a recent exchange on the SIKM Leaders discussion board, Kate Pugh wrote a wonderful short piece on treating online discussions as "a team sport, where the goal is collective insight". You should read the whole piece, but this is my favourite part:
The four discussion disciplines are:
- Integrity (using your true voice and asking questions that are crisp and engaging)
Stephen Bounds — Mon, 06/05/2013 - 08:42
It's always dangerous to try and classify "knowledge", a notoriously slippery and difficult concept. But if we treat knowledge as an enabler of purposeful action, it becomes easier to think about where and how knowledge becomes relevant.
[Read on to learn about foundational, situational, and cultural knowledge]
Stephen Bounds — Sat, 04/05/2013 - 18:30
As buzzwords like "agility" and "resilience" gain currency, there is increased interest in Scrum as a general business management tool. However, there is some skepticism since Scrum has historically been mainly used in aid of software development.
Stephen Bounds — Tue, 23/04/2013 - 08:41
It's well established that paying for tasks people already find enjoyable may have the perverse effect of reducing their motivation to conduct those activities.
Stephen Bounds — Fri, 12/04/2013 - 15:16
The rise in "gamification" as a management technique to change staff or user behavior is simultaneously exciting and exasperating. Exciting because it means that managers are beginning to recognise that incentives are necessary to change behavior; exasperating because it claims some special insight into how incentives are implemented and managed.
For example, the recent KMWorld feature on KM behaviors and adoption through gamification talks about employees being given "an insight into the level of impact he or she is having across the organisation" and "being recognized and rewarded for that". Yes, the outcome is increased "impact of collaborative behaviors on the organization" (which is great!) but the reason is the recognition and reward, not gamification per se.
Put another way: if the game was there, but managers publicly or privately told staff "I see you've been wasting your time getting points with that collaboration leaderboard again", and over the long-term promotions went to people who ignored or gamed the system, then it would rapidly lose its effectiveness.
Stephen Bounds — Fri, 04/01/2013 - 07:37
There is a lot of empirical evidence that shows checklists are one of the best ways to ensure consistency and quality in execution, even for domain experts.
And a maturity model is essentially just a slightly fancy checklist. So they should be a good
thing ... right?
Stephen Bounds — Wed, 12/12/2012 - 06:28
David Griffiths has a post struggling with how to correctly plan around low-probability, high-impact events (a.k.a. "black swans").
... we can talk about historic data from past events, but implications and impact will not be transferable ... We can talk about frequency, but we cannot predict the next event or a likely time-frame for that event. We can raise awareness, but we offer nothing ‘tangible’.