Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
This is the best ‘damn’ blog I have ever read by far.
Caution: it is provocative and mercilessly slaughters sacred cows. Hold onto your seat. It is bit of an in-your-face rant, but in style only. The substance is so rock-solid it should scare the daylights out of you. It covers the essential material that most people are just afraid to talk about…
This blog sheds the arc light of truth on vast generational problems we face. It is done not with the typical, cautious nibble around the edges, but by taking huge bite after bite. It elaborates the inexorable, and confident value network and intangible economic transformation (‘the war’) in play as individuals, in business, for the organization, environment and civil society itself.
There are many, many, many extremely cogent and precise observations. Here is small a sample.
1. By contrast, not only do Boomers not get complexity, they are suspicious of it, thanks to their early cultural training which deifies simplicity.
2. Expertise locators are not social networks: Many companies today want internal “Facebook” (Millenial) or LinkedIn (Gen X) type systems. In management conversations, you’ll often hear the overall requirement being described as an “Expertise Locater” systems. …the idea of an expert really comes from the Boomer yearning for community opinion leaders with the moral authority to form a priestly elite. Gen X’ers just want to see social graph data, Millenials just want to connect indiscriminately.
3. the Millenials created their generation of ideology-indifferent online communities around social networks where groups are not Good or Evil, but just are, and where people again are the focal point, over content. I am uncomfortable even applying the “container” metaphor of “community” to the Millenial architectures — they have a leakiness and porosity that only works with the label “network.”
- SOA and SaaS are Gen X; Clouds are Millenial: It seems likely that Service-Oriented Architecture and Software as a Service will play a big part in the creation of Enterprise 2.0. The lack of right-brained creativity in the acronyms alone should tell you that they represent Gen X attempts to conquer complexity in a pragmatic and potentially ugly way. But the notion of “Cloud” is a curious one. It is in the same family of technology ideas as SOA and SaaS, but unlike them, is metaphoric. But it is curiously devoid of ideological overtones. That signals that it is culturally a Millenial idea (I’d bet a small sum that whoever came up with the term was born after 1975 — a late X’er or a Millenial).
5. (The war) ...won’t be just a victory of fashion. It will be a fundamental victory of the better idea. Social media are an organic, protean, creative and energetic force. KM is a brittle, mechanical, anxiety and fear-ridden structure.
Please read the whole post.
At the “Program for the Future” (PFTF) event yesterday and Monday in San Jose, the popular collective intelligence event and landmark recognition for Doug Engelbart, the event t-shirts had this quote from Doug and his picture,
“Innovate how we work together to solve the big problems and benefit humanity.”
If you know Doug and ever worked with him, you know how frustrated he can become concerning his vision of collective intelligence. He recognizes the main barriers to accelerated co-evolution are social, value and network in orientation and context. If you read, study and share, “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War” you will understand the issues. It will help us all move closer to Doug’s vision vis-à-vis value networks and VNA.
-j
P.S. PFTF slides and stuff here: http://tinyurl.com/63hbku
John Bordeaux
bda...@kikm.org
President
Kaieteur Institute For Knowledge Management
67 Alberta Avenue
Toronto, Ontario.
M6H-2R7
Tel: 416-651-1837
E-Mail: bda...@kikm.org
Internet: www.kikm.org
www.inthekzone.com
Snowden Dave
jb
At the "Program for the Future" (PFTF) event yesterday and Monday in San Jose, the popularcollective intelligence event and landmark recognition for Doug Engelbart, the event t-shirts had this quote from Doug and his picture,
Michael G. Cayley
Agree that increase in productivity in the dev of intangible assets is a bright light for North America.
But the social media thing is not going to be over ... it is changing everything dude ... driven by bandwidth.
http://twurl.nl/r7e1yp
ah, er ... can I still even use that word "dude"? So '80s ... adults, kids, that bit is confusing.Best of the season to everyone!
mc
From: bda...@kikm.org
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War
Matt Moore
- "wikis good, km bad"
- "gen y good, boomers bad"
- "emergence good, control bad"
- "four legs good, two legs bad"
David Meggitt
gen y aimless, social media addicts: boomers guided by values,
beliefs, history, narrative...mission!
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
Thanks for the comments on Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.
The remarks were expected from the KM "Confucius-type Mandarins" that Peter Drucker always warned us about. The typical, self-absorbed nature of them are also no surprise whatsoever.
Here are some further observations for those Boomers that maybe got the nose tweaked by the excellent Generational War blog.
· The crushing irony of the recursive response to a social medium, the blog, about social media, should not be lost. Hilarious!
· Social media are not an ‘infatuation;’ They are changing everything. Permanently. Chicago Tribune Chapter 11 today. NYT next?
· Demographics is a statistical discipline that allows induction and logical observations of generational (age) behaviors.
· Everybody knows a Twittering grandmother; There are plenty of geezers on Facebook., there’s no age stereotyping. Please.
· In the philosophy of science and in innovation, ‘complete ignorance’ is often a requirement, a predicate to stunning breakthroughs!
Furthermore, most importantly, it is hardly a ‘straw man fallacy’ since KM is malignant. Here is particularly pathetic symptom of KMs metastatic pathology…
“Join Rory Chase, managing director, Teleos, Carla O'Dell, president, APQC, and executives from several recognized organizations for a complimentary Knowledge Management (KM) Webinar discussing how, for the second year in a row, McKinsey & Company has been named the overall Global MAKE Winner. Winner’s organizational structures reflect the 21st global knowledge economy.” (Gag!)
This is representative of ‘most people’ and is definitely serious. This is what your precious, prideful KM Establishment respects, accepts, honors and awards! [Sadly, the situation is worse that described even in the Generational War blog.]
“Organizational structure?” Isn’t that exactly what the “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management” blog faults?
No, not a straw man fallacy, not by a long shot. Sorry, but for many, KM is exactly what the blogger says it is, “…a brittle, mechanical, anxiety and fear-ridden structure.”
Of course, a major client of McKinsey is General Motors. ‘Nuff said. Further editorial held to protect the innocent.
Here is a sterling example of dopey Boomer-KM and its stupefying hubris.
Let go of your engrained, pre-conceived notions of KM and read, study this blog again. It’s spot-on.
-j
John Bordeaux
Brad Hoyt
*"E2.0 (SM in the workplace) delivers the platforms and tools necessary
to reach the KM ideals we have sought for years. While the inherent
ungoverned disorder of social media seems radical to some KM
administrators, most KM advocates welcome these tools in their quest to
free information and improve performance."
*
*Cheers,
brad*
*
>
> Hi –
>
>
>
> Generational War/.
>
>
>
> The remarks were expected from the KM "/Confucius-type Mandarins/"
> that *Peter Drucker* always warned us about. The typical,
>
>
>
> the nose tweaked by the excellent /Generational War /blog.
>
>
>
> · The crushing irony of the recursive response to a social
>
> everything. Permanently. *Chicago Tribune* /Chapter 11/ today. NYT next?
>
> · /Demographics/ is a statistical discipline that allows
>
> of geezers on *Facebook*., there’s no age stereotyping. Please.
>
> · In the philosophy of science and in innovation, ‘/complete
> ignorance/’ is often a requirement, a predicate to stunning breakthroughs!
>
>
>
> Furthermore, most importantly, it is hardly a ‘/straw man fallacy’/
> metastatic pathology…
>
>
>
> for a complimentary Knowledge Management (KM) Webinar discussing how,
> overall Global MAKE Winner. //Winner’s organizational structures
> reflect the 21st global knowledge economy.” // /(Gag!)//
>
>
>
> This is representative of ‘/most people’/ and is /definitely serious/.
> This is what your precious, prideful *KM Establishment* respects,
>
>
>
> “/_Organizational structure_/?” Isn’t that exactly what the “*Social
> Media vs. Knowledge Management*” blog faults?
>
>
> No, not a straw man fallacy, not by a long shot. Sorry, but for many,
> anxiety and fear-ridden _structure_/.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course, a major client of McKinsey is *General Motors*. ‘Nuff said.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5s43x7
>
>
>
>
>
> Let go of your engrained, pre-conceived notions of KM and read, study
> this blog again. It’s spot-on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -j
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
--
Brad Hoyt
Hoyt Consulting - Helping Organizations Leverage Their Know-how
www.hoytconsulting.com
Office: +1 515.949.3133
Mobile: +1 515.306.1544
fax: +1 515.322.0672
http://xri.net/=Brad.Hoyt
"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history." -- Spiro T. Agnew, 9/11/70
This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender and delete the email immediately.
Benoit Couture
Genius comes from all kinds of different directions...
So here's my two bit's worth to this present genial sillinest...
I parked a page a while back at the Taking it Global site for youth called:
Ancient Voice of Humanity's Youth
The main line that I wish to interject here is uner Opportunity for Youth:
And says:
"To take part in the connectivity of the trans-generational youth of all ages."
The whole at:
and:
The more I participate with those who have a real sense of the front line, the more I come to see how much we need each other, in the assembling of the parts into the whole...
Benoit
|
Karla S McKee
I always cringe a bit when demographic labels are used to generalize about values and attitudes across broad social groups, but I can understand how Rao's perspective arose. The younger one is, the less exposed one is to traditional concepts and, in consequence, the more likely one is to be open to new perspectives. Clearly this is not true of everyone, but it can be true of enough people that a few experiences such as Rao's can lead to stereotyping.
Really, though, it seems to me not to be a generational war, per se, but a war between old concepts and new. Humans assimilate novel information by matching it to their current values and beliefs. This why a "technical argument tends to be largely a rationalization of a psychological one." To be accepted, it must fit individuals' worldviews. I daresay that, in 20 years, 'millennials' will have to struggle with younger generations' approaches.
Thus, while I object to Rao's neat generational divisions, I certainly have witnessed the challenge of trying to move forward when those in power want to slog through the "proven" methods by which they have always done things because they understand the processes and the risks. Rather than wait for the implacable to retire (particularly given that some them, in my experience, are among younger generations), we need to educate them, as when Rao challenged another panelist's viewpoints. Old ideas and technologies, after all, are springboards for the new. Sometimes, though, we need to help others make the transitions.
-----Original Message-----
From: "JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)"
Sent: Dec 10, 2008 5:58 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War
Hi –
Thanks for the comments on Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.
The remarks were expected from the KM "Confucius-type Mandarins" that Peter Drucker always warned us about. The typical, self-absorbed nature of them are also no surprise whatsoever.
Here are some further observations for those Boomers that maybe got the nose tweaked by the excellent Generational War blog.
· The crushing irony of the recursive response to a social medium, the blog, about social media, should not be lost. Hilarious!
· Social media are not an ‘infatuation;’ They are changing everything. Permanently. Chicago Tribune Chapter 11 today. NYT next?
· Demographics is a statistical discipline that allows induction and logical observations of generational (age) behaviors.
· Everybody knows a Twittering grandmother; There are plenty of geezers on Facebook., there’s no age stereotyping. Please.
· In the philosophy of science and in innovation, ‘complete ignorance’ is often a requirement, a predicate to stunning breakthroughs!
Furthermore, most importantly, it is hardly a ‘straw man fallacy’ since KM is malignant. Here is particularly pathetic symptom of KMs metastatic pathology…
“Join Rory Chase, managing director, Teleos, Carla O'Dell, president, APQC, and executives from several recognized organizations for a complimentary Knowledge Management (KM) Webinar discussing how, for the second year in a row, McKinsey & Company has been named the overall Global MAKE Winner. Winner’s organizational structures reflect the 21st global knowledge economy.” (Gag!)
This is representative of ‘most people’ and is definitely serious. This is what your precious, prideful KM Establishment respects, accepts, honors and awards! [Sadly, the situation is worse that described even in the Generational War blog.]
“Organizational structure?” Isn’t that exactly what the “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management” blog faults?
No, not a straw man fallacy, not by a long shot. Sorry, but for many, KM is exactly what the blogger says it is, “…a brittle, mechanical, anxiety and fear-ridden structure.”
Of course, a major client of McKinsey is General Motors. ‘Nuff said. Further editorial held to protect the innocent.
Here is a sterling example of dopey Boomer-KM and its stupefying hubris.
Let go of your engrained, pre-conceived notions of KM and read, study this blog again. It’s spot-on.
Snowden Dave
Snowden Dave
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
Thanks again for all the comments. Flow is key to achieving fundamental advancements.
Here linked and attached is excellent opinion piece that reinforces Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War, and offers an historical perspective. It’s from a familiar, friendly and thoughtful voice.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/soctrans.htm
“The twenty-first century will surely be one of continuing social, economic, and political turmoil and challenge, at least in its early decades. What I have called the age of social transformation is not over yet. And the challenges looming ahead may be more serious and more daunting than those posed by the social transformations that have already come about, the social transformations of the twentieth century.”
Recall, after three decades as a KMer, my reaction was to curse Social Media vs. Knowledge Management for being so cogent and accurate. Arrgh!
We currently in the throes of enormous, fast-moving social innovation, turmoil and change in media, wealth, culture and collective intelligence. It is normal and okay to be resistive, puzzled and emotional. By every measure, and by excellent thought blogs like Social Media vs. Knowledge Management, clearly our particular “age of social transformation” is just beginning.
Concerning mandarins, Confucius and self-absorbed KMers, good ol’ Peter D. frequently warned us, including in SocTrans attached…
“For instance, society could easily degenerate into emphasizing formal degrees rather than performance capacity. It could fall prey to sterile Confucian mandarins--a danger to which the American university is singularly susceptible. On the other hand, it could overvalue immediately usable, "practical" knowledge and underrate the importance of fundamentals, and of wisdom altogether.”
The social reorientation of work, wealth, the environment and civil society to intangibles, value and networks is in full swing, accelerating every day. It doesn’t need to be generational or a war, but it is as sweeping and profound as the metaphor implies.
For example, how many major city newspapers need to tank, be permanently dissolved, before people comprehend the social media revolution?
For another example, at the Program for the Future, among the lead breakout issues was how to make collective intelligence inclusive and avoid another ‘digital divide.’
It is not my intention to be harsh, hurt feelings or go off-the-rails. Concerning the specifics of KM, social media, mastery of intangibles and network competence, there are just enormous gaps. Examples are legion. Emblematic are the offerings of “KM Certifications” where social media, intangibles and network analytics are often absent. C’mon folks, you know the list goes on and on. KM is plainly deficient.
These gaps are not my invention or an invention of “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management.” It’s just the way it is, the way it turned out. The responses here are self-evident. KM is brittle, rigid, fearful, risk-adverse and hypersensitive to criticism. KM is not unlike its betrothed, Corporate IT. These are bad signs. The prospects for change or developing its way out of the current situation are quite dim, but hope springs eternal.
Cordially,
-j
John Bordeaux
Sent from my iPhone. (Wow. JB uses an iPhone? How anomalous.)
<The Age of Social Transformation.pdf>
dave.s...@cognitive-edge.com
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: "JT Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:34:58 -0800
To: <Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War
Matt Moore
What interests me is that value networks haven't been applied more to social media ecosystems.
There's a growing appreciation of ONA/SNA by social media types - Laurie Locklee, Stewart Mader & James Matheson doing their things with wikis, Ross Dawson & Laurie producing media network maps, Trampoline in the UK creating wide-scale network mappings. But there seems to be a gap between the "huh, these network diagrams seem cool" and widescale application of these techniques for business analysis, development and measurement.
But this silence is far more deafening regarding VNA. Which I think is a major shame. Can anyone point me to examples of where VNA has been applied to social media (I mean actually applied rather than simply having the phrase 'value networks' placed in the vicinity of, say, 'wikis' or 'facebook')?
Sent from my dodgy ASUS laptop, old-skool style.
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, John Bordeaux <jbor...@gmail.com> wrote:
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi John Bordeaux –
Thanks for the thoughtful message and request.
“Please support your characterization of KM below”
You seem to be missing enormous, highly specific, multi-level evidence furnished to support, refract and anneal the conclusions of “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War” blog presented in the replies here.
For example, instead of dismissing the vast supporting evidence, for example, why not comment on this patented KM Architecture?
Specifically, also offered in clear support are mainstream, popular artifacts of your KM Establishment, were the MAKE Awards, APQC and KM Certifications. They support all the conclusions. These are enormous, specific institutional evidence of the profound defects of KM orthodoxy. They are just too big, too widespread to simply dismiss and ignore.
Remember, these are your KM industry practice leaders! This is where KM is ‘steeped.’
These defects were superbly summarize in “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.”
Again, the reaction here is self-evident. Rejection of all critique of KM is typical, widespread and counterproductive. It’s being rigid with little real strength, i.e., brittle. It is a bad sign, unhealthy; it shows complete arrested development of the practice and patient.
Anyway, if there are authentic KM practices outside the KM establishment boundaries, care to share? We’d love to know.
Anybody can SAY they summarily dismiss the broadly-sanctioned, authoritative KM of the APQC, MAKE, patented CoPs, KM Certifications, etc., like you and most others have done. However, without sharing the KM practices that are claimed to be outside the ‘board-certified’ KM agencies, or legally sanctioned by govt, then we are left to conclude they are KM and it is what you practice.
That’s all. No biggie. It is just the baseline. To grow, develop, we need to start somewhere…
Let’s lob the ball back to you. Can you show us, specifically, how, where, when, who and what special KM is driving authentic social media innovation and fundamental advancements in knowledge?
Please just send some quick examples, articles, sites, case studies, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g that illustrates specifically what special brand of KM it is that is leading, advancing collective intelligence, network analytics, social media, prediction markets, value networks, complexity science, intangibles, abundance, sustainability and thriving business ecosystems.
Thanks for your reply. Cases are particularly welcome. People will be very grateful.
Remember, when ordinary Jane and Joe look for KM, guided by your KM Establishment, they see:
1. APQC
2. MAKE
3. Patented CoPs
4. KM Certifications
This is specific supporting evidence that KM is “…a brittle, mechanical, anxiety and fear-ridden structure.” These are not claims. There are many, many more, particularly in the moldy KM conference circuit. They are driving the principles of “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.”
Look, top researchers at Xerox like Rao and his colleagues and the culture are responsible for decades of incredible innovation. Half the stuff you are using, looking at right now to read this message came from them.
Someone here in this group said the Social Media vs. Knowledge Management blog was, “totally ignorant.” I have background with PARC and a LOT of the stuff they invented and developed like the local area network (LAN) and the graphical user interface (GUI) were also considered ‘totally ignorant’ at the time!
Don’t be dismissive, have an open mind, let go. There is a sea change. Give yourself a break, and have another look.
Finally, the last KM conference I was invited to, about a year ago, a respected person, director KM level, for a ginormous entertainment company, hailed the fact they were nearing the day when their KM system would have the commissary menu on the company Intranet… AND it will be updated every day! Woo-hoo! (Lots of self-righteous, supporting audience chuckles, agreement and kindred guffaws.) That was the day KM died for me. Go to your everyday KM Conference. You will hear a lot of the same stuff.
Cheers,
-j
Snowden Dave
Hi John Bordeaux –Thanks for the thoughtful message and request.“Please support your characterization of KM below”You seem to be missing enormous, highly specific, multi-level evidence furnished to support, refract and anneal the conclusions of “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War”blog presented in the replies here.For example, instead of dismissing the vast supporting evidence, for example, why not comment on this patented KM Architecture?Specifically, also offered in clear support are mainstream, popular artifacts of your KM Establishment, were the MAKE Awards, APQC and KM Certifications. They support all the conclusions. These are enormous, specific institutional evidence of the profound defects of KM orthodoxy. They are just too big, too widespread to simply dismiss and ignore.Remember, these are your KM industry practice leaders! This is where KM is ‘steeped.’These defects were superbly summarize in “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.”Again, the reaction here is self-evident. Rejection of all critique of KM is typical, widespread and counterproductive. It’s being rigid with little real strength, i.e., brittle. It is a bad sign, unhealthy; it shows complete arrested development of the practice and patient.Anyway, if there are authentic KM practices outside the KM establishment boundaries, care to share? We’d love to know.Anybody can SAY they summarily dismiss the broadly-sanctioned, authoritative KM of the APQC, MAKE, patented CoPs, KM Certifications, etc., like you and most others have done. However, without sharing the KM practices that are claimed to be outside the ‘board-certified’ KM agencies, or legally sanctioned by govt, then we are left to conclude they are KM and it is what you practice.That’s all. No biggie. It is just the baseline. To grow, develop, we need to start somewhere…
Let’s lob the ball back to you. Can you show us, specifically, how, where, when, who and whatspecial KM is driving authentic social media innovation and fundamental advancements in knowledge?
Please just send some quick examples, articles, sites, case studies, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g that illustrates specifically what special brand of KM it is that is leading, advancing collective intelligence, network analytics, social media, prediction markets, value networks, complexity science, intangibles, abundance, sustainability and thriving business ecosystems.Thanks for your reply. Cases are particularly welcome. People will be very grateful.Remember, when ordinary Jane and Joe look for KM, guided by your KM Establishment, they see:1. APQC2. MAKE3. Patented CoPs4. KM Certifications
This is specific supporting evidence that KM is “…a brittle, mechanical, anxiety and fear-riddenstructure.” These are not claims. There are many, many more, particularly in the moldy KM conference circuit. They are driving the principles of “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.”
Look, top researchers at Xerox like Rao and his colleagues and the culture are responsible for decades of incredible innovation. Half the stuff you are using, looking at right now to read this message came from them.
Someone here in this group said the Social Media vs. Knowledge Management blog was, “totally ignorant.” I have background with PARC and a LOT of the stuff they invented and developed like thelocal area network (LAN) and the graphical user interface (GUI) were also considered ‘totally ignorant’ at the time!
maryboone
input and then duck into a foxhole:
1. Do you think Venkat knows who Doug Engelbart is?
2. I would have been much more interested in seeing KM/SM dissected
from the point of view of people who see the world through "ordered"
or "unordered" lenses (nod to Dave S. here).
3. I think the generational assessment is only interesting in that it
shows how touchy everyone is feeling about that right now. I wonder
if Venkat has read Don Tapscott's new book.
On Dec 12, 12:23 pm, Snowden Dave <dave.snow...@cognitive-edge.com>
wrote:
> > > wrote:- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Bordeaux
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I am glad my critique of "Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War" generated good discussion flow, more light than heat, and a number of new Value Network and VNA group signups. (Now at 800 members.)
At the Program for the Future and the 40th Anniversary of the Mother of All Demos last Monday and Tuesday, it is safe to say among the most important elements to achieving Doug Engelbart’s vision, and the most vexing, is conquering barriers to constructive criticism in collective intelligence.
Suffice it to say, concerning this thread themes and topics, we are in the awkward but essential transition phase from a process, or ordered-system approach to business and problems to a network, or complex adaptive approach to productivity, innovation and societal challenges.
Process to network metamorphose is not easy. Most often, the all-at-once, forklift approach doesn’t work. Rather, a dual-platform strategy is more effective. In particular, it works to wall-off process, adopt the value network mindset, the refit, map legacy process into the network patterns w/VNA. That’s where we are today. While the establishment clings to their trusty process models of the past, the network mindset and value networks are charting the future. It is a fun and rewarding time.
Allow me some germane responses to this odd remark.
“it would have been
"accurate" at some level to describe Americans
as being defined by President Bush and his policies.”
The USA is a country of laws (intangibles), not men. [BTW, No matter how low Bush’s rating goes, there are 535 people with always confidently lower ratings: the US Congress. It is intrinsic to Americanism to constrain govt.]
Often, when people describe the USA they call it a democracy. Wrong. More importantly, they leave out the most important part.
Since 1789, the USA is a constitutional republic. Within the republic, are forms of Greco-Roman democracy. One important principle is, “the majority rules,” which is only half true. The second, far more important part, is often left out. The complete principle is, “the majority rules, at the consent of the minority.”
Consent is another mighty intangible like confidence. The value network mindset achieves fundamental advancements in civil society since it raises intangibles to their much higher, rightful station. VNA mapping makes intangibles visible, so we can work with them and optimize them, creating far better outcomes.
I’ve lived outside the USA for many years. Never, ever, not even once, did anyone even hint that the current executive branch was in any way descriptive of Americans. Nonsense. Quite on the contrary, in the greatest Jeffersonian Tradition, Americans are held to a much higher standard than their government, most often in spite of their government!
Look at the US Currency in your pocket, look where it says Americans put their most precious intangible, Trust.
-j
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of John Bordeaux
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 8:19 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War
Hi John Maloney -
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
Thanks again for all the responses to the critique of “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War.” The only lingering problem with the discourse was the ridiculous classification of transgenerational behavioral characteristics as rank age stereotyping. Hilarious!
Let’s try and resolve that matter now.
The
conclusion and observations in my critique were most often drawn from the
famous Strauss & Howe models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_%26_Howe
Generations are a public reference point for individuals within the generation. That’s all. There is no foolish age stereotyping or any other type of stereotyping. Please.
Further observations and scholarly foundations were through the empirical research lens furnished by Dr. Pete Markiewicz. I was fortunate to share the dais w/Pete at USC early this year.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pindiespace
(BTW, novel with GenY: teen pregnancy down; drug use down; school shooting down; religiosity up.)
For those interested you may pursue further via the attached presentation, this book and site.
Book: Millennials and the Popular Culture
Site: http://www.lifecourse.com/
Furthermore, my “go-to” scholar and authority for the matters raised in “Social Media vs. Knowledge Management” is Morley Winograd, executive director for USC’s Center of Telecommunications Management.
http://www.marshall.usc.edu/ctm/about-ctm.htm
A close friend of value networks and sponsor, Morley literally ‘wrote the book’ on applied transgenerational use of social media in – “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics,” published by Rutgers University Press in March 2008. (Recommended)
Morley was the also our host for the confabulation at USC for these themes where Markiewicz and myself gave our talks.
Of course, it made sense to calibrate my reaction to Social Media vs. Knowledge Management with these scholars, thought leaders, executives, authors and researchers. Here, for one, was Morley’s instant response to Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War ::
From: Winograd, Morley
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:51 PM
To: jtma...@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: Thanks + Interesting Blog
John:
I absolutely LOVE the blog you sent me. Other than the fact that he has his US
census numbers wrong for all three generations, (they are all too low but
correct relative to each other), I couldn’t find anything in it I
disagreed with—even though I found many points he was making to be
innovative and insightful. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Morley
BTW, there is no need to ‘…sense we are connecting in the conversation,’ since it is not a conversation, it’s a discussion. It is critique and informed opinion, that’s all.
Offering empirical evidence and inductive logic is not stereotyping. Claiming anything you disagree with a ‘straw man fallacy’ is also quite ridiculous.
Finally, as an early, active member of ACT community, it’s was clear it suffers the identical pathology as elaborated specifically in Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War. Specifically ACT is, “…yearning for community opinion leaders with the moral authority to form a priestly elite.” I simply opted-out years ago.
-j
John Bordeaux
Sent from my iPhone
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi Martin –
Thanks a lot. Not known to shy away from interesting topics J, been thinking a lot lately about the privacy intangible vis-à-vis VNA. Social & value graphs offer profound knowledge and can release enormous benefits. However, used improperly could, repeat could, trample privacy. Also, how is privacy reconciled with transparency, for example?
Haven’t fully shaped any coherence, but tend to agree with the scholars.
A collective value and a human right…
“Priscilla Regan believes that individual concepts of privacy have failed philosophically and in policy. She supports a social value of privacy with three dimensions: shared perceptions, public values, and collective components. Shared ideas about privacy allows freedom of conscience and diversity in thought. Public values guarantee democratic participation, including freedoms of speech and association, and limits government power. Collective elements describe privacy as collective good that cannot be divided. Regan's goal is to strengthen privacy claims in policy making: "if we did recognize the collective or public-good value of privacy, as well as the common and public value of privacy, those advocating privacy protections would have a stronger basis upon which to argue for its protection".”
http://wmst.gmu.edu/faculty_staff/bio.php?fname=Priscilla&lname=Regan
Here is more sensible scholarship…
Leslie Regan Shade argues that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy. Privacy depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate. Violations of privacy depend on context. The human right to privacy has precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.
http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/comm/faculty/shade.html
BTW, in Athenian democracy in Ancient Greece most of the population were slaves, so they could make the model below work. As the scholars say, privacy depends on context.
Thanks again. Very interesting. Privacy is an important topic.
-j
From: Martin R. Dugage
[mailto:mar...@mopsos.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War
John,
Your comment on democracy reminded me that the Athenian democracy in Ancient Greece was limited to one specific place, the Agora, and that it was based on three simple rules :
1. One man = one vote
2. Same air time for all participants to voice their opinions
3. Total respect for privacy
Obviously, our modern democracies do not work under those rules, and point n°3 may even be jeopardized by the web.
/Martin
Kathleen Marvin
----- Original Message -----
Michael Cayley
http://socialcapitalvalueadd.com/2008/06/02/privacy-on-social-networks/
Cheers,
mc
From: kath...@sbcglobal.net
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Privacy
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:31:16 -0800
Charles Ehin
Benoit Couture
It seems to me that Kathleen and Charles we are now leading our entry into the realm of Personal and Community Mental Health Care.
Speaking outloud of privacy is also speaking of intimacy.
I see privacy as the passage to protect who we each are, so that eventually, as maturity becomes mature, mutuality gets to be released as the framework for the uniqueness of becoming.
In some areas, this is known as education.
This describes the need for a lead as opposed to a leader. No matter who's voice, the lead is the same, when it comes to good health and hapiness. This is what the simpe drive of networking is about.
The crisis we are in is a symptom of how sick we are, privately and collectively.
Neuroplasticity is demonstrating the evidence that much of the the lead is in our brain's capacity to adapt.
The personal and communal adaptation to healthy privacy and mutuality is the voice needed from all leaders, more than ever.
The question for the immediate future is:
"Shall we grow to become intimate, nuturing one another in the maturity of mental health?"
Benoit
|
Kathleen Marvin
Charles Ehin
Kathleen, interesting article by Borgatti and Molina, http://www.steveborgatti.com/papers/ethics2005.pdf. I agree with you that what they suggest doesn’t really solve the problem.
The key to the problem and its solution, I believe, hinges on the fact that you can’t nor do you want to use SNA to manage the social networks. You can’t because the networks are emergent entities and change like an amoeba when confronted by management. You also don’t want to manage them because then they are no longer emergent and lose the traits that we seek to mine.
The only way out of this dilemma, as far as I can see, is to develop organizational contexts or ecologies that support/enhance the positive self-organizing attributes (such as the mutual sharing of innovative ideas) of the social networks. That, of course, is also a very delicate process. In reality it’s really not a process but rather a never ending series of adjustments and the networks themselves need to be part of the experimentation. Since 1995 I’ve referred to this proposed practice as “unmanagement.” It has nothing to do with anarchy but rather with “dynamic order” that is a fundamental characteristic of complex adaptive systems.
As both Dave Snowden and I have suggested before, you really can’t manage people but you can tweak the organizational or network ecologies. Managing the biophysical and social context is not an easy matter either. I guess that’s what makes life so interesting. In my forthcoming book, The Organizational Sweet Spot: Engaging the Innovative Dynamics of Your Social Networks (Springer, May 2009), I attempt to further identify the intricacies of unmanagement in serendipitously enhancing the positive dynamics of emergent networks within the constraints of formal management systems.
Cheers,
Charlie
Charles (Kalev) Ehin, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Management
The
Gore School of Business
Westminster College, Salt Lake City
kal...@msn.com
www.UnManagement.com
Don Steiny
You are not alone with that title:
I like this book.
IMHO and indeed, my friend, Mark Granovetter’s, many people profoundly misunderstand social networks. The idea that social networks evolve for a purpose is 100% opposite of Granovetter’s view. Social network studies are not a uniform field and some of the top experts do not bother to go to SunBelt as it has been hijacked by functionalists, the very view social networks were used to challenge during the Harvard revolution in late 60’s.
Borgotti is making a business of networks, as are Cross and some others. To sell it to businesspeople they have to make it look ways they can recognize. Privacy issues exist within a concept of an organization that may be an illusion (as Weick, White, March and others have show). But that illusion sustains the stories of the function of management and stories that one can sell have to be part of the same narrative. As long as innovation is conceived as something that comes from individuals and individual incentive is the most highly rewarded (which is rewarding an illusion), “privacy” will be an issue. However, Ron Burt has shown that more knowledge of the networks around us benefit both the individual (whatever that is) and the organization. So knowing more about the networks we are in can be an advantage. Unless it isn’t. The idea of “using” networks so dear to the management illusion breaks this advantage. Privacy is not absolute, it is contextual. Management is based on a non-contextual symbolic representation of organizations, individual and markets that is, simply, incorrect. In that incorrect paradigm privacy is much more important than it in the real world.
-Don
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:03 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Privacy
Kathleen, interesting article by Borgatti and Molina, http://www.steveborgatti.com/papers/ethics2005.pdf. I agree with you that what they suggest doesn’t really solve the problem.
<BR<BR<BR<BR
Laurence Lock Lee
I look forward to reading your book Charlie. We do lots of SNA projects, we have just completed 3 with another few on the go now, so I sense that the demand by the non-academic world is building … I expect helped by the “social networking” phenomena. I must say that the majority of our sponsors do appreciate “soft touch” approaches to management. I suspect this is why we get called because these experienced managers have moved beyond an expectation that formal management methods will deliver all. That said, there have been times when we have had to counsel the odd executive who was ready to shoot the poorly connected note on the SNA chart J
rgds
Laurence Lock Lee PhD
Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
Ph: +61 (0)407001628
Blog: http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/
Learn to network, then network to learn
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Friday, 19 December 2008
9:03 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Privacy
Kathleen, interesting article by Borgatti and Molina, http://www.steveborgatti.com/papers/ethics2005.pdf. I agree with you that what they suggest doesn’t really solve the problem.
<BR<BR<BR<BR