Re: Emotions & KM #emotions

Murray Jennex

Matt, you make the statement below about the huge consumption of business books and seminars and it struck me that just because people read them, it doesn't mean they can take that knowledge and put it into action.  We have had to do remote teaching during covid and I am surprised at how little people will read and turn it into action.  My students meet with me weekly via zoom, I present material, I go over it and show them how to use it, but I'm finding that few use it near as well as when this is done in a class.  I'm kind of surprised at this as unlike regular class, I post a zoom recording of what we do, and yet few are using it.  As an author as well as a teacher I like to think that by making knowledge available they will be able to use it.  I suspect there must be an emotional aspect to hearing material in person that is not being recognized.  I do know I can make good eye contact in person and get a read on what they think about the material that I can't do over zoom.  I also suspect this is true about simply reading material from a business book.  I've been following the conversation about and don't think much about safe spaces and such as I do this with students by pointing out that the safest space they will have is the classroom when compared to a work environment, doesn't seem to matter.  Making it stressful doesn't help either.  I'm seeing less than 30% engagement (probably about 20-25%).  So my bottom line questions are: (with respect to knowledge sharing and getting people to put knowledge in action)

what emotions are we missing?
how do we read/sense them?
how do we address these emotions and turn them into motivators?

what I'm seeing now is a focus on life and doing the daily things and while people want to change and improve by using knowledge, they either don't have the energy or time......murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Moore <matt@...>
Sent: Fri, Oct 16, 2020 11:12 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Emotions & KM - Fear


I mostly agree with the points you make - and I think that they can be applied to not just psychological safety but to many management techniques.

Most organisations and their managers say they want to high-performing but they don’t take the actions necessary to be high-performing. As you say, mediocrity is enough. Don’t rock the boat.

I’d also say that teams can do all the things that “high-performing teams” are supposed to do and still fail. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can do all the things that the HBR articles and business books tell you to do and still wind up broke.

I’m not saying this to ignore the importance of personal responsibility or the need for personal learning & improvement.

I remain struck by the huge consumption of business books and articles and executive seminar series, training programs etc and the available data which suggests that most people don’t like their jobs or think much of their managers.

In 2001, Gallup found that 30% of US workers surveyed were engaged. In 2020, Gallup found that 31% of workers were engaged.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result - what does that say about our business culture? And what does it say about our collective and individual abilities to cross The Knowing Doing Gap?


Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504

On Oct 17, 2020, at 1:32 AM, Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:45 AM, Matt Moore wrote:
However, if creating a psychologically safe organisation was the most important thing for organisational success, there would be more of them.
Maybe. OTOH, most organizations - the miracle of organizations, actually - can get by on mediocrity. Pull employees from the middle of the bell curve, put them into pre-configured jobs, give them a bit a training, and voila - cars get designed and built. So use a bit of stick as needed - can’t hurt anything.

But not all organizations can get away with that. Some need truly high-performing individuals who work on high-performing teams. For these teams, psychological safety is central, as Google discovered in their research on high performing teams. 

This is, in an odd sort of way, analogous to why most organizations don’t do After Action Learning, even though the military has shown it to be very effective in improving processes and reducing risk. If it’s so effective, why don’t all companies use it? Simple: no one dies in companies in the course of doing their jobs (well, usually). That, coupled with the political risk/fear of calling out your superior for a bad plan of action - which is a central aspect of AAL work - means that the cultural toll of doing it is greater than the perceived potential benefit (incremental process improvement). Just sayin’.
Tom Short Consulting
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts

Join to automatically receive all group messages.