Re: Emotions & KM #emotions

Robert L. Bogue

Matt -

Re: Personal agency and going too far - Agreed it's not one sided. I make the assumption if a healthy person walks into a toxic environment they'll adapt to it or they'll reject it and find something else. Absolutely if organizations need to change to be more supportive they should be. However, I see many more cases where people have not developed their internal agency/efficacy sufficiently. (in my opinion)

Re: Resilience training - Management (and all of us) want simple fixes. Sometimes there aren't simple fixes.

Re: Courage - You can't read yourself to be courageous. You can, however, cultivate a different way of assessing stressors so that they hold less power over you. Also, we believe that courage should be limitless -- no. It's a tool to help us survive. Not being "too" courageous is valuable.

Re: Course/Training/market - It's just an observation. Most of the training that people are getting is "free" because it's bundled with other things. Efficacy doesn't matter. They're looking to check the box that they've done the thing they were asked to do.


Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog:
Want to be confident about your change management efforts?
Are you burned out? can help you get out of it (for free)

-----Original Message-----
From: <> On Behalf Of Matt Moore via
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Emotions & KM - Resilience / Burnout


"As for fear of reprimands, I think this where we look at how to help/support people into being more wholly human filled with self-efficacy and resilience. When we do this they have a greater capacity for courage. (Courage is not the absence of fear but moving forward in it’s presence.) This greater capacity for courage decreases the need for the organization to be focused on reducing fear."

Now I don't mind the narrative around resilience and it is important to remember that we all have personal agency. Looking at your course, I think it's fine as far as it goes. The risk with what you are saying is that we put all the burden onto the individual. If we find two groups doing similar work and one group has high levels of staff turnover and sick leave, should our first thought be: " Ah ha! One of these groups needs resilience training!"

Training courses for someone (staff or their managers) tend to be the first thing that is reached for when executives face an organisational challenge. In part because they do not require the organisation as a whole to change. In much the same way that people reach for a medication when they have a health problem. For many people, the solution to obesity is lowering your calorific intake compared to your calorific output. But that's hard work. If only there were a pill to make me thin. Likewise, giving people training on stuff (how to be resilient, how not to be racist) is all very well - but unless you do some hard yards (e.g. changing the design of work, changing reward systems, maybe even replacing some people), its impact will be limited.

I suspect some things (e.g. leadership, courage) cannot be learned from reading a book or completing an elearning course. I suspect that they must be lived. N.B. I am a fan of books and read a lot of them.
But I am not a very courageous person. Perhaps I have not read the correct books.

"We believe we’re largely unsuccessful in getting employee engagement-type companies to leverage our materials because we don’t blame the company and we’re concerned about helping the person learn about their own self efficacy."

Without knowing the details, it's hard to comment on this except to say that from what I can see, there's a ton of resilience training out there (esp. after COVID) so I don't think that there's the lack of a market in terms of supply or demand.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.