Engagement #engagement


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Greetings, one & all -

 

Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the soft side of “engaging” knowledge workers (or whatever term might be used for voluntarism) that I might leverage?  I’m not an HR type and this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch.  I’m constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for “encouraging” the use of innate knowledge (talent).  I will, of course properly cite anything I use.

 

An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or intellect of an individual.  It is determined by factors present in an individual from birth.  It is often viewed as a natural talent, aptitude, or ability to do certain things.  Innate knowledge can be enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it can only be used by the individual who has it.

 

Thanks.  

 

Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir

 

Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501   Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...

 


Stan Garfield
 

Al,
 
Here are links to a presentation and an article which may be helpful:
If you can say more about what you are looking for, I may be able to provide additional material.
 
Regards,
Stan
 

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:
 
Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the soft side of “engaging” knowledge workers (or whatever term might be used for voluntarism) that I might leverage?  I’m not an HR type and this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch.  I’m constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for “encouraging” the use of innate knowledge (talent).  I will, of course properly cite anything I use.

 

An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or intellect of an individual.  It is determined by factors present in an individual from birth.  It is often viewed as a natural talent, aptitude, or ability to do certain things.  Innate knowledge can be enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it can only be used by the individual who has it.


Paul McDowall
 

Hi Al,
Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?), one must address three types of argument:
- ethical appeal (ethos),
- emotional appeal (pathos), and
- logical appeal (logos).

We recently undertook a best practice research project on Employee Engagement and I am including, below, an excerpt from the introduction section of our summary report.

"This concept of engagement is a sub-element of the larger topic of talent management, one of the most discussed fields in management studies today. However, it is difficult to define the borders of engagement as a theoretical concept. Like organizational theory, it touches fields as diverse as sociology, psychology and economics; as a result, any attempt to delineate and neatly define engagement will oversimplify the topic, reducing the power to effect substantial change and potentially leading to implementation errors.

... we are guided by the philosophy that action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive. It (our findings) sub-divides engagement into three parts: intellectual engagement, social engagement and emotional engagement. Although there is significant research to support this type of breakdown, it should be noted that this is only one of many approaches, and it is not definitive. ...

A word of caution is in order: while much of (this) ... may appear to be common sense, engagement is not a clean, sterile topic, and it cannot be mapped onto a neatly organized flow chart. It is by definition organic; it is about individual wants, needs, hopes and dreams. Consequently, it is necessary for each individual to consider their own personal experiences and honestly reflect on their relationships at work, both with their own managers and those that they are responsible for managing."

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more.
Paul


Chris Collison <chris@...>
 

Hi Al,

A couple of articles and videos to build on Stan's suggestions:

 

An article from Inside Knowledge on how I set about engaging the senor team, from when I had a real job at Centrica!

http://www.chriscollison.com/documents/engage.pdf

 

An article from Inside Knowledge which explores the "seven deadly syndromes" of knowledge-sharing - which should help you to plan an engagement approach to counter them.

http://www.chriscollison.com/documents/7syns2.pdf

Video of the first four syndromes on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb2I0_FZuac

 

Finally, a fun video of an engagement approach used by Amoco which entailed a cuddly parrot and some real pirate gold.  It's a good little story to get people thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/user/chriscollison#p/a/u/0/ZHpcOx7LBkc

 

 

All the best with your challenge...

Chris

 

 

on the web: www.chriscollison.com

read my blog: chriscollison.wordpress.com

see me on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/chriscollison             Chris Collison        

email me: chris@...                                                     Knowledgeable Ltd...          

call my mobile: +44 7841 262900                                                Because all of us are smarter than any of us.

link in with me: www.linkedin.com/in/chris_collison

follow me on twitter: chris_collison

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Stan Garfield
Sent: 22 October 2010 14:00
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] engagement

 




Al,

 

Here are links to a presentation and an article which may be helpful:

If you can say more about what you are looking for, I may be able to provide additional material.

 

Regards,

Stan

 

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the soft side of “engaging” knowledge workers (or whatever term might be used for voluntarism) that I might leverage?  I’m not an HR type and this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch.  I’m constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for “encouraging” the use of innate knowledge (talent).  I will, of course properly cite anything I use.

 

An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or intellect of an individual.  It is determined by factors present in an individual from birth.  It is often viewed as a natural talent, aptitude, or ability to do certain things.  Innate knowledge can be enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it can only be used by the individual who has it.





Bruce Richard
 

You might want to check out Taprootfoundation.org

Taproot has mobilized thousands of professional workers to volunteer pro bono time in their area of expertise to help non-profit organizations. Their program is quite impressive and they have the type of "marketing" message your can borrow for communicating to your knowledge workers.

Bruce Richard
Sustainable Change Consultant
The Redwood Grove Group
415 762-0167

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Simard, Albert" <albert.simard@...> wrote:

Greetings, one & all -



Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the
soft side of "engaging" knowledge workers (or whatever term might be
used for voluntarism) that I might leverage? I'm not an HR type and
this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch. I'm
constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for "encouraging"
the use of innate knowledge (talent). I will, of course properly cite
anything I use.



An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or
intellect of an individual. It is determined by factors present in an
individual from birth. It is often viewed as a natural talent,
aptitude, or ability to do certain things. Innate knowledge can be
enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it
can only be used by the individual who has it.



Thanks.



Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir



Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501 Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...
<mailto:albert.simard@...>


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Excellent, Thanks

 

Al Simard

 

Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir

 

Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501   Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...

 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of bertie wooster
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 2:39 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: engagement for volunteers

 

 

You might want to check out Taprootfoundation.org

Taproot has mobilized thousands of professional workers to volunteer pro bono time in their area of expertise to help non-profit organizations. Their program is quite impressive and they have the type of "marketing" message your can borrow for communicating to your knowledge workers.

Bruce Richard
Sustainable Change Consultant
The Redwood Grove Group
415 762-0167

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Simard, Albert" >
> Greetings, one & all -
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the
> soft side of "engaging" knowledge workers (or whatever term might be
> used for voluntarism) that I might leverage? I'm not an HR type and
> this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch. I'm
> constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for "encouraging"
> the use of innate knowledge (talent). I will, of course properly cite
> anything I use.
>
>
>
> An excerpt from the introduction:
>
> Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or
> intellect of an individual. It is determined by factors present in an
> individual from birth. It is often viewed as a natural talent,
> aptitude, or ability to do certain things. Innate knowledge can be
> enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it
> can only be used by the individual who has it.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.
>
> Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir
>
>
>
> Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada
>
> 305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11
>
> Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2
>
> Canada
>
> Tel: 613-943-3501 Fax: 613-996-7063
>
> e-mail: albert.simard@...
>
>


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Albert,

I have a report on employee engagement that I will send you off-list.

This is a topic that I have mixed feelings about.

At its best, it's about making working life better for employees. How can we get rid of the bull**** that stops our people being as awesome as we know them to be? How do we create an environment that is both productive and enjoyable?

At its worst, it is simply: what gimmicks can we throw at our employees to extract more labour from them without raising salaries?

In some respects, engagement and knowledge sharing are very similar:
- It's often about removing inhibitors rather than dreaming up new initiatives or cutting edge tech.
- These inhibitors are often deeply entrenched in organizational structures and managerial attitudes. And thus require real leadership to tackle.

Regards,

Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504

On Oct 22, 2010, at 7:02 AM, "Simard, Albert" <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

Greetings, one & all -

 

Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the soft side of “engaging” knowledge workers (or whatever term might be used for voluntarism) that I might leverage?  I’m not an HR type and this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch.  I’m constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for “encouraging” the use of innate knowledge (talent).  I will, of course properly cite anything I use.

 

An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or intellect of an individual.  It is determined by factors present in an individual from birth.  It is often viewed as a natural talent, aptitude, or ability to do certain things.  Innate knowledge can be enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it can only be used by the individual who has it.

 

Thanks.  

 

Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir

 

Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501   Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...

 


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Paul,

A couple of things:
- I have also used Aristotle's writing on rhetoric (for building ROI cases). When he talks about "ethos", he means something quite specific: the character & credibility of the speaker. For me, the core of credibility is that the words and deeds of a leader match. And often they don't. I suspect this is a common stumbling block for employee engagement efforts.
- "Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?)" I think this goes the heart of some things that made me uncomfortable when I did corporate comms. These efforts were designed as rhetoric - to persuade employees to think/speak/act in a certain way. They rarely posited communication as being a two-way process, a conversation if you will (as Theodore Zeldin notes, a conversation requires that both parties enter into it with the expectation that they will emerge different). If "engagement" is simply persuasion then let's call this thing exactly what is (A. Franklin) but let's not kid ourselves that it's engagement. The word "relationships" in the your final quoted sentence hints that this is also a concern that you have.

Cheers,

Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504

On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Paul McDowall <paul_mcdowall@...> wrote:

 

Hi Al,
Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?), one must address three types of argument:
- ethical appeal (ethos),
- emotional appeal (pathos), and
- logical appeal (logos).

We recently undertook a best practice research project on Employee Engagement and I am including, below, an excerpt from the introduction section of our summary report.

"This concept of engagement is a sub-element of the larger topic of talent management, one of the most discussed fields in management studies today. However, it is difficult to define the borders of engagement as a theoretical concept. Like organizational theory, it touches fields as diverse as sociology, psychology and economics; as a result, any attempt to delineate and neatly define engagement will oversimplify the topic, reducing the power to effect substantial change and potentially leading to implementation errors.

... we are guided by the philosophy that action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive. It (our findings) sub-divides engagement into three parts: intellectual engagement, social engagement and emotional engagement. Although there is significant research to support this type of breakdown, it should be noted that this is only one of many approaches, and it is not definitive. ...

A word of caution is in order: while much of (this) ... may appear to be common sense, engagement is not a clean, sterile topic, and it cannot be mapped onto a neatly organized flow chart. It is by definition organic; it is about individual wants, needs, hopes and dreams. Consequently, it is necessary for each individual to consider their own personal experiences and honestly reflect on their relationships at work, both with their own managers and those that they are responsible for managing."

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more.
Paul


Laurence Lock Lee
 


I agree with Matt's sentiments entirely. Interestingly to achieve true engagement with employees it means inviting them into the strategic conversations, something that tends to be held close by senior executives and once set, then we run into the one way 'engagement' issues. 

Over a decade ago now I was introduced to Tony Goldsby-Smith, a specialist in strategic conversations who was just completing his PhD on the topic at Carnegie-Mellon. He helped us 'design' our KM program in BHP (now BHP Billiton) at the time. Tony was an ex-History school teacher and he started off all his engagements with his 'two roads to truth' lecture about how Aristotle was in fact responsible for not only the rhetoric 'road' that we are talking about here, but also the 'competition' , the logic road, that ended up being embraced by the industrial revolution and is still dominant to day. Tony is a champion for the second road....which he names his consulting group now: www.secondroad.com.au.

I still use his "talk book" approach to capture strategic conversations using a group mind mapping approach together with an 'editorial' commentary. I've recently technically upgraded the approach by using a livescribe pen and producing a "movie" of the session with captured anecdote clips as well.

Perhaps we should be facilitating strategy development and consequent employee engagement though the use of "talk books", rather than the ubiquitous public affairs crafted powerpoint slides delivered by the exec team as compliance disguised as engagement.



Laurence Lock Lee PhD
Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
Ph: +61 (0)407001628
www.optimice.com.au
Blog: http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/
 
Learn to network, then network to learn



On 25/10/2010, at 2:07 AM, sikmleaders@... wrote:

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

Message

1a.

Re: employee engagement research

Posted by: "Matt Moore" innotecture@...   innotecture

Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:27 am (PDT)



Paul,

A couple of things:
- I have also used Aristotle's writing on rhetoric (for building ROI cases). When he talks about "ethos", he means something quite specific: the character & credibility of the speaker. For me, the core of credibility is that the words and deeds of a leader match. And often they don't. I suspect this is a common stumbling block for employee engagement efforts.
- "Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?)" I think this goes the heart of some things that made me uncomfortable when I did corporate comms. These efforts were designed as rhetoric - to persuade employees to think/speak/act in a certain way. They rarely posited communication as being a two-way process, a conversation if you will (as Theodore Zeldin notes, a conversation requires that both parties enter into it with the expectation that they will emerge different). If "engagement" is simply persuasion then let's call this thing exactly what is (A. Franklin) but let's not kid ourselves that it's engagement. The word "relationships" in the your final quoted sentence hints that this is also a concern that you have.

Cheers,

Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504
matt@innotecture.com.au


On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Paul McDowall <paul_mcdowall@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Hi Al,
> Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?), one must address three types of argument:
> - ethical appeal (ethos),
> - emotional appeal (pathos), and
> - logical appeal (logos).
> 
> We recently undertook a best practice research project on Employee Engagement and I am including, below, an excerpt from the introduction section of our summary report. 
> 
> "This concept of engagement is a sub-element of the larger topic of talent management, one of the most discussed fields in management studies today. However, it is difficult to define the borders of engagement as a theoretical concept. Like organizational theory, it touches fields as diverse as sociology, psychology and economics; as a result, any attempt to delineate and neatly define engagement will oversimplify the topic, reducing the power to effect substantial change and potentially leading to implementation errors. 
> 
> ... we are guided by the philosophy that action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive. It (our findings) sub-divides engagement into three parts: intellectual engagement, social engagement and emotional engagement. Although there is significant research to support this type of breakdown, it should be noted that this is only one of many approaches, and it is not definitive. ...
> 
> A word of caution is in order: while much of (this) ... may appear to be common sense, engagement is not a clean, sterile topic, and it cannot be mapped onto a neatly organized flow chart. It is by definition organic; it is about individual wants, needs, hopes and dreams. Consequently, it is necessary for each individual to consider their own personal experiences and honestly reflect on their relationships at work, both with their own managers and those that they are responsible for managing."
> 
> Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more. 
> Paul
> 
> 
Y! Groups blog
for the latest
scoop on Groups.
Ads on Yahoo!
Reach customers
searching for you.
Dog Fanatics
Find people who are
crazy about dogs.
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Matt –

 

I quite agree that engagement and knowledge sharing are intertwined and perhaps inseparable.  And I also concur that a lot of what management can do relates to removing barriers rather than being pro-active.  

 

Al


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Matt Moore
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 5:10 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] engagement

 

 

Albert,

 

I have a report on employee engagement that I will send you off-list.

 

This is a topic that I have mixed feelings about.

 

At its best, it's about making working life better for employees. How can we get rid of the bull**** that stops our people being as awesome as we know them to be? How do we create an environment that is both productive and enjoyable?

 

At its worst, it is simply: what gimmicks can we throw at our employees to extract more labour from them without raising salaries?

 

In some respects, engagement and knowledge sharing are very similar:

- It's often about removing inhibitors rather than dreaming up new initiatives or cutting edge tech.

- These inhibitors are often deeply entrenched in organizational structures and managerial attitudes. And thus require real leadership to tackle.

 

Regards,

Matt Moore

+61 423 784 504


On Oct 22, 2010, at 7:02 AM, "Simard, Albert" <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

Greetings, one & all -

 

Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the soft side of “engaging” knowledge workers (or whatever term might be used for voluntarism) that I might leverage?  I’m not an HR type and this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch.  I’m constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for “encouraging” the use of innate knowledge (talent).  I will, of course properly cite anything I use.

 

An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or intellect of an individual.  It is determined by factors present in an individual from birth.  It is often viewed as a natural talent, aptitude, or ability to do certain things.  Innate knowledge can be enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it can only be used by the individual who has it.

 

Thanks.  

 

Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir

 

Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501   Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...

 


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Matt –

 

Once again, I find myself in agreement with you.

 

“Communications,” as practiced by government departments (as opposed to the broader meaning) has little to do with knowledge sharing.  In fact, sometimes it’s just the opposite.  It’s often about making sure that nothing escapes the confines of the departmental unless it contains the right message.

 

Don’t get me wrong – communications – a one-way dissemination of official positions is essential to running a department; it simply isn’t very useful as a KM technique.  

 

Al


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Matt Moore
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 4:28 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] employee engagement research

 

 

Paul,

 

A couple of things:

- I have also used Aristotle's writing on rhetoric (for building ROI cases). When he talks about "ethos", he means something quite specific: the character & credibility of the speaker. For me, the core of credibility is that the words and deeds of a leader match. And often they don't. I suspect this is a common stumbling block for employee engagement efforts.

- "Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?)" I think this goes the heart of some things that made me uncomfortable when I did corporate comms. These efforts were designed as rhetoric - to persuade employees to think/speak/act in a certain way. They rarely posited communication as being a two-way process, a conversation if you will (as Theodore Zeldin notes, a conversation requires that both parties enter into it with the expectation that they will emerge different). If "engagement" is simply persuasion then let's call this thing exactly what is (A. Franklin) but let's not kid ourselves that it's engagement. The word "relationships" in the your final quoted sentence hints that this is also a concern that you have.

 

Cheers,

Matt Moore

+61 423 784 504


On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Paul McDowall <paul_mcdowall@...> wrote:

 

Hi Al,
Aristotle claimed that to persuade (also applies to engage?), one must address three types of argument:
- ethical appeal (ethos),
- emotional appeal (pathos), and
- logical appeal (logos).

We recently undertook a best practice research project on Employee Engagement and I am including, below, an excerpt from the introduction section of our summary report.

"This concept of engagement is a sub-element of the larger topic of talent management, one of the most discussed fields in management studies today. However, it is difficult to define the borders of engagement as a theoretical concept. Like organizational theory, it touches fields as diverse as sociology, psychology and economics; as a result, any attempt to delineate and neatly define engagement will oversimplify the topic, reducing the power to effect substantial change and potentially leading to implementation errors.

... we are guided by the philosophy that action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive. It (our findings) sub-divides engagement into three parts: intellectual engagement, social engagement and emotional engagement. Although there is significant research to support this type of breakdown, it should be noted that this is only one of many approaches, and it is not definitive. ...

A word of caution is in order: while much of (this) ... may appear to be common sense, engagement is not a clean, sterile topic, and it cannot be mapped onto a neatly organized flow chart. It is by definition organic; it is about individual wants, needs, hopes and dreams. Consequently, it is necessary for each individual to consider their own personal experiences and honestly reflect on their relationships at work, both with their own managers and those that they are responsible for managing."

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more.
Paul


Keith De La Rue
 

Albert -

It may be helpful to look at the work of John Smythe. His web site is at http://engageforchange.com/, and his book is "The CEO - chief engagement officer". This is based on some research he did at McKinsey a couple of years ago on companies where staff have been included in the decision-making process, rather than just told after the fact.

Regards,

- Keith.
--------------------------------------------------------
Keith De La Rue
AcKnowledge Consulting
...acting on knowledge, communication and learning
email: keith@delarue.net
phone: +61 418 51 7676
blog: http://acknowledgeconsulting.com/
--------------------------------------------------------


Fred Nickols
 

Don Tosti and I recently co-authored a piece titled "Making Players out of Spectators, Cynics and Deadwood: Tips for Managing Your Company's Employee Engagement Communities." In it we argue that employee engagement is best looked at in terms of the communities in which people spend most of their time (Players, Spectators, Cynics and Deadwood). Further, doing something about it means address the issues that led people to be in those communities. This is in stark contrast to engagement viewed as a continuum. You can find a copy of it at http://www.nickols.us/MakingPlayers.pdf

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
www.nickols.us
fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Simard, Albert" <albert.simard@...> wrote:

Greetings, one & all -



Does anyone have a short piece (few paragraphs to a few pages) on the
soft side of "engaging" knowledge workers (or whatever term might be
used for voluntarism) that I might leverage? I'm not an HR type and
this would be somewhat challenging to create from scratch. I'm
constructing a knowledge agenda for DRDC and I need it for "encouraging"
the use of innate knowledge (talent). I will, of course properly cite
anything I use.



An excerpt from the introduction:

Innate knowledge is part of the essential character, nature, or
intellect of an individual. It is determined by factors present in an
individual from birth. It is often viewed as a natural talent,
aptitude, or ability to do certain things. Innate knowledge can be
enhanced through training and practice, but it cannot be transferred; it
can only be used by the individual who has it.



Thanks.



Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir



Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              613-943-3501      end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...
<mailto:albert.simard@...>


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 
Edited

Hello everyone –

 

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone who sent me information related to engaging knowledge workers.  Literally overnight, I went from a deficit of knowledge to a surfeit.  I used most of the material, although a few bits didn’t quite fit into the overall story.  By way of feedback to the contributors and the group, I’ve attached the piece that I wrote on the subject.  All contributors received appropriate credit (the year after someone’s name indicates that they are listed in the references at the back of the document).  Since everything originated from the Web, I trust that I didn’t violate any IP issues.
Encouraging+Innate+Knowledge.pdf

 

For a couple of contributors, their information was captured and used in other parts of the paper:

·         using different metaphors to enable understanding in different people

·         motivating people to share their knowledge.

 

Those who read the paper will note that the last sentence opens a door to further dialogue on the subject.

 

Again, a heartfelt thanks to everyone.

 

Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir

 

Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501   Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...