Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[cp] Abuse

Expand Messages
  • David Mould
    hmm... an interesting discussion indeed. My observations: I think the initial discussion was trying to indentify what can be done about people using the
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      hmm... an interesting discussion indeed.

      My observations:

      I think the initial discussion was trying to indentify what can be done about people using the content of dialogues such as this and claim (externally) that someone has framed an original idea without giving credit where credit is due (there seems to be some raw nerves out there, I know what it's like so I totally sympathise)

      We switched to the idea of faking it within the group, i.e. someone claiming to be knowledgeable and contributing on that basis. This becomes tricky to justify as maybe the person isn't faking it to the group but more faking themselves such that they believe with all conviction that they do know what they're talking about. I have witnessed this in my company where people are so self assured that they are right they dictate to others.

      The key to the second part is that there are still contributing to the wider knowledge base. As people we learn from what is wrong equally well to what is right. If a faker makes a statement that turns out to be wrong all that happens is over time they get tuned out.

      The problem that I have faced first hand, and this is where control becomes relevant, is that some of these second type of faker easily adopt the principles of the first kind. They begin to see their behavior and feel the need to correct themselves. Rather than admit their mistakes they absorb the learnings of the group and start dictating knowledge based on other peoples thoughts.

      One of th group touched on what this means to credibility and respect. My experience has shown that these people are still held in high regard with management as they appear knowledgeable and are strong in advocating their own ability. They are reinforced, usually at the cost of the collaborative members as they are seen to be independent thinkers as they never suggest that have learnt from others.

      This is the worst case of abuse and this is what I would like to understand and identify effective ways of influencing this behavior.

      David Mould

      Skype: fungalguy
      SkypeIn: +44 (0)20 7871 4031
      Blog: http://www.produktiv.com/dm/orientexpression/OrientExpression.html


      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rosanna
      Hey David, First off, THANK YOU: your post gave me a lot to think about. Not sure I m finished yet LOL nevertheless, I wanted to add something to what you said
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey David,

        First off, THANK YOU: your post gave me a lot to think about. Not sure I'm
        finished yet LOL nevertheless, I wanted to add something to what you said
        here:

        "The problem that I have faced first hand, and this is where control becomes
        relevant, is that some of these second type of faker easily adopt the
        principles of the first kind. They begin to see their behavior and feel the
        need to correct themselves. Rather than admit their mistakes they absorb
        the learnings of the group and start dictating knowledge based on other
        peoples thoughts.

        One of th group touched on what this means to credibility and respect. My
        experience has shown that these people are still held in high regard with
        management as they appear knowledgeable and are strong in advocating their
        own ability. They are reinforced, usually at the cost of the collaborative
        members as they are seen to be independent thinkers as they never suggest
        that have learnt from others."

        The problem I have with "experts in CoPs" is that they usually behave as if
        the knowledge they "gathered" belonged to them as a production of their own
        private brain, rather than being a product (and a production) of their
        interaction with others in a given environment.

        Aside from the fact - not negligible - that treating knowledge as an object
        goes against everything CoPs are based onto (from situated learning to
        constructivism and even to action learning and reflective practice), it's
        just plain wrong to treat *informal* learning as if it were formal, ie:
        capable of being "sucked up" by a brain from a situation or a book.

        It shows, in fact, that "experts in CoPs" either don't *really* know what
        they supposedly are an expert about, or they don't know how to *apply* a
        knowledge they got from books rather than from practical situations.

        That is, it demonstrates they are no experts on the topic *grin*

        Rosanna Tarsiero

        "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

        -Confucius

        https://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto
        -----Original Message-----


        David Mould

        Skype: fungalguy
        SkypeIn: +44 (0)20 7871 4031
        Blog: http://www.produktiv.com/dm/orientexpression/OrientExpression.html


        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        *-- The email forum on communities of practice --*
        Yahoo! Groups Links






        --
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/326 - Release Date: 4/27/2006
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.