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

Re: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Lambe
    Matt There is a precedent for this in teaching hospitals in the United States. Morbidity and mortality conferences (known as M&Ms ) are closed door sessions
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
      Matt

      There is a precedent for this in teaching hospitals in the United
      States. Morbidity and mortality conferences (known as "M&Ms") are
      closed door sessions where patient cases that have not gone well -
      patients getting sicker or dying - are thoroughly examined and
      discussed by the physicians present - both experienced and interns.

      These conferences are protected from legal discovery eg in the case of
      malpractice suits or for insurance purposes - ie their proceedings are
      legally inadmissible, and the purpose is clear - to allow learning to
      take place in a litigious environment that otherwise inhibits public/
      collective learning. The ritual is designed to be a protected space.

      P

      Patrick Lambe

      weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
      website: www.straitsknowledge.com
      book: www.organisingknowledge.com

      Have you seen our KM Method Cards or
      Organisation Culture Cards?

      http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/




      On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:04 PM, innotecture wrote:

      > Hello,
      >
      > There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian
      > email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public
      > servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line
      > between public official and citizen?
      >
      > There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing
      > ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a
      > public servant, I was careful about what I said in public
      > (fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency
      > I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have
      > made my life difficult).
      >
      > The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver +
      > belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't
      > depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social
      > character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for
      > salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each
      > other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day
      > pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper
      > knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then
      > please do so).
      >
      > The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind
      > of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be
      > accepted by the general public and maintained by their political
      > masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by
      > all parties?
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
      > Matt
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Cornejo Castro, Miguel
      Most interesting conversation :-). I think we re starting to drift into other areas. The original question seems closer to what Matt comments: how to achieve
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
        Most interesting conversation :-).

        I think we're starting to drift into other areas. The original question seems closer to what Matt comments: how to achieve an environment where the professionals in question can drop the banner of their represented and start acting as individuals with shared goals.

        There's a number of tricks for that, and I'm sure they're well known:


        - Shift the environment. Just as when you take a customer for dinner and end up talking about things you would never mention at work (from people to goals to how things really are going). And I don't mean the salarymen unwinding :-), all it takes is change from "work" to "friendly" athmosphere. That can be contrived with a different setting. That helps people know that they must change their "hats" or put on their "heat belts". You still listen, but the relationship is different.

        - Clear expectations. As mentioned earlier, some ground rules must be clear, visibly stated, and binding.

        - Privacy. I've often found that people can be much more easily coaxed out of their expected (by their "parties") role, if they are in an environment where they can't be seeing "consorting with the enemy". They often know they should collaborate but fear their boss' (or some other people's) perception of it. Besides, haggling and horse-trading (i.e. searching for solutions that are satisfactory for all) are much more comfortable behind closed doors.

        So a visibly different environment, with a clearly stated set of rules (and maybe a written and signed agreement) and restricted access, could possibly get those experts to unwind and share.

        Although the ultimate motor is always the example of those in command. IMHO.

        Best regards,

        Miguel


        De: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de innotecture
        Enviado el: martes, 19 de enero de 2010 12:05
        Para: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
        Asunto: Re: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?



        Hello,

        There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line between public official and citizen?

        There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a public servant, I was careful about what I said in public (fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have made my life difficult).

        The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver + belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then please do so).

        The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be accepted by the general public and maintained by their political masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by all parties?

        Cheers,

        Matt



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ivan G. Orozco
        From the knowledge worker perspective, when you switch as a someone within an organization (either public or private) you must be consistent what you think and
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
          From the knowledge worker perspective, when you switch as a someone within an organization (either public or private) you must be consistent what you think and do as individual and employee. Organization must be mature for accepting thoughts coming from one with "specific" new role focused in creating value from the knowledge. Of course if your thoughts differ from organization ones it means there are not compatibilities contributing to organization growth and someone must change the mind after reasonable analysis.

          I understand it is not easy but is the first step for providing contributions that support organization improvements and personal achievements.

          Best regards,

          Ivan



          ________________________________
          De: "Cornejo Castro, Miguel" <miguel.cornejo@...>
          Para: "com-prac@yahoogroups.com" <com-prac@yahoogroups.com>
          Enviado: mar, enero 19, 2010 7:41:39 AM
          Asunto: RE: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?


          Most interesting conversation :-).

          I think we're starting to drift into other areas. The original question seems closer to what Matt comments: how to achieve an environment where the professionals in question can drop the banner of their represented and start acting as individuals with shared goals.

          There's a number of tricks for that, and I'm sure they're well known:

          - Shift the environment. Just as when you take a customer for dinner and end up talking about things you would never mention at work (from people to goals to how things really are going). And I don't mean the salarymen unwinding :-), all it takes is change from "work" to "friendly" athmosphere. That can be contrived with a different setting. That helps people know that they must change their "hats" or put on their "heat belts". You still listen, but the relationship is different.

          - Clear expectations. As mentioned earlier, some ground rules must be clear, visibly stated, and binding.

          - Privacy. I've often found that people can be much more easily coaxed out of their expected (by their "parties") role, if they are in an environment where they can't be seeing "consorting with the enemy". They often know they should collaborate but fear their boss' (or some other people's) perception of it. Besides, haggling and horse-trading (i.e. searching for solutions that are satisfactory for all) are much more comfortable behind closed doors.

          So a visibly different environment, with a clearly stated set of rules (and maybe a written and signed agreement) and restricted access, could possibly get those experts to unwind and share.

          Although the ultimate motor is always the example of those in command. IMHO.

          Best regards,

          Miguel

          De: com-prac@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroup s.com] En nombredeinnotecture
          Enviadoel: martes, 19 deenerode 2010 12:05
          Para: com-prac@yahoogroup s.com
          Asunto: Re: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?

          Hello,

          There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line between public official and citizen?

          There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a public servant, I was careful about what I said in public (fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have made my life difficult).

          The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver + belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then please do so).

          The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be accepted by the general public and maintained by their political masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by all parties?

          Cheers,

          Matt

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





          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          ¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
          Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
          http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John Parboosingh
          M&M conferences are also protected by Govt Act in most Canadian provinces. I chaired M&M conferences in Obstetrics in a large hospital for 5 years in 1980s.
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
            M&M conferences are also protected by Govt Act in most Canadian provinces. I chaired M&M conferences in Obstetrics in a large hospital for 5 years in 1980s. Looking back on these events, I did not have any training in facilitation or knowledge management skills at the time, so we did not capitalize on the valuable information gleaned from events. For instance, there was no mechanism for incorporation into corporate memory. We did not know "what this meant" or the significance of it. The name, blame and shame approach was used. While Institute for Hospital Improvement in US has training programs now, I suspect that the circumstances and lack of competence in handling information still occurs, especially in small and mid-size hospitals.

            John Parboosingh MB FRCSC
            Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary
            Consultant, Community Learning

            Mailing address: 146 Rundle Crescent, Canmore,
            Alberta, Canada T1W 2L6
            Phone (403) 609-3321
            Fax: (403) 609-3371
            Email address: parboo@...



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Patrick Lambe
            To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:12 AM
            Subject: Re: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?



            Matt

            There is a precedent for this in teaching hospitals in the United
            States. Morbidity and mortality conferences (known as "M&Ms") are
            closed door sessions where patient cases that have not gone well -
            patients getting sicker or dying - are thoroughly examined and
            discussed by the physicians present - both experienced and interns.

            These conferences are protected from legal discovery eg in the case of
            malpractice suits or for insurance purposes - ie their proceedings are
            legally inadmissible, and the purpose is clear - to allow learning to
            take place in a litigious environment that otherwise inhibits public/
            collective learning. The ritual is designed to be a protected space.

            P

            Patrick Lambe

            weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
            website: www.straitsknowledge.com
            book: www.organisingknowledge.com

            Have you seen our KM Method Cards or
            Organisation Culture Cards?

            http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/

            On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:04 PM, innotecture wrote:

            > Hello,
            >
            > There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian
            > email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public
            > servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line
            > between public official and citizen?
            >
            > There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing
            > ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a
            > public servant, I was careful about what I said in public
            > (fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency
            > I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have
            > made my life difficult).
            >
            > The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver +
            > belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't
            > depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social
            > character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for
            > salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each
            > other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day
            > pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper
            > knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then
            > please do so).
            >
            > The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind
            > of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be
            > accepted by the general public and maintained by their political
            > masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by
            > all parties?
            >
            > Cheers,
            >
            > Matt
            >

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





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Nancy White
            Coming in from the practice of facilitation, Miguel s practices resonate for me. They are reminders of the shift. Other examples are role play, improvisation,
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
              Coming in from the practice of facilitation, Miguel's practices
              resonate for me. They are reminders of the shift. Other examples are
              role play, improvisation, reverse brainstorming and other methods
              which disrupt typical patterns. These get us "out of our ruts" to
              think and communicate in different ways. This seems to be one of the
              characteristics of some of the Cynefin methods, Dave. These group
              methods can be used in the context of explicit permission to speak
              outside of one's role if the context is a) legal and b) felt to be/is
              safe for the participants to take that risk.

              From an ongoing, personal practice perspective, the trick is self
              awareness of the fact that one is moving from one role to the other,
              that there ARE implications and discernment about what to do in any
              particular context. We do it automatically when there are not
              implications. Working at home, for myself, I'm mom and Full Circle at
              the same time all the time. And I change my communication simply
              depending on who I'm talking with without a thought. I KNOW I talk
              differently to my son or husband than a cold call on the phone. I
              know when I'm in a context of client confidentiality. The subtler
              bits are when I switch from consultant to friend with a client and
              there ARE work implications. Being aware.

              In both government work AND in facilitation work, there are
              professional and legal layers which require use of more formal acts
              and practices of disclaimers. In a conversation about blogging in a
              large international NGO, it was clear that blogging was seen as
              personal expression and blogs must contain disclaimers that they
              contained information that was NOT vetted by the organization. The
              organization recognizes the value of the informal, but they have to
              protect themselves and a disclaimer is not as draconian as having to
              approve everything and stifle the flow. But it still is a bit of
              "cover your posterior."

              Another interesting case is in disaster relief and humanitarian aid.
              The closer you are to the HQ the more you are expected to "toe the
              line" with HQ views, policies and ways of speaking. The closer you
              are to the disaster responding on the ground, the more permission you
              have to improvise, deviate and there is a much wider tolerance for
              things that would be totally unacceptable in HQ. (So called "cowboy"
              rules). Informal peer communication between relief workers both
              within and across their agencies is very different than in HQ and
              outside of times of disaster response. This is a lovely example
              of how communications practices not only transmit information, but
              define culture of communities in a specific context. This is not
              subtle. It is well known and considered acceptable. Behave like a
              cowboy on a HQ visit - not acceptable. There is clarity about
              context, even as it is mostly unspoken and certainly not written into
              the organizations "rules." If you want to rise up the hierarchy from
              cowboy to HQ, you have to self moderate from cowboy to HQ person or
              you don't get the promotion. (Or at least have the sense to know when
              to shift when you are with different people.) In this case, language
              is the "belt" or "hat."

              Edward DeBono's Six Thinking Hats was not designed as a tool for
              "role switching" but it is a lovely experience to tickle one's self
              awareness about thinking practices and how they influence our
              actions. And the fact that the image of hats are used is a great mnemonic .

              Phew, sorry. Long winded.

              N



              At 04:41 AM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
              >Most interesting conversation :-).
              >
              >I think we're starting to drift into other areas. The original
              >question seems closer to what Matt comments: how to achieve an
              >environment where the professionals in question can drop the banner
              >of their represented and start acting as individuals with shared goals.
              >
              >There's a number of tricks for that, and I'm sure they're well known:
              >
              >
              >- Shift the environment. Just as when you take a customer
              >for dinner and end up talking about things you would never mention
              >at work (from people to goals to how things really are going). And I
              >don't mean the salarymen unwinding :-), all it takes is change from
              >"work" to "friendly" athmosphere. That can be contrived with a
              >different setting. That helps people know that they must change
              >their "hats" or put on their "heat belts". You still listen, but the
              >relationship is different.
              >
              >- Clear expectations. As mentioned earlier, some ground
              >rules must be clear, visibly stated, and binding.
              >
              >- Privacy. I've often found that people can be much more
              >easily coaxed out of their expected (by their "parties") role, if
              >they are in an environment where they can't be seeing "consorting
              >with the enemy". They often know they should collaborate but fear
              >their boss' (or some other people's) perception of it. Besides,
              >haggling and horse-trading (i.e. searching for solutions that are
              >satisfactory for all) are much more comfortable behind closed doors.
              >
              >So a visibly different environment, with a clearly stated set of
              >rules (and maybe a written and signed agreement) and restricted
              >access, could possibly get those experts to unwind and share.
              >
              >Although the ultimate motor is always the example of those in command. IMHO.
              >
              >Best regards,
              >
              >Miguel
              >
              >
              >De: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] En
              >nombre de innotecture
              >Enviado el: martes, 19 de enero de 2010 12:05
              >Para: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
              >Asunto: Re: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?
              >
              >
              >
              >Hello,
              >
              >There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian
              >email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public
              >servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line
              >between public official and citizen?
              >
              >There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing
              >ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a
              >public servant, I was careful about what I said in public
              >(fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency
              >I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have
              >made my life difficult).
              >
              >The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver +
              >belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't
              >depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social
              >character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for
              >salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each
              >other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day
              >pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper
              >knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then please do so).
              >
              >The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind
              >of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be
              >accepted by the general public and maintained by their political
              >masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by
              >all parties?
              >
              >Cheers,
              >
              >Matt
              >
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------
              >
              >*-- The email forum on communities of practice --*Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >

              Nancy White | Full Circle Associates | Connecting communities online
              nancyw@... | +1 206 517 4754 | GMT - 8 |skype - choconancy |
              Twitter NancyWhite
              http://www.fullcirc.com/


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Benoit Couture
              The more I read the entries of this conversation, the more I see the zoom growing upon the meaning family of  adaptability .   Nancy, I find your
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
                The more I read the entries of this conversation, the more I see the zoom growing upon the meaning family of "adaptability".
                 
                Nancy, I find your contribution to be of the most adapted kind.  Your entry is a beautiful assimilation of what has been dished out, and from your home base view, you made everyone feel comfortable in the midst of our current climate of duster. 
                 
                Is that not what should happen to each person?
                ...to safely grow and to develop our inner home from conception to birth to family to neighbourhood to school to work to play, moving on in the Full Circle within the comfort of being one free self of our own moon, adapting and adaptable to the here and now as the context shines its calling angle for the from and to needed?
                 
                It is from such a quiet and rest-full personal and communal abode that decision-action is best arrived at, taken up and deployed.
                 
                Are we now in a conversation in which we can become so personal with each other, as to move on in the adaptation needed to drive the online earth's people to adapt to our current crisis of disaster, while finally establishing the "Immediate Response Team" whom could manifest the global reflex system of humanity...you know, just plain common sense ruling our drive and responses from the serene view of a mature home life?
                 
                How can it be that the UN the EU and the US are still not so equipped by now is baffling!!! 
                 
                Personally, I am of the opinion that there is enough intelligence in the conversational room of this current thread, to deploy a sudden jolt of good will in response to Haiti that can be designed to receive the resources to establish a stand-by Immediate Response Team to serve any other possible disaster, knowing that disaster is not a matter of "if" but of "when".  
                 
                "Let us not get caught pants down anymore...ever..." might be considered as the motto of such endeavour.
                 
                Benoit Couture
                Stay-at-home-dad-citizen-voter-taxpayer
                Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                 
                Ps:  Montreal is to Haitians what New York is to Puortoricans; which helps putting in context how strong the desire to contribute is, in Montreal and in Quebec Canada. 
                 
                So in context of what I am daring here on the forum of CP, here's some musing of raising such a body of an "Immediate Response Team" by cultivating the spirit that governs the "global reflex system of humanity" from personal to communal in the universal context that includes all matters of considerations from micro to macro in the reconciliation movement from local to global:
                http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A15694662


                --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Nancy White <nancyw@...> wrote:


                From: Nancy White <nancyw@...>
                Subject: RE: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?
                To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
                Received: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 6:39 AM


                 



                Coming in from the practice of facilitation, Miguel's practices
                resonate for me. They are reminders of the shift. Other examples are
                role play, improvisation, reverse brainstorming and other methods
                which disrupt typical patterns. These get us "out of our ruts" to
                think and communicate in different ways. This seems to be one of the
                characteristics of some of the Cynefin methods, Dave. These group
                methods can be used in the context of explicit permission to speak
                outside of one's role if the context is a) legal and b) felt to be/is
                safe for the participants to take that risk.

                From an ongoing, personal practice perspective, the trick is self
                awareness of the fact that one is moving from one role to the other,
                that there ARE implications and discernment about what to do in any
                particular context. We do it automatically when there are not
                implications. Working at home, for myself, I'm mom and Full Circle at
                the same time all the time. And I change my communication simply
                depending on who I'm talking with without a thought. I KNOW I talk
                differently to my son or husband than a cold call on the phone. I
                know when I'm in a context of client confidentiality. The subtler
                bits are when I switch from consultant to friend with a client and
                there ARE work implications. Being aware.

                In both government work AND in facilitation work, there are
                professional and legal layers which require use of more formal acts
                and practices of disclaimers. In a conversation about blogging in a
                large international NGO, it was clear that blogging was seen as
                personal expression and blogs must contain disclaimers that they
                contained information that was NOT vetted by the organization. The
                organization recognizes the value of the informal, but they have to
                protect themselves and a disclaimer is not as draconian as having to
                approve everything and stifle the flow. But it still is a bit of
                "cover your posterior."

                Another interesting case is in disaster relief and humanitarian aid.
                The closer you are to the HQ the more you are expected to "toe the
                line" with HQ views, policies and ways of speaking. The closer you
                are to the disaster responding on the ground, the more permission you
                have to improvise, deviate and there is a much wider tolerance for
                things that would be totally unacceptable in HQ. (So called "cowboy"
                rules). Informal peer communication between relief workers both
                within and across their agencies is very different than in HQ and
                outside of times of disaster response. This is a lovely example
                of how communications practices not only transmit information, but
                define culture of communities in a specific context. This is not
                subtle. It is well known and considered acceptable. Behave like a
                cowboy on a HQ visit - not acceptable. There is clarity about
                context, even as it is mostly unspoken and certainly not written into
                the organizations "rules." If you want to rise up the hierarchy from
                cowboy to HQ, you have to self moderate from cowboy to HQ person or
                you don't get the promotion. (Or at least have the sense to know when
                to shift when you are with different people.) In this case, language
                is the "belt" or "hat."

                Edward DeBono's Six Thinking Hats was not designed as a tool for
                "role switching" but it is a lovely experience to tickle one's self
                awareness about thinking practices and how they influence our
                actions. And the fact that the image of hats are used is a great mnemonic .

                Phew, sorry. Long winded.

                N

                At 04:41 AM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
                >Most interesting conversation :-).
                >
                >I think we're starting to drift into other areas. The original
                >question seems closer to what Matt comments: how to achieve an
                >environment where the professionals in question can drop the banner
                >of their represented and start acting as individuals with shared goals.
                >
                >There's a number of tricks for that, and I'm sure they're well known:
                >
                >
                >- Shift the environment. Just as when you take a customer
                >for dinner and end up talking about things you would never mention
                >at work (from people to goals to how things really are going). And I
                >don't mean the salarymen unwinding :-), all it takes is change from
                >"work" to "friendly" athmosphere. That can be contrived with a
                >different setting. That helps people know that they must change
                >their "hats" or put on their "heat belts". You still listen, but the
                >relationship is different.
                >
                >- Clear expectations. As mentioned earlier, some ground
                >rules must be clear, visibly stated, and binding.
                >
                >- Privacy. I've often found that people can be much more
                >easily coaxed out of their expected (by their "parties") role, if
                >they are in an environment where they can't be seeing "consorting
                >with the enemy". They often know they should collaborate but fear
                >their boss' (or some other people's) perception of it. Besides,
                >haggling and horse-trading (i.e. searching for solutions that are
                >satisfactory for all) are much more comfortable behind closed doors.
                >
                >So a visibly different environment, with a clearly stated set of
                >rules (and maybe a written and signed agreement) and restricted
                >access, could possibly get those experts to unwind and share.
                >
                >Although the ultimate motor is always the example of those in command. IMHO.
                >
                >Best regards,
                >
                >Miguel
                >
                >
                >De: com-prac@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroup s.com] En
                >nombre de innotecture
                >Enviado el: martes, 19 de enero de 2010 12:05
                >Para: com-prac@yahoogroup s.com
                >Asunto: Re: [cp] Contributing as person or representing hierarchie?
                >
                >
                >
                >Hello,
                >
                >There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian
                >email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public
                >servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line
                >between public official and citizen?
                >
                >There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing
                >ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a
                >public servant, I was careful about what I said in public
                >(fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency
                >I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have
                >made my life difficult).
                >
                >The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver +
                >belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't
                >depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social
                >character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for
                >salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each
                >other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day
                >pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper
                >knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then please do so).
                >
                >The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind
                >of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be
                >accepted by the general public and maintained by their political
                >masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by
                >all parties?
                >
                >Cheers,
                >
                >Matt
                >
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >----------- --------- --------- -------
                >
                >*-- The email forum on communities of practice --*Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >

                Nancy White | Full Circle Associates | Connecting communities online
                nancyw@fullcirc. com | +1 206 517 4754 | GMT - 8 |skype - choconancy |
                Twitter NancyWhite
                http://www.fullcirc .com/

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









                __________________________________________________________________
                Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Cornejo Castro, Miguel
                Hello, I’m doing a piece of work on uses of CoPs. I want to highlight the use of them in mergers and change management initiatives; there’s a nice example
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 19, 2010
                  Hello,

                  I’m doing a piece of work on uses of CoPs. I want to highlight the use of them in mergers and change management initiatives; there’s a nice example close by, and (from reading this list and other sources) I have the feeling that there’s been a lot of work done in this area.

                  I would very much appreciate examples, if you can provide them, as well as references to work or people. On-list or off-list as you prefer. Anything that looks like

                  - Change management.

                  - Programme management.

                  - Mergers.
                  would be most appreciated and duly accredited.

                  Best regards,

                  Miguel


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Lotte
                  Dear Matt, thank you for mentioning a similar case. It would be most interesting for me to learn about the outcome of the debate in Australia. What we will
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jan 22, 2010
                    Dear Matt,

                    thank you for mentioning a similar case. It would be most interesting for me to learn about the outcome of the debate in Australia.
                    What we will need to work on here in Austria is - on the one hand - a set of rules / guidelines / disclaimer. On the other hand we need a good story when talking to people: "You know, in Australia, they have the same debate, and their solution is.."
                    Any help / reference would be most appreciated
                    Lotte


                    --- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "innotecture" <innotecture@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hello,
                    >
                    > There's actually a concurrent discussion on the Gov 2.0 Australian email list at the moment: What are acceptable ways for public servants to participate in policy debates online? Where is the line between public official and citizen?
                    >
                    > There are legal ramifications with this and also fears about losing ones job for saying the wrong (or indeed, right) thing. When I was a public servant, I was careful about what I said in public (fortunately my public appearances had nothing to do with the agency I worked for but I'm sure someone with malicious intent could have made my life difficult).
                    >
                    > The "ritual" example that Patrick & David are discussing (driver + belt) is of a particular kind. It's a personal ritual that doesn't depend on social agreement. Other rituals are of a more social character - e.g. I believe in Japan that it is acceptable for salarymen to get drunk, say all kinds of outrageous things to each other that cannot be said during the day, and then the next day pretend as if nothing has happened (if someone with a deeper knowledge of Japanese office culture can correct me on this then please do so).
                    >
                    > The issue the Australian public servants face is whether some kind of public ritual allowing involvement and disclosure will be accepted by the general public and maintained by their political masters. The question with such rituals is: will they be honoured by all parties?
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > Matt
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.