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

klogger roles, adoption, rules of the road

Expand Messages
  • Phil Wolff
    From: Bill Kearney Re: K-Logs and continuous education people are *never* going to use k-logs in 99% of the current corporate environments. Yep, that s
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      <snip>
      From: Bill Kearney Re: K-Logs and continuous education

      people are *never* going to use k-logs in 99% of the current corporate
      environments. Yep, that's NEVER. Why? Trail of evidence, that's why.
      </snip>

      Traditionally, supervisors and managers play an information filter role,
      among others.

      K-logs only amplify the importance of this role. Assuming everyone klogs
      (and we can have a good thread or two on adoption rates and on
      prerequisites to adoption and sustained use), the volume and disorder of
      information increases. Unlike databased, well-structured data, the
      narrative form of klogs requires human editorial skill to summarize,
      prioritize, and refer-in-context.

      For those into technography (http://www.coworking.com), the role of
      meeting scribe (typically an editorially neutral role) may demonstrate
      some key leadership skills; klogging literacy, ability and will to
      listen well, and mediation/moderation skills. (Do you think we can
      explore klogs as technographic tools since so much time is spent in
      meetings?)

      Tools don't solve peopleware problems. The distrust, innumeracy,
      obfuscation and incompetence in your scenario are neither universal nor
      mandatory. These are deep issues best addressed directly, forcefully,
      and with skill. I can't imagine klogging under these conditions.

      So what conditions are needed for klogging to succeed? What should be in
      an HR manager's guide to klogging? In a line-manager's guide? In a CIO's
      guide? What are the rules of the road for a klogger at your company?





      Philip Wolff
      evanwolf group
      http://dijest.com
      pwolff@...
      510-444-8234


      Imagine this, an underling in the company posts an item to the k-log
      that's "ahead" of his boss's schedule. The other readers of the k-
      log see the underling's approach and LIKE it. This, unfortunately,
      undermine's the boss's perception of timeline and control. Guess who
      get's fired? Not the boss. Yes, the boss is stupid in this
      situation.

      Now, take it to the other extreme. The underling posts an item to
      the k-log. The boss sees this but notes, from the meta-data, that it
      was posted "after" the time it was due. In fact, it's posted when
      the boss perceives the underling should have been doing other work.
      Again, the underling hits the street...

      This was proved to me when I developed a prototype of a handheld
      application for sales. To summarize the management saw the meta-data
      collected during the sales events as a way to literally measure an
      average time to sale number. Thusly, they expected to be able to
      reverse that number back against the sales force as a means to weed
      out the sales people that weren't selling "fast enough"

      I was, of course, horrified. I tried to explain to them a concept I
      call "quantum data". There's some data (meta) that if you LOOK at it
      you will alter it. They didn't grok the concept. The project tanked
      and, eventually, so did the company.

      The employees are surrounded by situations that demonstrate to them
      that management is going to wield information as a weapon. They're
      not going to help load the gun.

      Yes, this is stupid. But overcoming this is a less-than-trivial
      exercise.

      -Bill Kearney
       
       
       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.