Posted by Randy Jordan on November 16, 1999 at 10:46:35:

In Reply to: Re: Knowledge Management Job Titles posted by Ron de Weijze on November 15, 1999 at 14:43:18:

Thanks for responding. The environment I described is the government contracting world in Washington, DC, as I experienced it. I didn't like it. And, I was struck by how easy it can be to line up powerful support if you demonstrate some awareness of common ground among some group's positions. Which is not easy because they change them relative to the groups that support them!

The consequence is there is more complex information than knowledge bought and sold there. The knowledge that is for sale includes very little wisdom - the best use, for the best outcome, for the most people, for the longest time.

The lessons I learned were from former government employees who switched to contracting companies. They took most of the knowledge of how the government operates with them. The political managers need that knowledge, badly. Their agendas are less about government management than political interests, but that darned government business keeps getting in their way.

Since leaving that environment for less militaristic organizations, I see similar dynamics but very different intentions. There is still a need to explain proposals in terms that connect to a board member's values. Money isn't always changing hands but influence, commitment and vision need clear integration of personal values with project outcomes to generate enthusiasim. Well, in my opinion.

I acknowledge that I'm describing my experience of reality - communication needs to encompass a values sensitive message to be effective. Your reality can be different and true at the same time. Sort of scary, huh?

The important (to me) work is discerning values within the agendas of decision making groups. Good people with good ideas get lost in the shuffle if they don't translate their ideas to the "emotional" language that connects with the decision makers personal values.

We want the decision makers, or our audience, to see and feel the value we see. But if they translate the facts, they use their emotional filters and their context and relate it to their agenda. Their is no way to imagine their context or their response accurately - or nearly so.

I'm laughing at me, now. I sound like I'm selling... something. I don't mean to. I think translating my interests in terms of a potential allys' interests is both good learning about the reality of a situation for me, and informs the knowledge creation process with a glimpse of the kind of wisdom I described above.

I want the good thoughtful people - like Greenpeace, to communicate on a level of effectiveness that an informed and well-designed message can provide. I better stop as I feel the inclination for a stirring close rumbling around in my head!!

Thank you for stimulating this thinking and clarification for me. Hope it leaves you with a sense of possibility rather than one of knowledge and truth being for sale. What we should concetrate on is wisdom management anyway!

Respectfully,
Randy

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: