Welcome to Week 7!

This week we continue our interest in leadership and consulting. How did the discussion of "work" go? Our interest last week was primarily in ensuring productive and truly meaningful use of our efforts and time. A frank discussion of how this often does NOT* happen in the white collar working world was our vehicle.

*or does it?

Yes, the questions about "work" can conjure all kinds of emotions. What were yours? Were you indicted? Was market capitalism itself indicted, with its materialism and distractions immediately unearthed? Just what are our days about?

The goal wasn't to shock, be difficult or do that oft professor thing of suggesting a revolutionary Marxist agenda (kind of a joke...), but rather to illustrate how vast and strong the divide between real existence and work can be from our day to day routines. Or is it? Who knows? I certainly don't (...know the answer for you, I have a hard enough time trying to find my own answer...) ...but it is absolutely my role to introduce hard questions for fellow adult learners to ponder.

At a minimum, we should be asking ourselves often if what we're doing is productive, meaningful and helpful...to ourselves and others. That's reasonable, right?

Being more frank and plain-speaking about our lot speaks to critical thinking. We are interested in a critical and direct review of one's life at work and beyond. This should set us up for diving even deeper into leadership; this week we are concerned with credibility. Are you credible? What makes you credible? Why would anyone believe or follow you?

Our main goal and its related central question should be clear now: are you INDIVIDUALLY able to influence others in truly effective ways? How do we expect this influence to occur? What needs to happen?

A repeated premise is useful to consider: we've discussed how technical KM acumen is not enough to ensure KM success; success hinges largely on your personal acumen in a variety of areas, and having the critical thinking and awareness to leverage whatever skill needed that's appropriate. The focus is on the self and your ability to deliver whatever will be most helpful. Contrast this with the most common notion of KM, which is to focus on the tool(s) as a solution to a perceived problem, the solution is usually mandated in a grand roll-out, and then everyone wonders why the client is not consuming the great idea.

Ah, the podcast...the 21st century town crier on the corner.

http://rideau.com/podcast/credibility-foundation-leadership-0

If interested:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Leadership-Challenge-4th-Edition/dp/0787984922

Please conduct a Gap Analysis on your own credibility. Use the readings as references and guides. The medium for the analysis could be a spreadsheet or simple Word doc. You do not need to submit or post this analysis (unless you want to). You will however use your data to write your tumblr this week.

Inc.

http://www.inc.com/steve-tobak/10-ways-youre-killing-your-credibility.html

HBR

https://hbr.org/2015/05/how-to-earn-respect-as-a-leader

Wikipedia on Gap Analysis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_analysis

Wikipedia on Benchmarking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking

Qualitative Data Analysis (just scan/skim):

http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/43454_10.pdf

Gap Analysis on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc3m_yWAbSk

Overall, the writing is pretty good. There's still work to be done. The main issue is with structure.

The goal of the mini-essay design is to clearly and quickly express an argument; the argument must be supported by evidence, the evidence must be properly cited. We then use the counterargument and rebuttal to show critical thinking and consideration of alternatives.

We're still seeing a lot of Stream of Consciousness writing. Why is this such a big deal/problem?

SoC writing: a series of thoughts and expressions around a question in a sort of thought journey; a clear beginning, middle and end is difficult to discern; a clear argument and evidence is difficult to identify

SoC writing often puts the burden of understanding on the reader, and suggests the writer is using the act of writing to explore his or her own ideas. It also suggests the writer didn't outline his or her thoughts ahead of writing. At worst, it suggests the author has no real position and is sort of word vomiting to fill space.

That is, it suggests a lack of self-awareness and/or time taken to a really bake a position. SoC writing is excellent for personal brainstorming, but NOT for our purposes here. We might use SoC writing to eventually build a mini-essay.

In the mini-essay, we are exploring quick writing for sharing, IE for KM. By the time something makes it to our tumblr for the formal writing assignment(s), it should be well baked and structured. Its purpose is to express a coherent and concise argument that brings evidence to bear. We should consider how this writing would be similar to the writing for senior decision makers and executives, IE we want them to do something with our ideas -- we want their support. It needs to be tight.

Related concepts with the "mini-essay" style:

// ATTENTION TO DETAIL and SPEED. By conforming to a specific format, we accelerate the reader's focus to an understanding of our message. If the format varies, that costs time -- the reader must orient on structure AND content, our goal is for the reader to focus on CONTENT alone.

// CREATIVITY through CONSTRAINTS. By conforming to a format, it theoretically demands INCREASED creativity in the content, check this link here:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3027379/work-smart/the-psychology-of-limitations...

(just one tumblr this week; focus, focus, focus -- write well)

Please add the hashtag "60303wk7" (without quotes...) to your post.

Here is the link to the "on peer grading tumblrs" writeup:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1naT27vVTacXsIDHhGHcyh8Ea8_Xsb2GLkUqo4Z4...

The purpose of peer grading:

// increase student interaction

// expose you to different thinking

// increase your comfort with giving and receiving critical feedback

All of these are essential/core KM concepts directly tied to overall assessment and strategy design/delivery.

Continue appropriate work on your special project.

Suggestion/relation to credibility:

// Map your stakeholders; with whom do you have a credibility gap? How will you address those gaps to have the best bid for project success?

Who is the thinker in the photo? How might he be helpful to us?

a: Hemingway.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/s/the-sun-also-rises/critical-essays/...

We're interested in Hemingway's concis use of language. We might consider his writing to be the best example of direct prose; our only leap required is to move from his fiction to our non-fiction. Is his style a useful guide for our communication? Is this germane to KM?