Peer Assist – There Is Nothing Like It

As part of my consulting work for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, I have been bringing people together to do Peer Assists. Here below is a version of what I just posted on an internal FAO blog on Peer Assist, to tell people about it, and create conditions for them to reflect on whether they can use Peer Assist in their work.

Peer Assists: Can they be useful?

In organisations that are bureaucratic, hierarchical, silo-ed and with little trust, it can be common to be faced with a problem and to not know whom to turn to for advice and solutions. It can also be common to know whom to turn to yet find it difficult or impossible to approach them. Not fun, right?

In such situations, Peer Assists are a simple way via which to reach out to others we need the advice of. Peer Assists can break down organisational barriers creating conditions for what we know to be accessed by those who need it and when. Peer Assists can be useful, yes!

Peer Assists: What are they, really?

Some of you would already know about Peer Assists: Peer Assist is a knowledge sharing technique which can be used within and across organisations, groups and teams. Central to a Peer Assist is that a peer (i.e., a colleague, a team-mate, a friend) is faced with a problem to which she/he can not find a solution. (Sounds familiar …?) This is why a Peer Assist is organised during which a group of assisters (ideally not more than 8-10) brainstorm perspectives and solutions to the problem of their peer. Simple, right? Yes, it certainly is not rocket science, just common good sense. Then why not do more Peer Assists …? Here is how:

Peer Assists: How to do them?

• Do you have a problem that seems unsolvable? Do not despair. First, articulate your problem clearly. The more specific you are, the better.
• Discuss the problem with your peers and/or your informal network. Be practical in whom you approach. Explain that you need to find people who may have perspectives and/or could be able to offer solutions to the problem. Is it about putting together an intranet for your department? Or is it about creating a newsletter for your network? Or is it about training your staff in and/or sensitizing your managers to a particular skill/approach?
• Search for people (in other departments, and partner organisations) who may have tried something similar (be it successfully, or not). Use your judgement yet also heavily lean on your intuition in who would be a good assister for your to consult. Be proactive, ask for help, and listen.
• Once you have found and approached your assisters, find a facilitator for the Peer Assist. (It is important that this is not you!) Anyone who has had experience facilitating and/or is a good facilitator can facilitate the peer-assist. They would just need to be familiar with the process. One key thing for them to know is give all assisters a voice during the peer-assist discussion. (A good description of the process is given by this short video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObmQyW3EiiE
• Bring everyone (yourself, assisters, facilitator) together at a particular time. Do not allocate more than two hours for the exercise (maximum time for people to stay focused and contribute).
• Do the Peer Assist: At this point, the facilitator will take over from you. She/he will ask you to explain your problem, after which she/he will enable a discussion take place among you and the assisters on how to possibly approach and solve the problem. If all goes well, you will get a lot of practical ideas and suggestions, energised by the fact that all assisters have been discussing their approaches and perspectives not only with you, but also among themselves.
• Ok, you’ve done it! Now implement the ideas and suggestions that are best for your case.

Peer Assists: Examples? 

Here are a few examples of Peer Assist being used at the Food and Agriculture Organisation:

1. In May 2008, a group of colleagues from FAO assisted the Right to Food team in whether and how to organise an e-conference prior to the Right to Food conference.
2. In October 2008, a group of colleagues from FAO, FAO RAP, ILO, CGIAR, and external consultants, assisted colleagues in the FAO Trinidad and Tobago regional office on how to go about organising a knowledge fair.
3. In November 2008, a group of colleagues from FAO assisted the EasyPol team on how to market the EasyPol service to interested users.
4. In January 2009, a group of colleagues from and outside of FAO assisted the Cashmere Forum team on how to go about enabling and sustaining a geographically distributed knowledge community. This happened during the Share Fair: http://sharefair2009.blogspot.com/search/label/peer-assist

Peer Assists: More information

A concise yet full description of Peer Assist can be found on the ks toolkit wiki, here: http://www.kstoolkit.org/Peer+Assists

 

Now go Peer-Assisting/Peer-Assisteeing!!

Avatar Anxiety …? And Ways to Overcome It!

Somebody just brought an interesting article to my attention: ”Sharing is Creepy” by Nicolas Carr. In a nutshell, in it Nicolas discusses the supposedly soon-to-be-recognised psychiatric syndrome ”avatar anxiety”, or the anxiety that sometimes people may experience if they:

- either refrain from behaving online under the form of twittering, posting information on their online profiles, and engaging in online discussions, or

- they overtly and abundantly engage in such online behaviours.

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/01/sharing_is_cree.php

Apparently, the fact that online behaviour is somewhat removed from the self and so does not let its genuine expression leads some people to experience anxiety to quite extreme degrees.  In my opinion, this is not because there is something wrong with those people but rather because of the set-up in which they live or have created for themselves.

Twittering, posting on online profiles like Facebook and LinkedIn, sharing photos and engaging in online discussions can greatly optimise how we live life yet are not life, our life, ultimately. What motivates online behaviours of any sort is the desire to be with, communicate with, share things with people per se, in other words, desire to see and get to know people. In this sense being online can optimise our being ourselves, yet it can not be our being ourselves. 

Online communication is limited in how much it can convey. Online communication only makes sense in the context of other forms of communication as the latter gives us references and clues with regards to how things stand between us and other people. The latter forms of communication tell us how much to give away and how much to not give away when we communicate online. I guess this may be something to not loose sight of when engaging in online behaviours.

In other words, ”avatar anxiety” has a solution called ‘’seeing the big picture”.

 

Enabling Organisational Learning Through Knowledge Sharing

… or Why it is Good to First Lay the Egg(s), then Let the Hen(s) ”Happen” …

… Or Start with the Seeds, then Let the Plants Grow …

Eggs and Hens are funny things. As the saying goes (”Who comes first, the chicken (or hen), or the egg?”), we do not quite know which one is first. This is probably because there is no first, or last, in the circle (or cycle) of life. All goes into everything else and then comes right out of it.

Yet, there is a certain sequence in terms of some entities preceding others, and others following on them. This sequence is not exactly time-bound as all the entities that are part of a particular circle can be experienced simultaneously at any one time as they are then. Still, they can be influenced, too, which would affect the ones after and before them, and the whole circle (or cycle), and thus the integrated experience of that cycle, at any one time.

You are probably wondering, what is all that about? Well, as I’ve already mentioned in the title of this post, it is about Organisational Learning and Knowledge Sharing, in fact, about enabling, or just influencing, the former through the latter. We can think of knowledge sharing as eggs laid in the organisation (strategically, or not so much). We can also think of it as seeds that you plant here and there, strategically, or not so much. Then the result would be chickens, some of which may be hens which would lay more eggs. To follow the other allegory, the result would be plants which would yield yet more seeds. The chickens, hens, or plants can be seen as the dynamics of learning. To think of organisations, then they can be seen as the dynamics of organisational learning.

There will always be eggs, and seeds which yield chickens and plants. Sometimes, though, we can enable, or just influence the sort of eggs, or the type of seeds, and thus enable, or just influence, the chickens and plants. In the same way, through knowledge sharing, we can enable, or just influence, organisational learning.

Why enabling, or just influencing? Because Organisational Learning, and learning, per se, can not be prescribed, only conditions for it to truly unfold (as it would) can be created. … In other words, you can not tell people to learn. Everything which goes in and out in learning, in this case through people, you can not prescribe. Yet you can create conditions for it, you can enable certain set-ups, bring in components you can bring, then see what happens. Belief in what can happen is useful too, as is steering the course of the process according with your belief. In this though, you should be open to experiencing the process of collective knowing. Unless you do this, you would be switched off from the collective learning process.

Perhaps this helps to understand:

And this:

(It is better to try to imagine what is seen, rather than just seeing it. Try.)

(And, in any case, these are just approximations.)

Because the cycles we are talking about here are not exactly, or not only, biological, then any such can also be enabled through the chickens, hens, and seeds. My argument here is that, for an effective organisational learning cycle, and a bigger dynamic system (i.e., complex adaptive system), to come into place, it is necessary to start with the eggs and then let the chickens and hens ”happen”. Or, start with the seeds and then let the plants grow. Should you start with the hens, or the plants, a cycle would be enabled, for sure, yet I would question whether this would be an effective organisational learning cycle (as explained above). Why? Because you would be diverging from what enables a complex adaptive system.

For example, imagine an organisation needs to define its strategic direction for the next five years. I guess it can do this in one of two ways:

1. It will put together a strategy from within the Office of the Executive Director, and then put this on the corporate website.

2. It will state the need for defining a strategic direction. Then it will organise a few workshops, run a few surveys, create conditions for people to talk to each other about this in the context of everything else, try to train people in complexity using the issue at hand. On the overall, it will enable a collective conversation, constantly facilitating that process. In result, the strategic direction will emerge collectively. Various lines of business (or divisions and units, thinking of the more rigid public sector formats) will continue working in this very discursive mode. It may never be written, yet it may not have to be. The organisation will continuously know its strategic direction and work accordingly.

I let you choose which one you prefer.

In the cycle of organisations, somebody is always sharing something with somebody else, and so somebody always gets to learn about something. You can not quite learn something unless somebody has shared something with you, i.e., some information, some announcement, some training, some gossip, some experience. Still, what is being shared, and among whom, has a great importance for what is being learnt, on what scale, and with what potential impact for the work of the organisation. Sharing creates conditions for people to construct their own learning, as individuals and as organisation. Once again, learning needs to take place in this, i.e., enabled, not enforced.

More on how exactly this can happen, i.e., what would be the more concrete descriptors of knowledge sharing, and of organisational learning, in later posts.

To side-track a little bit, following the ’egg -> chickens/seeds -> plants’ model, chickens will not always be hens, and plants will not ever be of one and the same type. This makes for an incredibly complex organisational learning picture. Yet, as it all things that live, this one’s bound to be that way, too, if it were to be that.

Systemic Transformations

 

Lifeworth published their annual review in February this year. I just read through it (awfully behind!!) and wanted to share the below:

“Humanity’s challenge is to find ways to improve human wellbeing within the limits of the Earth’s resources; to stop living as if we have another planet to go to” explains Jem Bendell. For this, Professor Grayson adds, “we need a new mindset for Corporate Sustainability to stimulate innovation and create radically new business models.”

http://www.lifeworth.net/

True, and as Jem Bendell would say – our current systems have to be transformed and not just reformed. Transformation is about a new culture, mindset, vision and emotion underlying what we do. A mere reform(ation) would just shift pieces around, and about, without changing our approach and what we, as human beings, and beings, see and can see through every day.

I am writing my CSR Certificate thesis on organisational learning and knowledge management approaches to the mainstreaming of business ethics … I can see now that, whatever we apply organisational learning and knowledge management to, it can be transformed. Organisational learning and knowledge management, especially if applied together, are a gateway for transformations. Putting organisational learning and knowledge management to the service of business ethics can ensure such transformations will contribute towards a world more just and more sustainable. It is only logical, no?

 

 

Enron – the lesson

I had a CSR (corporate social responsibility) class today (as part of a Certificate in CSR I am doing at the University of Geneva http://www.unige.ch/formcont/csr.html). We are covering business ethics this weekend. To start it all off, we watched ‘Enron: The smartest guys in the room’, a brilliant documentary loaded with facts, analyses of what and why it happened, as well as personal experiences and views of people who have been involved with the company. A wonderful couple of hours that I do recommend you to have if you get the chance.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/

There is probably no need to re-tell the Enron story which is very rich with many facts and twists to it. Just quickly:

Enron was founded by somebody called Ken Lay in the mid-eighties as an energy trading company. Ken Lay was a supporter of energy market deregulation on which principle he founded the business. The company began in the oil business after which it scoped out to working in electricity, Internet bandwidth and even ‘weather trading’. (…??) It was characterised by a culture of aggressiveness and risk-taking especially among the company’s traders.

The company’s approaches to accounting were highly questionable, such as ‘constructive accounting’ and/or hypothetical value accounting. This meant that Enron would write in a profit the minute it was estimated it would be there without it actually having gone to the books at all. This ”constructive accounting” ended up creating an illusion of a very profitable company – this (illusion) raised Enron’s share prices by 50% in one year, then by 90%. Meanwhile, this illusion was disguising the company’s continuous losses. It could not last forever because of that the rest of the market was (hopefully!) not an illusion as well – this led to Enron’s collapse in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1780075.stm
The question is: Why did this happen?

Off course loads has been written on this already and so there is no point in over-elaborating. Still, just simply, the issue is two-fold:

1. First and foremost, Enron was not alone. (this is often not mentioned)

Not only Enron top executives (the chairman, the CEO, the CFO, key traders, amongst others), but also most of Enron’s partners, allies and customers, such as banks (Citibank, Merill Lynch, amongst others), audit companies (Arthur Andersen), legal businesses and other partners - all big names – were willing to be in it together with Enron, driven by a single motive, money-making. (imagine that)

The Enron case is a fraud driven not just from within Enron, despite that Enron orchestrated it. A chain of abuse of shareholders’ money spread from Enron, Enron’s traders to outside of Enron. Top people at Enron and Enron’s partners were, with their actions, or lack of such, supporting the abuse. Committing fraud was so much part of the culture of Enron, as well as, to a smaller extent, those who were working with Enron, that this seemed like the ‘right’ thing to do to those who went along. Are they to be excused?

Certainly not, they are not to be excused. Enron’s case is an example of a people anc corporate cultures chain reaction. It shows how bad cultures can lead even good people to do bad things. We should all not forget this. Recognising the merits of a corporate culture, as well as questioning this, is important. We all have the power to think on our own feet and act in the way that is right.

2. Second and not less important is that the US energy market had been de-regulated. This is what made possible the trading of what would have otherwise been a public service - this possibility was abused by Enron’s traders in California. In other words, it was not just Enron and its partners. It was also the US government. Tough, hein? The whole system was creating an opportunity for Enron to do abuse.

Is this ethical? Can corporations be left to do whatever they want with customers and shareholders provided that they can do it? … The answer to this is no. Still, they may not stop because of this. We can never be sure. And so, it is important to pre-empt instances of abuse by corporations by creating systems for them to work in, systems which do not create opportunities for abuse.

 

The Enron case sure raises a number of ethical issues. After I watched the movie, I questioned my own approach to the way in which I ‘do business’ in any organisation and context. What are my motives? Are these ethical? In whatever I do, am I doing the right thing? Ethical, and ethics, is a construct that we need to understand and create ourselves.  I think it useful if we take a moment to ask these questions of ourselves and think about our approaches to what we do, if necessary. Business, any business, should not be driven by money but rather by the values that we invest in it. And, we, i.e., YOU, ME, decide what these values are.