In an earlier post, we looked at the importance of
accountability to good knowledge management (KM). Accountability underpins the effective
management of anything at all – money, people, safety and definitely knowledge.
I’m now going to examine two related opposing concepts and
how they can affect KM – namely, anonymity and attribution.
I’ll first look at each concept in turn, pointing out its
effects and how those can be both positive or negative, depending on the
context.
Then, I’ll look at how good KM is helped or hindered by
them, with some suggestions on when one should be preferred over the other.
Anonymity
A piece of work is anonymous when its author’s identity
remains unknown to us, the readers. This
has two important effects:
1.
The author can write whatever they like,
released from the consequences that might otherwise result from that such freedom
might have if we knew their identify;
2.
We, the readers, are forced to judge the piece
of work based on its content alone, and not the identity or background of its
author.
We can consider either of these effects positively or negatively,
depending on the situation:
1.
Consequences
a.
Positive – a ‘whistle-blower’ is able to raise
concerns about wrongdoing or crimes, protected from possible coercion from
those involved;
b.
Negative – social media ‘trolls’ can abuse or
threaten people online, or can spread lies or other misinformation, without
consequences;
2.
Content alone; no context
a.
Positive – biases, prejudices or other ‘mental
models’ cannot act as filters, which open us up to reading content we might
otherwise miss;
b.
Negative – we have no way of knowing whether the
writer is experienced or qualified, let alone credible and may simply be
wasting our time.
Attribution
A piece of work is attributed when its author’s identity is
known to us, the readers. This also has
two important effects which are of course the ‘flip side’ of those relating to
anonymity, above:
1.
The author is no longer free to write whatever
they like, for they remain tied to the consequences that might flow from our
knowing their identify;
2.
We, the readers, can now judge the piece of work
in context, not solely on its content but also by taking into account the
identity or background of its author.
Again, these effects can be positive or negative, depending
on the situation:
1.
Consequences
a.
Positive – attributed works are generally more
likely to be considered, responsible and thoughtful, since favourable reception
enhances the author’s reputation;
b.
Negative – there is a risk of euphemism,
obfuscation or even dishonesty, as people seek to protect themselves from
negative reactions were ‘the truth’ to come out;
2.
Context applied
a.
Positive – contextual consideration helps us to
understand and judge a work; focusing on those from people with credibility and
expertise; as well as enabling us to follow up with the author, asking
questions or offering further insight;
b.
Negative – ‘group-think’ may occur, as fewer
sources are considered, thereby increasing the risk of missing a perspective
that might be valid but never gets heard.
How do these affect
KM?
I’ll now run through a list of KM interventions or tools,
highlighting the use they make of anonymity or attribution:
·
KM Assessments – at Knoco, our assessment and
benchmarking service involves interviewing people drawn from across the
client organisation, to understand how they work with knowledge and identify
areas for improvement. The output,
either a written report or slides, or both, contains anonymised quotes from
these interviews help to bring the report to life and show what things are
really like. For example, whilst the
report might state refer to ‘silos’ and ‘inter-departmental relationships’, a
killer quote really makes the point far more vividly, thus: “Tribalism is a problem here still; everyone
knows this but it's not acceptable to say so publically; it's an undiscussable.
It persists because top management do nothing to address it.” Here, anonymity gives senior management
an insight that normal, open reporting channels would not permit.
·
Knowledge-harvesting
Interviews – these are a very effective way of getting knowledge out of
people’s heads and into a form that can reach far more of their colleagues than
would be possible face-to-face. We would
almost always recommend that the output be attributable, so that readers can
follow up with the interviewee if they have questions or comments. Also, it means that the output is more
credible because the readers know who it came from – usually an acknowledged
expert in a particular field, hence the interview. When attributed interview transcripts are
typed up and distributed or posted online, the interviewee should always have
the right to review and edit the output for the simple reason that others will
not engage if they hear that they might be misquoted or have their words used
against them in some way.
·
Knowledge Assets – these are
often created with reference to many different interviews and other KM capture
activities and, as with interview transcripts, should generally be attributed,
for the same reasons. Providing the
contributors’ name and contact details enables users to get in touch and offer
further insights or feedback – something that is not possible if the content is
all anonymous. Also, anonymous content,
unless it has gone through an established and credible validation process, will
always lack the credibility of its attributed counterpart. People need to know where the guidance and
advice is coming from, otherwise they will be reluctant to use it.
o
Case-study – Some years ago, working as an
analyst for the British Army’s newly-formed Lessons Exploitation Centre, I
helped to produce a series of ‘Good Practice Guides’, full of anonymous insights
and advice gleaned from Post-Operational Reports and Interviews. It took time for us to earn a reputation as a
credible source of knowledge and, with hindsight, I think we should have
retained the source and author of each ‘nugget’, in order to show its provenance
and enabled readers to follow up.
o
By contrast, a Battlegroup from my Regiment (The
Rifles) produced a very helpful and credible post-tour handbook, full of
insights, advice, tactics and case-studies – each of which was fully-sourced
and attributed, enabling readers to judge the validity for themselves.
·
Lessons – At Knoco we help organisations capture
lessons at the end of projects through the Retrospect
process – a facilitated discussion between project team members, to identify
learning points and make recommendations for the future. Facilitation is needed to help participants
examine events in a structured way, and this outsider, with no direct knowledge
of the project, can ensure that lessons are written for the benefit of future
users as opposed to recording events merely for posterity. Lessons will be written up so as to balance
the candour needed for effective reflection whilst protecting participants from
direct quotation. Like with interviews, draft
lessons are returned to a project team member for review and editing, to ensure
accuracy whilst reassuring future participants.
·
Knowledge Exchanges – these
events bring people together to focus upon and discuss one particular topic, to
facilitate the creation or update of a Knowledge Asset (see above), or to
enable direct transfer between those with knowledge to those in need of
it. As with any KM activity, Terms of
Reference help to ensure that all participants understand the event’s purpose
and approach. Notably, some events may
use what are termed here in the UK as ‘Chatham House rules’, which means that
formal capture and publication of any content may be allowed, but only without
attribution. The aim of such an approach
is to enable speakers to do so more freely than they otherwise might, if they
thought their every word would appear in print in due course.
·
Discussion forums – available across the
internet as well as within medium or large organisations, these enable users to
raise questions or start a discussion on a particular topic. Most internet forums enable users to use an
anonymous ‘handle’, thereby leading to honesty that may be painful, the ‘trolling
abuse’ mentioned above, as well as running the risk that contributions are
either unhelpful or even mendacious.
Some forums nowadays enable users to score both individual users and their
contributions based on how ‘useful’ they have been. Over time, this enables users to acquire ‘credibility’,
thereby addressing, albeit partially, the issue of whether users should trust
advice from an anonymous source.
Internal forums usually retain users’ identity, to enable subsequent
follow-up and offline discussion, as well as ensuring that debate remains, for
the whole part, civilised.
o
Case-study – Mumsnet is a well-known parenting forum
where users can seek help or ask for insights on virtually any topic, albeit
with a domestic bias. 99.9% of users
have anonymous handles and debate is forthright. Interestingly, users can and do change their
name at any point and many do so, temporarily, in order to offer contributions
that they feel unable to make from behind their (still anonymous) online
persona. Proof perhaps that sometimes we
don’t like having to remain accountable for things we say, even amongst people whom
we have never met.
A final observation – I used to work as a trained Samaritans volunteer, something I’ve
mentioned before with relation to KM, here.
There are a number of factors that combine to enable
Samaritans to do their job, which is to provide emotional support to people in
crisis, including those that may be feeling suicidal. However, the most important one, in my view,
is the fact that callers and visitors to Samaritans centres can be 100%
anonymous if they wish, and can share as much or as little about their lives as
they wish.
This freedom means there is no comeback. Which means they can be 100% honest – something
they can’t be with their husbands, wives, partners, friends or colleagues. It’s very hard to let those to whom we are
closest see us at our most vulnerable but, somewhat paradoxically, it’s far
easier to do so with complete strangers, to whom we shall probably never speak
again.
I hope I have shown that neither anonymity nor attribution
are always appropriate. What matters is
the outcome that we as KMers are trying to achieve – if we need warts and all
honesty to understand truly what happened, then anonymity will help but we run
the risk the output may not be wholly credible.
Conversely, if we want to enable feedback and continued
engagement with credible sources, attribution will be needed, with the understanding
that there may not be full transparency, at least not until trust has been
established.
