Actually, this was prompted by Mark Chaffee's response (LO2498) to the
question of anonymity in meetings: Like a lot of others who've commented
on this issue, I too think that anonymity simply perpetuates many of the
pathologies that get organizations (and individuals) into trouble in the
first place.
Recently, I've been digging more specifically into the possibilities of
using story telling as a vehicle for creating both the sense and the
reality of collaboration -- within a team (real or hoped for) as well as
between the team and other constituents. Working with a couple of
organizations I've started crafting a workshop where anonymity is
precisely NOT the point -- where the individual stories, as elicited and
brought forward, provide a new frame or series of frames for creating,
understanding, and then working with "colleagues." Those listening to
others' stories can in fact contribute their own experiences to the key
threads, thereby not only enriching the body of content (with, I would
propose, both tacit and explicit knowledge!) but also beginning to reflect
the behaviors necessary for true collaboration -- collaboration among
individuals with attributable histories, points of view, etc.
There are, I think, a couple of relevant quotes in Nonaka/Takeuchi's
"Knowledge-Creating Company":
"Western managers need to pay more attention to the less formal and
sytematic side of knowledge and start focusing on highly subjective
insights, intuitions, and hunches that are gained through the use of
metaphors, pictures, or experiences."
And later: "The mere transfer of information will often make little sense,
if it is abstracted from associated emotions and specific contexts to
which shared experiences are embedded." To me, that kind of specificity
depends on attribution and the absence of anonymity.
Cheers.
-- Ron Mallis 12 Chestnut Street Boston, MA 02108 617-723-8362 ron2785@eworld.com