This is an intriguing question because each time we think about contacting someone for help on an issue we face a choice; Do I email, phone, walk down the hall, twitter, text message, post on the community website?
This post is about the benefits of choosing to have a conversation* through what ever medium we select.
The greatest benefit is that with conversation we get “more than an answer.” That’s the title of a great article by Rob Cross and Lee Sproull. They did a study in 2004 that looked at the benefits that accrued to people who had a conversation with a colleague about a relatively ambiguous issue each was facing. These seekers were project managers in a large consulting firm. They had access to first-rate company repositories of best practices, case examples, reusable work products, methodologies and tools, discussion forums and expertise databases. In spite of such tools, overwhelmingly they preferred to take the issue they were wrestling with to a colleague.
Cross and Sproull conducted in-depth interviews with each of these project managers to explore what they learned through the conversations they chose to have. Then they sorted the responses into five categories, which I outline here. I’ve also embedded my own thinking related to the categories- so they are not pure Cross and Sproull.
Answers: Not surprisingly the seekers got answers to the questions they asked. Some of the answers were factual in nature. But more often what was asked for and received was procedural or methodology based. The seekers were looking for the application of facts or principles in order to develop a solution.
Meta Knowledge: This category was about where to go to get more information on the issue, or conversely where not to go because a certain report was out-dated, or superficial. Also in this category was the identification of specific work products and the names of other people who could be helpful, along with an introduction.
Meta knowledge is incredibly useful, but only if the source knows enough about the issues the seeker is facing to sort through possibilities based on 1) the seeker’s level of expertise (absorpative capacity) and 2) the applicability of the meta knowledge to the seeker’s specific situation.
Problem Reformulation: This occurred when the source suggested a different way to look at the problem or issue, a way that might even invalidate the original question. It tended to broaden the thinking of the seeker or approach it from an entirely different angle. Also in this category was helping the seeker become aware of potential unforeseen consequences of specific actions as well as increasing awareness of issues that were likely to be particularly sensitive.
To gain meta-knowledge and/or problem-reformulation requires the source to be willing “to understand the problem as experienced by the seeker and then shape her/his knowledge to the evolving definition of the problem” and is best served by the give and take of conversation. And as Cross and Sproull point out, to provide meta knowledge also demands a strong enough tie with the source so that he or she is willing to invest the necessary time in the seeker’s issue.
Validation: This is assurance that the approach the seeker is taking is on course. And it is the expression of appreciation for the seeker’s thinking behind his or her planning. Validation builds seekers confidence and allows them to move forward with greater certainty and perhaps even be more self-assured when approaching a client. Validation also provides seekers the certainty that they have done enough background work, saving the seeker the time it would take to gather further data.
Validation has an emotive content that comes across most fully through the facial and tonal cues we pick up in face-to-face conversations. Like most feedback, validation provides greater assurance when it references specifics rather than generalities. For example, “Great plan” is less validating than is, “The logic of your argument is well sequenced which adds to its face validity”. But to offer that level of specificity takes in-depth understanding on the part of the source.
Legitimizing: Legitimizing is the expression of approval by a person in authority or with known expertise, which the seeker can then use to influence others. As with validation, legitimizing can save the seeker time by reducing the amount of proof or data that may need to be collected before the client is willing to act. It also serves to head off arguments others might raise.
The greatest benefit of conversation is that it produces five categories of responses, not just the answer. We get so much more from conversation, e.g. an unexpected insight, a sense of affirmation that inspires us to new heights or, equally useful, having to confront a realization that we've been trying to avoid; deepening the relationship with a colleague or the introduction to a collaborator we would never have discovered on our own; and on and on.
The multiplicity of benefits addresses the very real problem of not knowing what we don’t know. A problem that is so frequent when the issues we are addressing are ambiguous and complex.
I don’t think we enter into conversations expecting so many outcomes. Rather I think we come with a goal or question in mind and the rest emerges out of the interaction of the conversation. And that interaction is impacted by the nature of the relationship between the seeker and source. The source has to be willing to engage with the seeker to understand the issues; the seeker has to put him or herself in the vulnerable position of asking for help. On both parts that willingness requires a relationship of trust and respect. Paradoxically, in-depth conversations also serve to strengthen just that kind of relationship.
Imagine how much knowledge we would gain if we did enter every conversation anticipating that we would gain "more than an answer."
The published version is at: Cross, R. & Sproull, L. (2004). More Than an Answer: Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge. Organization Science. 15(4): pp. 446-462. Click here for an earlier draft
* Conversation being defined as: the interaction that occurs when each person is actively working to understand the meaning the other is trying to convey.
Great write-up (I just tweeted it). Too bad the original finished article isn't available online (don't get me started on the backwardness of academic journals).
The importance of context for skills/knowledge is often underestimated in organizations. Frequently there's this idea that knowledge can be somehow distilled out of people's heads into some kind of permanent repository. And yes of course, an organization needs FAQs, training documents, etc -- but they aren't a substitute for skilled practitioners using that knowledge in the field.
The best organizations figure out how to provide org structures & tools where people can access skilled practitioners and learn from them, in a way that's effective for the questioner and doesn't overly interfere with the expert's regular work.
But often this kind of on-the-job learning just happens informally, for better or worse.
Posted by: Mary Walker | May 05, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Nancy,
Thank you for another thought-provoking post!
I very much agree with your emphasis on the recipients of knowledge sharing (much neglected, as you've said), and this is a nice exploration of some of the issues. May I offer a complementary take on conversations, from my book 'Building on Knowledge'?
"The most highly tacit knowledge cannot be shared at all; people can only develop it from their own experience. At the other end of the spectrum, purely explicit knowledge can in principle be made widely and readily available by documenting it in (for example) a formal procedure, a technical note or a knowledge base, and acquired by reading. In between, there is a broad band of knowledge that is too tacit to communicate effectively in a text book or a corporate knowledge base, but communicable to varying degrees face to face, or (usually less well) by phone or email. This involves more than a flow of words from one person to another — from a teacher to a learner — that could in principle be written down: it is an interactive process between them that demands physical engagement and focuses attention in a way that documents cannot. In conversation, teachers can:
• be selective and pertinent, focusing narrowly on learners’ specific interests and sparing them the need to find and extract relevant information themselves — something they may not have the time or expertise to do
• interpret information to suit the context in which the learner wants to use it
• be responsive, providing information piece by piece as the learner absorbs it, at an appropriate pace
• adapt material to suit the learner’s existing knowledge
• listen to learners’ explanation of their understanding, and explain it another way if that is wrong
• demonstrate physical actions
• make freer use of anecdotes and stories to help understanding than would usually be appropriate in documentary sources
• guide experience & experiment so that learners can try things out and make the words they have heard come to life.
The learner, meanwhile, can:
• adjust or extend the original question (“And what would happen if …?”)
• ensure that new understanding is correct by verbalising it (“So you mean that …?”) or reproducing physical actions, and getting corrective feedback.
Echoing new knowledge like this also helps learners to build mental connections with prior knowledge and fix the new knowledge in their brains.
Recent research has revealed other unique attributes of learning face-to-face. It turns out, for example, that watching an action demonstrated activates the motor areas in our brain that we would use to perform it ourselves. In effect, we practise the action in our heads, giving us a much better starting point for remembering it and performing it successfully later than trying to interpret the ambiguities of written descriptions.
The overall advantages to the learner are considerable. Selectivity, pertinence and interpretation all save time searching and wandering down blind alleys; responsiveness, adaptation and listening help avoid misunderstanding; anecdotes, stories and active participation all make new knowledge more memorable. The benefits are not solely one-way, either. Teachers benefit, because verbalising their own understanding and having aspects of it questioned helps to develop it further. And when, as often happens, two or more people each have incomplete knowledge, discussion can often reveal pieces that fit together, spark new mental connections, and lead to new understanding and new ideas.
Face-to-face interaction, then, is a uniquely powerful — and sometimes the only — way to share many kinds of knowledge, from the simplest to the most sophisticated, and one of the best ways to stimulate new thinking and ideas."
Posted by: David Bartholomew | May 18, 2009 at 10:17 AM
David,
Thank you so such an informative and well thought out response. I particularly liked your list of what your get from f2f. I also like the idea of tacit to explicit as a continuum rather than the dichotomy. It makes me want to get your book and learn more of your thinking.
Nancy
Posted by: Nancy Dixon | May 19, 2009 at 08:11 PM