October BP.fm

This is the html version of the file http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/members/bppdfs/Oct02.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:g9QoW8RCW0UJ:www.infomanagementcenter.com/members/bppdfs/Oct02.pdf+%22Deborah+E.+Shapiro%22&hl=en

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted:

deborah

shapiro

Page 1

OCTOBER 2002

VOLUME 4, NUMBER 5

The Center for Information-Development Management

710 Kipling Street • Suite 400 • Denver, CO 80215

105

Does Personality Count?

Deborah E. Shapiro, Technical Communications Specialist, Biosense Webster (Israel), Ltd.

I am by nature a reflective person. So when I

read a want ad, I find myself wondering just

what some employers are looking for. “Native

language English, familiar with FrameMaker

and MS Word, engineering background,” and

so on. I remember reading an article in Inter-

com, “Tools or Talent? Hiring a technical

writer” (Molisani 1999, 46 2: 24-25). I kept

asking myself what characteristics Molisani

was looking for. It seemed to me that the per-

son being sought after needed more than tools

or talent—that special something, which for

lack of better terminology I think of as “the

right personality.”

We’ve all met someone who seemed to

have the right skills and knowledge for the job

and provided a great writing sample. Yet

shortly after working with that person, we

found that they were hopelessly not suited for

the job. In more fortunate circumstances, we

can “feel the person out” and know they are

not suitable. But we have no hard measure. I

recall meeting someone who had completed a

course in technical writing. They had thor-

oughly enjoyed it and asked me, “do you think

I’ll be able to find a job?” I sought for a kind

way to say, “no, you don’t have the personality

for it.” I mean, who was I to say that? After all,

most of my reading on technical communica-

tion rarely touches on personality. I was

relieved to learn that the person later found an

enjoyable job—not in technical communica-

tion.

All this reflection led to my conducting an

international Internet-based survey on the per-

sonality characteristics of technical communi-

cators. Participants were recruited from

technical communication news groups around

the world as well as from among my own con-

tacts. All participants submitted an email

advising that they have worked or are currently

working as technical communicators. There

were 223 respondents from 17 different coun-

tries.

The survey included a validated personal-

ity test based on the Five-Factor Model (FFM)

of personality. The test was developed and

tested for validity by Buchanan et al. (1999)

based on a body of work by one of the major

FFM researchers, L.R. Goldberg. Initially

implemented on the Internet, the test has only

41 questions; Buchanan’s results were within

acceptable reliability. The personality ques-

tions were scored according to Buchanan’s

instructions (2001). The survey also included

demographic and professional questions. Data

was correlated to answer my research question:

Are there personality characteristics that technical

communicators have in common?

What is the Five-Factor Model?

Before sharing the results of my study with

you, we need to understand the parameters

being examined in the Five-Factor Model

(FFM) of personality. Most of the information

provided here is based on the work of Pied-

mont (1998) and Howard and Howard

(1992).

The FFM examines a large set of person-

ality dimensions. It has broad uses for various

types of personality testing, from therapeutic

psychology through the NEO Personality

Inventory to vocational counseling and devel-

opment of optimal working teams. The FFM

is also gaining increasing attention in personal-

ity research as a possible standard for personal-

ity structure. The five factors examined

(collectively termed OCEAN) are detailed

below. Because Howard and Howard’s work

has a business orientation, I use their terminol-

ogy in discussing these factors. However, the

explanation of each factor is based on their

work as well as that of Piedmont.

CONTENTS

Does Personality Count?

page 105

From the Director

page 106

CASE STUDY

Collaboration: The New

New Thing and This

Decade’s Hottest Skill

page 113

BOOK REVIEW

Intellectual Capital

page 118

IN PRINT

A Selection of Abstracts

From the Field

page 120

Manager’s Calendar

page 124

Continued on page 107.

Page 2

106

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

FROM THE DIRECTOR

From the Director

JoAnn Hackos

Dear Friends,

By the time you receive this newsletter, the

October annual meeting of the CIDM will be

underway. As you know, one of our areas of

focus at this year’s session is the Six Sigma

methodology of managing and measuring

quality. The Six Sigma method originated with

Motorola as they sought to reduce the errors in

their chip manufacturing process. To reduce

the number of bad chips, Motorola looked for

flaws in the manufacturing process. A process

flaw resulted in defects in the chips. By fixing

the process, they could lower the likelihood of

failure and improve the quality of the product.

Bill Hackos of the CIDM and Jim

Romano of Prisma are slated at the conference

to tell us how Six Sigma relates to technical

information development. As communicators,

we produce information, not chips. But the

problems of flaws are just as critical to our pro-

cesses as they are to a manufacturing process.

What might constitute a

flaw in the information that we

provide to our customers? Well—

as you might expect, the list is

long. Here are just a few

thoughts about how flaws might

occur in our information:

o Information may be incor-

rect or incomplete, resulting

in failed processes on the

customer’s part.

o Information that the cus-

tomer needs may be missing.

o Information may be too dif-

ficult or time-consuming to find even

when it is available.

o Information may be difficult for custom-

ers to understand even if it is correct and

complete.

How might we discover flaws in our informa-

tion? Customer feedback is the best source. We

might ask customers about problems they have

in accessing and using our information. We

might watch them try to find answers to their

questions during usability tests. We might dis-

cuss customer problems with others in the sup-

port chain, including trainers, consultants, and

telephone support personnel.

What might happen once we discover a

flaw? Let’s say, for example, that we discover

that information the customer needs is missing

from the documentation. Once we discover

that something is missing, we can work hard to

produce and distribute the

needed information. Unfortu-

nately, responding to a complaint

and fixing the problem will not

result in a long-term solution. In

keeping with the Six Sigma phi-

losophy, we must look at our

information-development pro-

cess and discover why the infor-

mation was missing in the first

place. Six Sigma reveals that only

by improving the process do we

stop the same problems from

occurring in the future.

If we look at the problem of

missing information more carefully, we are

likely to discover that our staff members never

knew the information was required in the first

place. In too many information-development

organizations, we find that communicators

have very little insight into the information

needs of the users. For example, a writer

recently complained to me that he would have

to meet with many different user groups in an

effort to learn what they need to know because

his product was used in many different parts of

the customer’s organization.

Best Practices Newsletter

A publication of the Center for

Information-Development

Management.

710 Kipling Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80215

Phone: 303/232-7586

Fax: 303/232-0659

www.infomanagementcenter.com

Publisher and

Center Director

JoAnn Hackos, PhD

joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com

Managing Editor

Tina Hedlund

tina.hedlund@comtech-serv.com

Production Manager

Lori Maberry

lori.maberry@comtech-serv.com

Information Developer

Christina Meyer

christina.meyer@comtech-

serv.com

How to subscribe: a one-year sub-

scription (6 issues) is $99.

Subscribers outside the US add

$10 (US funds only).

Contact Wendy Sedbrook at

303/232-7586, or send email to

wendy.sedbrook@comtech-

serv.com

How to submit an article: contact

Tina Hedlund

tina.hedlund@comtech-serv.com

How to join the Center:

call JoAnn Hackos at

303/232-7586,

or send email to

joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com

Printed in the USA.

“…the

problems of

flaws are just

as critical to

our processes

as they are to a

manufacturing

process.”

Page 3

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

107

DOES PERSONALITY COUNT?

Center Associates

Henry Korman

Wordplay

korman@wp-consulting.com

Ginny Redish, PhD

Redish & Associates, Inc.

ginny@redish.net

Jonathan Price

The Communication Circle

jprice@swcp.com

David Walske

David Walske, Inc.

david@walske.com

Advisory Council

Julie Bradbury

Cadence Design Systems

julieb@cadence.com

Diane Davis

Synopsys

ddavis@synopsys.com

Bill Gearhart

BMC

william_gearhart@bmc.com

Mike Lewis

SUN Microsystems, Inc.

mike.lewis@west.sun.com

Gil Mounsey

NCR

gil.mounsey@ncr.com

Vesa Purho

Nokia

vesa.purho@nokia.com

Deborah Rosenquist

Dell Computers

deborah_rosenquist@dell.com

CIDM Vendor Member

Arbortext

PG Bartlett

pgb@arbortext.com

In our application of Six Sigma concepts

to information development, we will concen-

trate on those parts of the process that add

value for the customer. Knowing what the cus-

tomer’s job duties and tasks are all about will

ensure that we provide the information

required to support the tasks, rather than the

information that is easily available to us from

the product developers.

As you know, we have no substitutes for

customer knowledge. The more we understand

our customers and what they do with our

products, the better we can provide them with

valuable information. Yet, customer knowledge

is one of the most rare commodities in an

information-development organization.

If you were not able to join us at the 4

annual CIDM Best Practices conference this

year, I hope that you will start budgeting now

for next year. The conference is perhaps the

best source of knowledge available that will

make you an effective leader and a sound cor-

porate manager.

JoAnn

Does Personality Count?, continued from page 105.

o The Openness factor provides a measure

of a person’s originality, creativeness, and

openness to new knowledge. We can call a

high scorer an “Explorer,” whereas a low

scorer might be termed a “Preserver.” An

average scorer might be thought of as a

“Moderate.”

o The Conscientiousness fac-

tor provides a measure of a

person’s persistence, self-con-

trol, dependability, ethics,

and orderliness. We can call

a high scorer “Focused,”

whereas a low scorer might

be termed “Flexible.” An

average scorer might be

thought of as “Balanced.”

o The Extraversion factor pro-

vides a measure of a person’s

sociability (whether they are

affectionate, friendly, outgo-

ing, personable, and so on).

We can call a high scorer an “Extravert,”

whereas a low scorer might be termed an

“Introvert.” An average scorer might be

thought of as an “Ambivert.”

o The Agreeableness factor provides a mea-

sure of a person’s cooperativeness (trust of

others) and likability (whether they are

good-natured, cheerful, and so on). We

can call a high scorer an “Adaptor,”

whereas a low scorer might be termed a

“Challenger.” An average scorer might be

thought of as a “Negotiator.”

o The Neuroticism factor provides a mea-

sure of a person’s emotional stability, or

how many stimuli are required to elicit a

strong emotional response (Howard and

Howard 1992). Specifically, Neuroticism

includes anxiety, hostility, depression, self-

consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulner-

ability. We can call a high scorer “Reac-

tive,” whereas a low scorer

might be termed “Resilient.”

An average scorer might be

thought of as “Responsive.”

Each factor also has subfactors or

“facets,” which can provide more

detail about the individual’s per-

sonality; however, this personal-

ity test only looks at the broad

five factors. The first table on

page 108 provides a summary of

the five factors.

The more I read about the

FFM, the more I realized the fac-

tors being examined might be

particularly relevant to technical communica-

tors. In particular, I noted that

o Much of our professional literature

stresses the need for technical communi-

cators to be open to new knowledge. The

Openness factor may relate to a technical

communicator’s curiosity and ability to

learn new technologies and tools because

this factor includes creativity and the

desire to learn new things.

“…the

[OCEAN] fac-

tors… might

be particu-

larly relevant

to technical

communica-

tors.”

Page 4

108

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

DOES PERSONALITY COUNT?

o Interest in detail, high ethical standards,

and research skills are important aspects

of a technical communicator’s work. The

Conscientiousness factor may relate to a

technical communicator’s motivation,

ability to meet deadlines, and attention to

the small details of writing or design

because this factor includes self-control

and ethics.

o Some personality research indicates that

when compared to extraverts, introverted

people are more “vigilant, more sensitive

to pain, more easily bored, more cautious,

and more disrupted by overstimulation”

(Aiken 1997, 341). This research made

me wonder if introversion could interfere

with good technical communication. The

Extraversion factor may relate to how well

a technical communicator is able to com-

municate with others, particularly on a

team, because this factor looks at sociabil-

ity.

o Molisani (1999) and those job advertise-

ments seem to imply that employers are

searching for people with whom they can

get along. The Agreeableness factor may

relate to a technical communicator’s abil-

ity to work well with others because this

factor includes a person’s cooperativeness

and likability.

o The major component of technical com-

munication, writing ability, has been

shown to be affected by apprehension,

anxiety, and motivation (Sharples 1999).

The Neuroticism factor may be connected

with a technical communicator’s people

skills and writing ability because this fac-

tor is a reflection of the extent to which

various stimuli affect a person.

Results

The demographic data was most interesting.

Although the participants were from 17 differ-

ent countries, the mother tongue of most par-

ticipants was English (92%). Interestingly

while there was a good spread across the age

groups, the number of male participants

increased with age. The primary product doc-

umented was software, and the main technical

communication specialty was writing. Also,

many lone writers were represented.

For easier correlations to the personality

results, I grouped the respondents into four

geographical regions: North America, Europe,

Israel, and Australia. The figure on page 109

provides a view of the types of products docu-

mented, correlated to gender. From this graph

it's clear that while the majority of respondents

were female and the majority document soft-

ware, the majority of respondents were not

females who document software—an impor-

tant distinction.

Understanding the OCEAN Score

Openness

Conscientiousness

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

High (upper

30%)

Explorer

Focused

Extravert

Adaptor

Reactive

Low (lower

30%)

Preserver

Flexible

Introvert

Challenger

Resilient

Average (mid-

dle 40%)

Moderate

Balanced

Ambivert

Negotiator

Responsive

Overall OCEAN Score for All Respondents

Level

+ (upper 30%)

127 (57%)

69 (31%)

57 (26%)

148 (66%)

20 (9%)

- (lower 30%)

22 (10%)

26 (12%)

37 (17%)

6 (3%)

108 (48%)

0 (middle 40%)

74 (33%)

128 (57%)

129 (58%)

69 (31%)

95 (43%)

Composite Score

Explorer

Balanced

Ambivert

Adaptor

Resilient/Responsive

Page 5

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

109

DOES PERSONALITY COUNT?

The second table on page 108 provides the

overall results for all respondents. The com-

posite score is a reflection of the majority

responses for each factor examined. Interest-

ingly, the composite score held strongly, even

when all data were correlated across age, gen-

der, and professional specialty, with the follow-

ing exceptions:

o There was a significant difference between

the ages of the respondents and their level

of extraversion; extraversion seems to

decrease with age.

o The Neuroticism factor varied more

among lone writers, roughly split between

a low (Resilient) or average (Responsive)

score.

The correlation of the OCEAN score across

geographical regions is particularly interesting.

o Israelis: Of the six respondents with an A-

(Challenger) score, three were from Israel.

Israelis also represented the largest group-

ing with an O- (Preserver) score (out of

22 Preservers, 9 were Israeli).

o Europeans: None of the Europeans had

an A- (Challenger) score, although they

had a fair number of the C- (Flexible)

scores (8 out of 26).

o Australians: Australians represented the

largest group with N- (Resilient) scores

(20 out of 31).

o North Americans: In comparison to the

other regions, the North Americans had

the largest number of Extraverts (13% of

all participants).

But What Does It All Mean?

The Openness and Conscientiousness Factors

The Openness and Conscientiousness factors

were equally important, although in general,

Conscientiousness was not as high as I

expected (see the second figure on page 110).

Much of the related personality literature

emphasizes the importance of the Conscien-

tious factor for career success. Apparently for

this group of technical communicators, being

an Explorer is more important than being

Focused (see the first figure on page 110).

Why is Conscientiousness not higher for

the technical communicators studied? At the

extreme end, one might be so focused on the

details that the overall picture is missed (Tett

1998). This could be a disaster for technical

communicators who must work to strict dead-

lines. While technical communicators must

pay attention to the fine details, knowing

when to stop is often more important, even

when a documentation project is not perfect.

Thus while the technical communication liter-

ature seems to indicate a need for high Consci-

entiousness, in actual practice this need does

not seem to be the case. This finding is further

supported by Collins (1998) who points out

that high Conscientiousness, contrary to pop-

ular belief, can work against a job well done.

Openness, on the other hand, relates to

the interests to which one is attracted and how

deeply those interests are pursued. Given that

technical communicators must be constantly

learning new tools in order to perform their

jobs well, in addition to learning new informa-

tion that must be conveyed to various types of

end users, the large number of Explorers is not

a surprising finding for the group studied. In

addition, the personality literature indicates

that being an Explorer may be an asset to one

who is highly introverted. Thus, being an

Explorer may be of great benefit to a highly

introverted technical communicator (see the

discussion on Extraversion).

Deborah Shapiro

Technical Communications

Specialist

Biosense Webster Israel, Ltd.

DShapir1@bwiil.jnj.com

Deborah Shapiro has been

working as a technical

communicator (lone writer) for

over 10 years. She enjoys

documenting medical products

and devices because her

background is nursing, which

may explain her interest in

personality as it relates to

herself and her profession.

Currently, she handles the

writing and visual art work of

the user and installation

manuals for medical systems,

develops online help and

training materials, helps with

the GUI design and labeling of

the systems developed at her

company, and is a member of

the Global eBusiness Team for

Biosense Webster

International, a Johnson &

Johnson Company.

Deborah has just presented

the entire study and analysis

to Sheffield-Hallam University

as her thesis for their MA

program, Technical Authorship.

Space doesn’t allow for the

academic justification of her

research nor how it was

conducted. If you would like

more details, a PDF of her

study is available on request.

Page 6

110

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

DOES PERSONALITY COUNT?

Openness also seems to relate to the cre-

ative performance of teamwork (Buchanan

1998). Consequently, being an Explorer would

seem to contribute to technical communica-

tors’ effectiveness because working with others

is an integral part of their work and creativity

is an important aspect of writing.

The Agreeableness Factor

Another important trait for technical commu-

nicators appears to be Agreeableness (see the

third figure on the left). Part of this factor’s

importance may lie in its relationship to Con-

scientiousness and Extraversion (Piedmont

1998).

Much of a technical communicator’s work

requires interaction with others (planning,

information gathering, collaboration, and so

on). When technical communicators are also

Focused, they tend to be concerned for others,

helpful, and able to work “through the sys-

tem.” There were 47 Focused/Adaptor profiles

of those surveyed. On the other hand, there

were only three respondents with a Flexible/

Challenger profile. This latter profile presents

a rather self-seeking and controlling personal-

ity.

Technical communicators with an Adap-

tor/Balanced profile may be more likely to find

the balance between research and writing in a

friendly, communicative manner (Howard and

Howard 1992).

The Extraversion Factor

Extraversion varied among the groups (see the

first figure on page 111). This finding may

indicate that extraversion is more important to

technical communicators than might initially

be thought. First, this factor is important when

viewed in combination with others. Generally,

the more extraverted the person, the more

likely he or she is to communicate well and be

easy to get along with, unless extraversion is

combined with a high neuroticism score.

Research indicates that introverted peo-

ple are more vigilant, sensitive to pain, bored,

overly cautious, and easily distracted (Aiken

1997). Buchanan (1998) points out that

Ambiverts in a group promote conversation

and the sharing of ideas without the potential

for competition if the other people in the

group are highly extraverted. Thus, Ambiv-

erted technical communicators may find it eas-

ier to work in collaborative groups than

Introverts or Extraverts. Additionally, Ambiv-

Page 7

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

111

DOES PERSONALITY COUNT?

erts are probably better able to work in a group

or in isolation as the need requires (Howard

and Howard 1992). That the majority of lone

writers surveyed were Ambiverts should not be

surprising.

In light of the importance of the Extraver-

sion factor, courses in technical communica-

tion should consider focusing on the technical

communicator’s individual style of communi-

cation because introversion may interfere with

meeting others’ needs. The importance of the

Extraversion factor merits further investiga-

tion, particularly as to how this factor corre-

lates to a technical communicator’s cognitive

skills.

The Neuroticism Factor

Of the 223 technical communicators surveyed,

only 20 (9%) had a high Neuroticism (Reac-

tive) score (see the second figure on the right).

Neuroticism is a measure of emotional stabil-

ity, or, as Howard and Howard (1992) phrase

it, a measure of how many stimuli are required

for the person to elicit an emotional reaction.

With regard to competitive performance,

the lower Neuroticism is in relation to a high

Conscientiousness (Focused) score, the more

likely the person is to be the stereotypical

achiever. Resilience contributes to one’s emo-

tional stability in a competitive situation.

Twenty percent of respondents had a

Focused/Resilient profile. However, when

adjustments were made to this score based on

the personality literature, the percentage dra-

matically increased to 56%. Other correlations

that I performed indicated that there may also

be a strong relation between Neuroticism and

Professional Effectiveness (see the sidebar on

page 112).

To Conclude…

Clearly, I have shared only a small part of my

research. Nevertheless, much can be gleaned

from what I have shared.

My research question was: Are there per-

sonality characteristics that technical communi-

cators have in common?

The answer, within certain limitations,

seems to be yes. While this answer can be

stated clearly only for technical communica-

tors who document software (see the figure on

page 109), the common profile for technical

communicators is

Page 8

112

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

DOES PERSONALITY COUNT?

Explorer, Balanced, Ambivert, Adaptor,

Resilient/Responsive

My study answers the question that many of

my colleagues have asked but for which we

have had little concrete evidence: Does person-

ality count? The answer is yes. Must a techni-

cal communicator have the above traits to be a

good technical communicator? I think this

would be a very dangerous jump to make.

More research is required. Certainly, our field

attracts certain types of people. I personally do

not subscribe to the theory that we are what

we are born. I believe we can change. Certainly

Extraversion changes with age. Why not other

traits such as Openness or Agreeableness?

Knowledge empowers. If you have a technical

communicator in your group who is highly

introverted or reactive, perhaps studying these

traits will help you to find their strengths and

cultivate them (for example, cultivate their

Explorer aspects).

I hope that others will pick up where I

have left off because I believe that this study is

only the beginning.

Professional

Effectiveness

As a part of my research,

data were analyzed to

provide an indication of

professional effectiveness. A

full explanation of this

analysis would be a paper in

itself. Briefly, participants

were given a cumulative

score based on their

professional achievements,

work experience,

professional satisfaction,

work priorities, and self-

rating of professional

effectiveness. When the

data was correlated, the

majority of respondents with

a Reactive profile were noted

to have poor professional

effectiveness scores.

Additionally, none of the

technical communicators in

management had a Reactive

profile.

This finding does not mean

that technical

communicators cannot have

a Reactive profile. It does

indicate, however, that they

may be less likely to move

into management and may

be more prone to take

criticism as a reflection of

self rather than as an

indicator for how to improve

work performance (Howard

and Howard 1992).

References

Aiken, L.R. 1997. Psychological Testing and Assessment, ninth edition. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Buchanan, L.B. 1998. The impact of big five personality characteristics on group cohesion and

creative task performance, PhD dissertation in Psychology. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

Buchanan, T. 2001. Online implementation of an IPIP Five-Factor Personality Inventory

[Online], available: http://wwwffi.individualdifferences.org.uk (accessed January 2002).

Buchanan, T., L.R. Goldberg, and J.A. Johnson. 1999. “WWW personality assessment: Evalua-

tion of an on-line Five-Factor inventory.” Presented at the 1999 meeting of the Society for

Computers in Psychology, Los Angeles, Nov. 18, 1999. http://users.wmin.ac.uk/~buchant/

downloads/scip99.html (accessed April 2001).

Collins, J. 1998. “Conscientiousness: is that all there is?” TIP vol. 36, no. 2. http://

www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipoct98/4collins.htm (accessed April 2001).

Howard, P.J. and J.M. Howard. 1992. The Big Five Quickstart: An introduction to the five-factor

model of personality for human resource professionals. Center for Applied Cognitive Studies. http:/

/www.centacs.com/quik-prt.htm (accessed April 2001). Journal of Personality vol. 60, no. 2.

Molisani, J. 1999. “Tools or talent? Hiring a technical writer.” Intercom vol. 46, no. 2: 24-25.

Piedmont, R.L. 1998. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Clinical and research applications.

New York: Plenum Press.

Sharples, M. 1999. How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. London & New York: Routledge.

Tett, R.P. 1998. Is conscientiousness always positively related to job performance?, TIP vol. 36,

no. 1. http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/TIPJuly98/tett.htm (accessed April 2001).

Page 9

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

113

CASE STUDY

C A S E S T U D Y

Collaboration: The New New Thing and This

Decade’s Hottest Skill

Jean Richardson, Consultant, BJR Communications

Some technical communication gurus would

have it that the profession’s history goes back

as far as Leonardo da Vinci’s descriptions of his

inventions; some would go back even farther,

perhaps to the brief technical specifications for

the ark in Genesis. Be that as it may, most of

us can agree that collaborative writing pro-

cesses are becoming more important in techni-

cal communication and this trend has emerged

fairly recently. Cross-functional teams are still

a new idea in some environments. Cooperative

writing

the practice of distributing chapters

in a single book among multiple writers

something many teams attempt but few do

well. And now we have single

sourcing staring us straight in our

collective faces, upping the ante

on collaboration in some teams to

a point where the process of writ-

ing is more complex than even

the most technical content.

The demand for collabora-

tive writing is not likely to go

away any time soon. Expert col-

laboration skills, that is to say

human communication skills,

will increase in significance for

technical communicators. But

just what are those collaboration

skills? What can developing

stronger collaboration skills do

for you and your team? And how

can you tell when you’re collabo-

rating—or not?

True collaboration is co-creation of a

shared work product. True collaborators can

create a better quality product because deci-

sions are reached in an egalitarian manner

using the best the entire team has to offer. Col-

laboration is fostered by a dialogic mindset

(see the box on page 114) and is supported by

a set of facilitative interpersonal skills. That is

to say, good collaborators have many of the

same skills as good mediators and facilitators.

You may have had the experience of join-

ing a team that is supposedly collaborating,

and you sensed something didn’t fit or didn’t

make sense when the team’s methods and

modes of interacting were measured against

your understanding of collaboration. So it

makes sense at this time to say what collabora-

tion is not. Collaboration is not:

o Networking: people with common inter-

ests informally exchanging information

o Coordination: people with a common

mission and formal relationships working

independently to meet a common goal

o Cooperation: people working together

toward a common goal without any

clearly defined mission,

structure, or planning effort

o Competition: people acting

as rivals, competing simulta-

neously for the same set of

limited resources

Perhaps you see some of your

collaborative work experiences

defined in the terms above.

Foundational Understandings

Kikuyu Saying: When elephants

fight, it is the grass that suffers.

Collaborators can identify and

respond appropriately to their

team members’ communication,

learning, and conflict styles.

Good collaborators know their

own styles and can flex those styles appropri-

ately for the benefit of the collaborative pro-

cess.

Communication Styles

Communication style is not something many

of us identify objectively. It can be very subtle,

and we can perceive it primarily as “clicking”

with another person—or not. Communication

style may be best described by a range of con-

tinua, including

Jean Richardson

Consultant

BJR Communications, Inc.

jean@bjrcom.com

Jean Richardson is a

communication consultant in

private practice. She focuses

on hardware, software, and

Web development. She is

past president of the

Willamette Valley Chapter of

the Society for Technical

Communication in Portland,

Oregon, as well as a Better

Business Bureau Arbitrator,

and a Multnomah County

Court Mediator. With various

associates, she trains other

technical professionals on

conflict management and

collaboration skills.

“Good

collaborators

know their

own styles and

can flex those

styles

appropriately

for the benefit

of the

collaborative

process.”

Page 10

114

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

CASE STUDY

o Direct versus indirect

o Boundary differences regarding private

versus public information

o Boundary differences regarding the

amount and type of touch

o Use of pauses during verbal

exchanges

o Intensity and use of body

language

o Use of physical space

o Tone of voice

Many of these style differences

are cultural, but all tend to be

learned in childhood. And while

communication style can be ele-

vated to the level of a conscious

skill—image consultants do this

for public figures all the time—

modifying your individual com-

munication style takes time and

attention. For many people, their

communication style is so much

a part of who they are that even

considering modifying their style

seems like an abnegation of their

essential self. However, the ability to flex your

style to assure that your message is received as

you intended is extremely powerful.

Learning Styles

To collaborate well over the course of a career

and sometimes over the course of a project,

stepping into another team member’s domi-

nant style is helpful to communicate new

information effectively to that

team member. The instructional

design and educational psychol-

ogy communities have devel-

oped an array of models to help

us understand learning styles.

One model includes the follow-

ing styles:

o Active learners, who learn

best by doing

o Sequential learners, who

learn best by stepwise

inquiry

o Sensing learners, who like to

learn disparate facts and

established methods

o Visual learners, who learn

best by looking

o Reflective learners, who

need time to think through

or process new information

o Intuitive learners, who prefer to learn

through exploration and discovery

The Dialogic Mindset

A dialogue is an exchange of information or ideas. It does not imply prejudging or advocating.

Rather, it implies inquiry based on mutual respect and true curiosity. People with a dialogic

mindset approach people, problems, and the world with a sense of not knowing and eagerness

to explore. A dialogic mindset is characterized by a predisposition to engage in an exchange of

information or ideas for the sake of the exploration.

In western cultures, the norm in verbal exchanges is an advocacy model wherein ideas are

contested to prove their merits. The model’s underlying principle is evaluative. The most com-

mon example of advocacy is our court system, but a similar approach is used in most environ-

ments when you must choose among potential solutions to a problem.

The dialogic mindset naturally prefers an inquiry model that focuses on exploring and

understanding. Its underlying value is curiosity. There are few good examples of this model in

the dominant culture, though that is likely to change over time because this model is being

explored in a number of contexts including community-building and peacemaking groups,

which are struggling with defining and addressing some of the most difficult problems before

our society. Some readers may have experienced this approach to problem solving if they have

participated in discussions with a skilled facilitator whose mission was to assure the quality of

the communication process rather than advocate for any particular outcome.

“To

collaborate

well over the

course of a

career…

stepping into

another team

member’s

dominant style

is helpful to

communicate

new

information

effectively….”

Page 11

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

115

CASE STUDY

o Verbal learners, who need to talk through

new information and understandings

o Global learners, who seem to learn by

leaping to conclusions, which is typical of

gifted learners

In this model, learners are evaluated as having

a combination and range of styles, from most

to least dominant or preferred.

The Learning Style Inventory and Interpre-

tation self-scoring workbook developed by

David Kolb (McBer & Company 1985)

encourages participants to focus on pairing

themselves with learners who are diagonally

opposed to their own style. This strategy

stretches the individual’s learning style comfort

zone and helps each become a

more expert learner. There’s wis-

dom in this strategy for would-be

expert collaborators.

Conflict Styles

As with learning styles, there are a

number of conflict styles avail-

able. One basic set that seems to

work well for conflict managers

includes the following styles:

o Competing, in which a win/

lose paradigm is operative

o Accommodating, which dic-

tates letting the other person

win to end the confrontation

o Avoiding, in which the con-

flict is not acknowledged

o Compromising, in which you exchange

concessions to end a crisis

o Collaborating, in which you engage in a

dialogue to develop greater understanding

and a long-lasting resolution

Identifying your own and your team members’

dominant conflict styles can help minimize

needless escalation of a conflict. Some styles

work better under some circumstances. Identi-

fying conflict styles also helps the two (or

more) of you identify what kind of conflict

style may be best applied in the current situa-

tion.

The Mechanics of Collaboration

In addition to knowing and working with peo-

ple with a wide variety of communication,

learning, and conflict styles, other thinking

and interpersonal skills help collaborators be

more effective on teams. Those skills include

o Self-reflection

o Listening

o Trust building

o Identifying and evaluating assumptions

o Distinguishing issues, interests, and posi-

tions when problem solving or negotiat-

ing

o Emotional awareness

o Processing multiple perspectives

o Managing defensiveness

o Applying inquiry and advo-

cacy appropriately

o Decision-making mechanics

o Online communication pro-

ficiency

Self-reflection is the ability to

step out of your experience and

view your actions, attitudes, and

conclusions objectively. Some

writers in the field of conflict res-

olution call this ability seeing the

third story.

To be self-reflective, excel-

lent listening skills are impera-

tive. Excellent listening skills

include using many of the same

skills taught to usability engi-

neers for field research based on a contextual

inquiry model: ask broad, open-ended ques-

tions based on true curiosity; be quiet and lis-

ten non-judgmentally; follow up for

clarification as appropriate to the inquiry pro-

cess. Active listening, which has been popular

for decades and is characterized by validating,

rephrasing, and echoing the speaker’s perceived

meaning, does not work well in some contexts.

Some people associate this method with psy-

chotherapy, which implies a doctor/patient or

power differential relationship. Some of these

people take exception to active listening

because of the association it holds for them.

Strong listening skills make the trust

building process far easier. Keys to trust build-

ing are a perceived history of

“Identifying

your own and

your team

members’

dominant

conflict styles

can help

minimize

needless

escalation of a

conflict.”

Page 12

116

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

CASE STUDY

o Integrity

o Reliability

o Responsiveness

o Empathy

There is no substitute in the trust-building

process for these four cornerstones. Though

establishing all of these qualities may seem to

take time, there are techniques to establish

them more quickly. Sharing credentials and

references at the outset of a

project is one of these tech-

niques.

Trust can easily be broken

by the kind of flare-ups among

team members that come from

making assumptions about oth-

ers and their behavior. These

assumptions often tend to be

negative and impugn the motives

of the other person. And all too

often, we do not check out these

assumptions. Lack of self-reflec-

tion, which implies self-aware-

ness, is often at the bottom of

these assumptions. You must first

be aware that you are making an

assumption before you know to

check out the assumption’s valid-

ity. Peter Senge provides an ele-

gant description of how

assumptions are made and what

their positive value is in human

interaction. His Ladder of Inference is

described in detail in The Fifth Discipline

Fieldbook (Currency/Doubleday 1994) and

may be summarized as follows:

o We observe data and have experiences.

o We select data from what we observe.

o We add meanings, both cultural and per-

sonal.

o We make assumptions based on those

meanings.

o We draw conclusions based on our

assumptions.

o We adopt beliefs based on

our conclusions.

o We take actions based on

our beliefs.

Obviously in our fast-paced,

data-rich world, we need assump-

tions. Assumptions help us make

vital decisions quickly. These

assumptions are particularly help-

ful in life and death situations

where our fight-or-flight response

protects us appropriately. The

trouble occurs because we fre-

quently forget that today, given a

somewhat more civil society and

more security in general, we typi-

cally have the latitude to check

out our assumptions. We also for-

get that negative assumptions

about our colleagues, compan-

ions, and collaborators are gener-

ally proven wrong once all the

data is in.

Given that the assumption-making pro-

cess is pretty much hardwired in our brains, we

find ourselves in unnecessary conflicts because

of miscommunication. In fact, miscommuni-

cation is one of the most common causes of

Collaborative Technologies Require Skilled Collaborators

Over a year ago, the Software Association of Oregon staged a special networked online confer-

encing presentation. Consultants of every stripe were present. Upper managers from the largest

and smallest high-tech firms in the area bellied up to the hot hors d’oeuvres, and everyone set-

tled in to receive the wisdom of the online conferencing gurus. And here it was. While the

sound faded in and out and the audience tried to figure out which screen to focus on when, one

theme predominated: No, the technology is not quite there yet. But more urgent than that, the

workforce is not prepared with adequate collaboration and communication skills to use the tools

once they are perfected. Without a skilled person, collaboration tools—and collaborative work

processes—cannot work.

Collaboration is so simple it’s difficult. People first, or the technology and methodology are

pointless.

“Managing

your own

assump-

tion-making

process or

resolving con-

flicts that arise

when you have

not done so

requires a

great deal of

creative think-

ing.”

Page 13

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

117

CASE STUDY

conflict. Expert collaborators develop skills

that help them distinguish interests, issues,

and positions when trying to problem-solve in

a conflict or negotiation. Maintaining relation-

ships over time is the highest value in a collab-

orative environment. Expert collaborators

focus on achieving common interests when

problem solving, flushing out each person’s

issues, and being wary of taking up a position

that unnecessarily narrows the field of possible

mutually satisfactory solutions. Managing

your own assumption-making process or

resolving conflicts that arise when you have

not done so requires a great deal of creative

thinking.

When threatened by the negative assump-

tions of a colleague, our emotional state

engages our fight-or-flight response, diminish-

ing our ability to think creatively and objec-

tively. Therefore, the expert collaborator is also

aware of the impact and import of both her

and her colleague’s emotional state. To resolve

a misunderstanding, achieve a common under-

standing of an issue, or make a lasting deci-

sion, all participants’ creative thinking faculties

are required. Good collaborators know that

identifying distracting emotional states and

addressing them effectively are part of main-

taining the collaborative relationship for the

greater good and the co-creative process.

The skills of processing multiple perspec-

tives and managing defensiveness are also

founded on the basic skills of self-reflection

and listening. Both skills can initially be taught

procedurally, focusing on the nature of inquiry

versus the nature of advocacy (see the box on

page 116). Advocacy is more familiar to us in

western cultures than inquiry is, just as compe-

tition is more familiar than collaboration.

Advocacy is often over-used to the detriment

of all parties, negating non-dominant perspec-

tives that may have value in the co-creation

process and increasing the incidence of defen-

siveness, which reduces the dialogue to a

debate.

The basic mechanics of decision-making,

including various forms of voting and consen-

sus, are tools that collaborators use to cement a

decision-making process that they know takes

place over time. Though many people perceive

that a decision is made at a single point in

time, collaborators engaged in true co-creation

see themselves engaged in what is a dialogic

process that contains the project they are col-

laborating on. They know that decisions of

any complexity in the process are typically the

result of a network of smaller understandings

and agreements that lead up to the decision

that is made using a technique such as voting.

Many teams require online collaboration

skills as well. And because online communica-

tion lacks as much as 60 percent of the content

available in face-to-face communication,

online collaboration is an additional skill set to

overlay those I have already discussed.

The New Super-Collaborator

We ask a lot of our teams when we ask them to

work on collaborative projects these days. The

software-based collaboration tools available to

them are rudimentary in comparison to what

is really needed. And for most of their working

lives, these workers have been encouraged or

indulged in what is a fairly common prefer-

ence to work independently. Previously, tech-

nical communicators could resolve style

differences by dividing up a project according

to deliverables: one or more deliverables to one

writer. “This is my book!” has been the last cry

of the besieged technical communicator on

many projects. Their “book” was their sanc-

tum, that place where no perplexing or diffi-

cult colleague could trespass, that place where

they could lay claim to territory, draw lines in

the sand, and take that final, sacred position.

One writer/one book is becoming less and

less of an option. Managers will have to both

manage and hire differently as collaboration

among technical communicators becomes

more and more key to getting information to

customers. And a previously neglected skill set

will come to the forefront for a generation of

writers on the cusp of a work style revolution

that will delight some and dizzy and dismay

others.

It is wise not to underestimate the scope

of the task of facilitating the conversion of this

workforce. By comparison, the technical chal-

lenges of database publishing and learn-

ing-management systems are paltry.

References

The Learning Style Inventory

and Interpretation

self-scoring workbook

David Kolb

1985, Boston, MA

McBer & Company

The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook

Peter Senge, ed.

1994, New York, NY

Currency/Doubleday

ISBN: 0385472560

Page 14

118

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

BOOK REVIEW

B O O K R E V I E W

Intellectual Capital

Bill Hackos, Vice President, Comtech Services, Inc.

Recently, we at Comtech had some difficulty

with a client's purchasing department. The

purchasing agent said that he was hesitant to

hire us, not because of concern about our work

or credit but because we didn’t have enough

capital! All we have at Comtech are a number

of depreciated computers and some office fur-

niture. Not much to brag about. What could

we do of any value for his company?

Lucky for us, JoAnn called and explained

to him that our value is not in our hardware

but instead exists in the data we’ve collected

and in the knowledge we've gained. As always,

JoAnn is very convincing, and we were able to

carry on with the project.

This event sent me to buy

two books by Thomas A. Stew-

art, an editor of Fortune Maga-

zine and a senior writer for

Business 2.0. His first book, Intel-

lectual Capital: The New Wealth

of Organizations (Doubleday

1999), defines intellectual capital

and how it affects us as employ-

ees. His second book, The Wealth

of Knowledge: Intellectual Capital

and the Twenty-First Century

Organization (Doubleday 2001),

is a twenty-first century update.

The idea of intellectual capi-

tal was developed in 1958 when

analysts Morris Kronfeld and

Arthur Rock began to notice that some sci-

ence-based companies (Hewlett-Packard and

others) had overvalued stock market valuations

compared to other companies. At that time,

HP had annual sales of only $28 million. They

concluded that “The intellectual capital of

such companies is perhaps their single most

important element.” The idea was revisited in

1989 by Karl-Erik Sveiby and his group as

they were developing a model to value initial

public offerings. They found that their model

broke down for valuing high-tech companies.

Sveiby and his group proposed that intellectual

capital could be found in three places within

companies: the competencies of its people

(human capital), the internal structure of its

information (structural capital), and the rela-

tionships with its customers (customer capi-

tal). In his first book, Stewart develops these

ideas.

Human capital is the knowledge that

employees have that can be used to make

money for their company. Accounting, pro-

gramming, technical writing, and law are not

related to intellectual capital because these

skills, while essential to the success of a com-

pany, are likely to be the same among all com-

petitors. However, innovative business

analysis, creative hardware and software

design, and user-centered information design

are competitive advantages and the knowledge

to accomplish these skills is

human capital. You may have the

world’s expert in wine working

for you, but unless you sell wine,

that knowledge has no value to

your company.

Structural capital is the value

of explicit information owned by

a company. Structural capital

includes not only copyrights and

patents but also written informa-

tion available to people in the

company. Stewart points out that

only information that is orga-

nized and available is intellectual

capital. This information may be

in a knowledge-management sys-

tem, content-management sys-

tem, database, or a hard copy library.

Computers are not necessary for structural

capital although they vastly expand the ability

of companies to make information widely

available. Stewart suggests, however, that we

shouldn't dump everything we can find into a

repository. Information that is unused impedes

access to useful information and actually less-

ens the intellectual capital of a repository.

Structural capital is explicit information orga-

nized in a way that gives your company a com-

petitive advantage.

Customer capital involves customer rela-

tionships but is not the same as “good will.”

Good will is commonly considered to be the

collection of current customers and potential

customers of your product. It is brand loyalty.

Bill Hackos

Vice President

Comtech Services, Inc.

bill.hackos@

comtech-serv.com

Dr. Hackos has worked with

companies in the United

States and Europe, helping

them solve their publications

management problems. He

has been heavily involved in

many benchmarking projects

related to publications

management. Dr. Hackos has

also helped in the design of

graphic user interfaces that

are easy to learn and to use.

With 30 years’ experience in

the computer industry, Dr.

Hackos understands how to

increase the usability of

products.

“…our value

is not in our

hardware but

instead exists

in the data

we’ve collected

and in the

knowledge

we’ve gained.”

Page 15

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

119

BOOK REVIEW

Consider all the people who drink only

Coca-Cola, rather than other brands of cola,

and are willing to pay more for that brand.

Instead, customer capital is the body of

information you have about your customers.

Stewart doesn’t mean their names, addresses,

and phone numbers. He means information

about how your customers use your product as

well as competitor’s products, how you may

better fit your customers' needs, and how you

group and classify your customers. Customer

capital includes knowledge about customers

who will partner with you and serve as beta

sites. Customer capital is information about

your customers that gives your company a

competitive advantage.

I’ve been thinking about what the ideas of

intellectual capital mean for information

developers. Do we bring human capital to our

companies? Do we create structural capital?

Do we obtain customer capital for our compa-

nies?

What about human capital? Of course, all

but the newest of us have considerable knowl-

edge about technical writing. We certainly

know grammar and spelling. And we should

know the products and services we write about

inside and out. Unfortunately, knowing our

products and services is not always the case.

We have all seen manuals that have perfect

grammar and spelling but little coherent infor-

mation about the product or service. But even

having expertise in writing and understanding

our product doesn’t represent human capital.

All of our competitors also know grammar,

spelling, and how their products work. There’s

no competitive advantage in this knowledge.

What must we do to bring competitive

advantage to our organizations through

human capital? We must immerse ourselves in

the business of our company and in the tech-

nology of our discipline. I’m always surprised

at how few information developers read books

about their discipline. Many rarely attend

training sessions and conferences. Many work

in isolation within their companies or work at

home. We’re not bringing in much human

capital when we treat our discipline like a job.

When we do bring in human capital, we

begin to add to the competitive advantage of

our company’s products and services. We

begin to get noticed and get the respect that all

information developers crave.

We can also make important contribu-

tions to structural capital. Many times, the

task of creating repositories falls to the IT

departments. They really know their bits and

bytes but don’t have a clue about usability and

making information accessible. We as informa-

tion developers can really help develop struc-

tural capital because we know how to organize

information and how to make information

usable for our customers. That is, if we really

know about our customers.

Knowing about our customers brings us

to the issue of customer capital. As informa-

tion developers we, along with training and

customer service, are in the best position to

develop customer capital. But how many

excuses do we have? “There’s no money to do

customer studies.” “The developers already

know everything about the customers.” “They

won’t let us talk to customers.” “We’re too busy

getting out the next release to do customer

studies.” Unfortunately, what we do so often is

trade our efforts to gain real competitive

advantage for easier mundane tasks that don’t

add to our company’s intellectual capital and

don’t get us the respect we want.

Stewart’s books give us a lot to think

about.

In his second book, he describes how

knowledge-management systems have helped

modern companies gain competitive advan-

tage. If you are involved in developing a

knowledge-management system, the second

book provides you with many case studies. In

fact, Stewart wrote both books almost exclu-

sively as a series of case studies. These case

studies, though, make understanding the

book’s organization difficult. Also, Stewart’s

writing style sometimes makes the books a

chore to read through. He loves to play word

games with the reader that are cute at first but

eventually get a little tiring.

There’s some unintended humor in Stew-

art's books. His first book was written before

the dot.com bubble burst. Back then, he was

impressed with how the dot.coms used their

intellectual capital to create massive stock valu-

ations. In his second book, he describes the

mistakes of the dot.coms but has a case study

where he praises Enron for its superb manage-

ment and use of intellectual capital to rapidly

increase its stock valuation. These examples

show that you should read books about corpo-

rate management as soon as they’re published,

before the case studies go out of date!

These books are a little difficult to read,

but intellectual capital is a concept worth

learning about.

References

Intellectual Capital: The New

Wealth of Organizations

Thomas A. Stewart

1999, New York, NY

Doubleday

ISBN: 0385483813

The Wealth of Knowledge:

Intellectual Capital and the

Twenty-First Century

Organization

Thomas A. Stewart

2001, New York, NY

Doubleday

ISBN: 0385500718

Page 16

120

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

IN PRINT

I N P R I N T

A SELECTION OF ABSTRACTS FROM THE FIELD

Choosing Strategies for Change

Wendy Sedbrook, Consultant, Comtech Services, Inc.

In “Choosing Strategies for Change,” John P.

Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger explain one

major area of change—resistance—and how

managers overcome it. Typically every four to

five years, organizations go through a major

organizational change in response to a chang-

ing workforce, technological advances, new

product development, competition, or govern-

ment regulations.

Diagnosing Resistance

To choose a strategy for change, you must first

determine why your employees

are resisting the change effort.

The authors present four types of

resistance.

Parochial self-interest. People

believe they will lose something

that they deserve to have because

of their role in the organization.

This loss could be power or rec-

ognition.

Misunderstanding and lack of

trust. People don't understand

how change will affect them.

Most organizations lack a high

level of trust between employees

and managers, which leads to

misunderstanding when change

is introduced.

Different assessments. People

perceive change differently from

management. They see costs rather than bene-

fits. Differences in assessing current problems

result in resistance because each group is work-

ing with different information.

Low tolerance. People fear they can’t develop

the new skills and behaviors necessary to han-

dle change. People may recognize that change

is necessary but have a limited tolerance for

change, leading to resistance.

Dealing with Resistance

Understanding the types of resistance that

occur during a change effort is only half the

battle. You must also plan how to deal with the

resistance.

Education and communication. It is essen-

tial to set up an education and communication

program to help overcome resistance before

change is implemented. Communicating the

reasons for change helps people understand the

need. Communication may include

one-on-one discussions, group presentations,

memos, reports, or a combination of methods.

Participation and involvement. Include the

people who will be impacted by change to

overcome their resistance. Listen and use their

advice in the design and implementation of

the change. Involving people in the change

process leads to commitment.

Participation and involvement are

time-consuming and may not be

ideal in all change situations.

Facilitation and support.

When fear and anxiety run high

because of change, being support-

ive is key. Support might include

training on new skills or giving

time off after a demanding

period.

Negotiation and agreement.

Incentives, such as higher wages

or an increase in pension benefits,

is another way to handle resistors.

Negotiation is helpful when peo-

ple believe they are going to lose

out in some way as a result of

change. Negotiation does make

management more vulnerable.

Manipulation and co-optation. Manipula-

tion and co-optation are similar to involve-

ment; however, instead of seeking the advice of

the individual, managers look for an endorse-

ment of change. The key is to avoid making

people feel they are being tricked into buying

into change.

Explicit and implicit coercion. As risky as

manipulation, coercion uses a threat to force

an individual to accept change. This threat

might be loss of a job, promotion possibilities,

and so on. When change is unpopular, no mat-

Kotter, John P. and Leonard

A. Schlesinger

Choosing Strategies for

Change

Harvard Business Review

March/April 1979

reprinted in Management

McGraw-Hill Primis

ISBN: 0390657131

“Two common

mistakes

managers

make include

using only one

approach

regardless of

the situation

and not

developing a

clear

strategy.”

Page 17

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

121

IN PRINT

ter how it’s introduced, coercion could be an

option.

Two common mistakes managers make

include using only one approach regardless of

the situation and not developing a clear strat-

egy.

To develop a strategic direction for the

change effort, keep these four factors in mind:

o the amount and kind of resistance that is

anticipated

o the position of the initiator in relationship

to the resistors, especially regarding power

o the person with the relevant data to design

the change and the energy to implement

o the stakes involved

Managers can significantly help

change efforts by

o conducting an organiza-

tional analysis that identifies

the current situation, prob-

lems, and the forces that are

possible causes of those

problems

o conducting an analysis of

factors relevant to producing

the needed changes

o selecting a change strategy

based on the analysis

o monitoring the implementation process

Change can be difficult. But having the ability

to recognize the types of resistance and how to

overcome them is an integral part of a success-

ful change initiative.

Creativity Under the Gun

Gretchen Marks, Consultant, Comtech Services, Inc.

When we place too much time pressure on

projects, innovative ideas are not always devel-

oped, which contradicts the assumptions of

some executives. In fact, some executives use

time pressure as a management technique to

spur their employees (and even themselves)

onto great leaps of insight. But when creativity

is under the gun, it's usually lost. The reality is

that employees actually think less creatively in

these situations.

In “Creativity Under the Gun” in the

August 2002 issue of the Harvard Business

Review, Teresa M. Amabile, Constance N.

Hadley, and Steven J. Kramer, share their

research on how time pressure affects creativity

at work. The authors collected diaries that par-

ticipants kept during extreme project dead-

lines. The participants completed a daily diary

form online where they rated several aspects of

their work and work environment, including

how much time pressure they felt. In a separate

section of the form, they also described some-

thing that stood out in their minds about the

day. The authors wanted to determine how

deeply people experience time pressure day to

day as they work on projects that require high

levels of inventiveness, while also measuring

their ability to think creatively under pressure.

The authors found that most

participants felt overworked and

burned out. On an average day,

the diaries showed that some par-

ticipants were feeling moderate

levels of time pressure, where

many other participants were

experiencing extremely high levels

of time pressure. The diaries

showed that time pressure

seemed to increase as deadlines

approached. Also, time pressure

seemed to vary by day of the

week, starting at a low level on

Monday, increasing to a peak on Thursday,

and then decreasing on Friday. The low levels

on Monday and Friday may occur because

management has lower expectations on those

days or that most people are in a weekend

mindset. For those participants who travel for

work, the diaries showed that they experienced

more high levels of time pressure when they

were on the road than when they were in the

office. Some of the participants did feel chal-

lenged as time pressure increased and seemed

to be more energized, where other participants

experienced deep frustration.

The authors determined that as people

feel more time pressure, they are less likely to

be creative. The participants, however, seemed

to be largely unaware of this fact. Most

thought they became more creative as time

pressure increased. However, their diaries

showed that actually they experienced less and

less creative thinking as time pressure

increased, with creativity being at its worst

Amabile, Teresa M.,

Constance N. Hadley, and

Steven J. Kramer

Creativity Under the Gun

Harvard Business Review

August 2002

<www.hbr.com>

“The reality is

that employees

actually think

less creatively

in [time-

pressured]

situations.”

Page 18

122

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

IN PRINT

when time pressure was highest. The authors

also discovered that there seems to be a “pres-

sure hangover” that could last a couple of days

because people are exhausted or they are expe-

riencing a cognitive overload.

Psychologists might be able to explain

why time pressure has a dampening effect on

creative thinking. They believe that creativity

results from a large number of associations

being formed in the mind, followed by choos-

ing those associations that may be particularly

interesting and useful either alone or com-

bined. Experiments and observations of cre-

ative activities support this theory of the

creative process. The authors' research suggests

that creative thinking depends on having suffi-

cient time to form associations and evaluate

them.

The authors wanted to determine why

creating ingenious solutions

under time pressure doesn’t hap-

pen more often. When looking

through the diaries, the creative

time-pressured days seemed to

happen under abnormal working

conditions. When the partici-

pants spent at least a portion of

their day uninterrupted on the

project, they had time to focus

on the goal. Others seemed to

find their creative days when

they were more isolated, working

in a group of one or two rather

than a large group. How people

spend their days seems to make a

difference. Those who exhibit

creativity are more oriented in

exploring and generating new ideas.

The authors' research focused on knowl-

edge workers, those who we expect to have

high levels of creativity. The authors deter-

mined that creativity is possible under any

level of pressure but seems to happen only

when an employee can be deeply immersed in

their project. To maintain creativity, we must

avoid placing extreme time pressure on our

employees whenever possible, especially when

looking for high levels of learning, exploration,

idea generation, and experimentation with

new concepts. We can avoid placing undue

time pressure by carefully planning and setting

realistic goals. When situations arise where

time pressure is unavoidable, try to keep your

employees free from distractions, interrup-

tions, and unrelated demands, so they can con-

centrate on being creative. Helping your

employees understand the meaning of the

project timeframes encourages them to accept

the project's importance and urgency.

The Seven Myths of Knowledge

Management

Derrick Pope, Consultant, Comtech Services, Inc.

Predictions indicate that businesses will invest

$12.7 billion in knowledge management by

2005. In his article, “The Seven Myths of

Knowledge Management,” in the September

2002 issue of Context, Marc Rosenberg details

common myths for companies to avoid when

approaching knowledge management.

Myth 1: Knowledge

management is about

knowledge. Many companies

embark on knowledge-manage-

ment projects with the hope that

somewhere along the way they

will discover a use for all this

knowledge. However, companies

must approach implementing a

knowledge-management system

the same way they approach all

business ventures: keeping the

focus on improving operations,

increasing revenue, and maximiz-

ing growth.

Myth 2: Knowledge

management is about the

technology. Focusing solely on

the development of a highly tech-

nological knowledge-management system is

often times a disaster. While developing your

system, keep in mind the system’s true pur-

pose. Focus on the problems the system is sup-

posed to address and merge it with your

technology. All the bells and whistles in the

world will not solve your problem.

Myth 3: The system should be so

all-encompassing that it can cure cancer and

end world hunger. Set achievable goals for

your knowledge-management system. Keeping

the big picture and final outcome in mind,

start small so you can realize achievements as

your system grows.

Rosenberg, Marc

The Seven Myths of

Knowledge Management

Context

September 2002

<www.contextmag.com>

“…companies

must approach

implementing

a knowl-

edge-manage-

ment system

the same way

they approach

all business

ventures….”

Page 19

OCTOBER 2002 • BEST PRACTICES

123

IN PRINT

Myth 4: The goal is to create a document

repository. Document management is

indeed an important part of the knowledge-

management process, but remember that it is

only a part and not the final goal.

Myth 5: You can buy a ready-made

system. Knowledge-management systems are

incredibly specific. Each system can be tailored

to fit the organization. Numerous systems are

available, but to determine what system may

be right for you, you must explore how the sys-

tem will integrate with your technology and

processes.

Myth 6: Knowledge management is about

knowledge control. Many companies

develop multiple approval levels for docu-

ments because they are afraid that employees

will misplace, misuse, or even steal that infor-

mation. Knowledge-management systems are

best utilized when they are open systems that

can foster relationships and bridge communi-

cation gaps.

Myth 7: If you build it, they will use it.

Change is difficult to introduce into your

organization. Simply implementing a new sys-

tem does not guarantee that your employees

will instantly embrace it. Selling the system to

your employees starts at the top with upper

management setting a strong example.

Keep in mind that believing any of these

myths could prove disastrous for your

organization.

Seminars in Usable Design is looking for companies that would like to host a seminar in 2003. Our instructors, JoAnn Hackos,

Bill Hackos, and Henry Korman are industry leaders with over 20 years experience.

Hosting a Seminar

As a host, you provide the training space, audio visual support, and a light breakfast. In return, you receive 3 free registrations

to the seminar and additional participants from your organization receive a reduced rate. We advertise by inviting people from

other companies in the general area, provide lunch, and handle all other arrangements.

Hosting a seminar is a very cost-effective arrangement, as long as you have a good facility for training and can welcome outsid-

ers. Some seminars we offer are

o Developing a Single-Sourcing Strategy

o Developing a Strategy for Minimalism

o Managing Your Documentation Projects

o Structured Writing for Single Sourcing

o Structuring Information for Online Success

o User-Centered Web Design

For More Information…

If you are interested in hosting or would like more information about a seminar, please contact Gretchen Marks at

303-234-0123 or gretchen.marks@comtech-serv.com or visit our Web site at www.usabledesign.com and click on Hosting

Information.

Cost-Effective Training with Seminars in Usable Design

Page 20

124

BEST PRACTICES • OCTOBER 2002

MANAGER’S CALENDAR

M A N A G E R ’ S C A L E N D A R

User and Task Analysis for

Information Design.

October 8–9, 2002, Lexington, MA.